Reverse realm and contradictions of bible translation

Hi Rahvin, I am a literalist as you know.But I only need 3 verses in the Bible to satisfy my needs and I don't believe any lost person needs more than those same 3 verses. These three verses tell me:God loved me.
God gave His Son for me.
That by believing I could have everlasting life and not perish.The Son of God did not come to condemn the world but that it might be redemned.Verse 18 tells me because I believe I am not condemned.
It tells me before I believed I was condemned.
It tells me the only reason a person is condemned is because they have not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.These are the only verses in the Bible I considered when I turned my eternal destiny over to God.Anything else is just icing on the cake.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

I'm not sure about those who need to reconcile the books of the Bible, since they were specific to their time and audience.The Genesis 2 creation story was written first by the J writer and the Genesis 1 creation story was written considerably later by the Priestly writer. In the J story God is very personal, but in the later P story God is more cosmic, distant. I see it as a natural progression as civilization develops. From a tribal God to a national God. Genesis 7:17 is the J writer and Genesis 7:24 and 8:3 are the Priestly writer. So the Priestly writer at least is consistent about the length of the flood. These verses are both from the Priestly writing, but I don't see the contradiction. The first one says the waters were dried up off the earth and the second says the earth was dried. I think the first refers to when the water was all gone and the second refers to when the earth was finally dry.The author isn't contradicting himself in these two verses.

quote:

---

Genesis 11:1 (There is only one language)
And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.
Genesis 11:6
And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one
language
Genesis 10:5 (There are multiple languages)
By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands, every one after his tongue.
Genesis 10:20
These are the sons of Ham, after their families, after their tongues.
Genesis 10:31
These are the sons of Shem, after their families, after their tongues.

---

The verses in Genesis 11 is the earlier J writer and the verses in Genesis 10 is the later Priestly writer.The J writing was the Tower of Babel story and the P writing was just a list of descendants. There isn't a P version to the Babel story. The Redactor definitely didn't pay attention to consistency. Both of these are from the J story. While the sentences seem to be contradictory, I don't think they are given the whole story starting in chapter 18. The story isn't as consistent as we would like them today, but this came from a time of tribal storytelling.

quote:

---

Genesis 26:34 (Who was Bashemath's father?)
And Esau was forty years old when he took to wife Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Bashemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite.
Genesis 36:2-3
Esau took his wives of the daughters of Canaan; Adah, the daughter of Elon the Hittite, and ... Bashemath Ishmael's daughter.

---

These are both from the P writer. If there was something in the original writing that clarified the difference, it is lost now.

quote:

---

Genesis 28:5 (Who was Laban's father?)
And Isaac sent away Jacob: and he went to Padanaram unto Laban the son of Bethuel the Syrian.
Genesis 29:5
And he said unto them, Know ye Laban the son of Nahor?

---

28:5 is the Priestly writer and 29:5 is the J writer. We may never know which one is correct.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

Dear Rockondon,The ‘Genesis 1 verses 2’ problem is not really On Topic in this string; However, I would like to discus it with you.If you would like we could correspond via e-mail or apply for a ‘new topic’ status; however since this topic has already been closed I’m not sure they will allow us to re-hash it.You may also want to go back to the ‘string’ I pointed you to and read the whole conversation between Crashfrog and myself. This may answer a few of the question you posted here.

You can request that the thread be reopened. I see no problem if you two wish to discuss that topic.If you want me to reopen the thread, let me know. AdminPD

Dear AdminPD,Thank you for your offer. I did not know that a string could be re-opened.I would be quit willing to participate if Rockondon wishes to discuses Genesis Chapters 1 and 2 further.JRTjr

Hi JRTjr,I would be willing to participate in that discussion.I do have a different view than you do.ABE I will start a thread where we can discuss the Creation as described in Genesis chapter 1 and 2.God Bless,Edited by ICANT, : ABE

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Dear CrazyDiamond7,Jeremiah **:** {44:26 for those of us not afraid of using a little indexing}, as you quoted from whatever translation of the Bible you are using, gives a perfect example of why modern day Bibles use God, Lord, Elohim, Father, etc in place of ‘The Name of the Great Creator’.In this verse the term god lord is put in place of ‘Yah’Vah’ by the writer because the writer of the text did not want to even chance breaking the 2nd Commandment 1 {I.E. the writer substituted god lord for ‘The Name’ because it was ‘The Name of the Great Creator’ that they (those he was speaking against) were using when they would say As the god lord lives.}.Just so there is no misunderstanding here; the Creator of the Universes was reproving the man of Judah in all the land of Egypt for using His Name (Yah’Vah) in vain not for using the term god lord in vain.You really have to pay attention to your syntax here.Thank you for your participation,
JRTjr 1 7 You shall not use or repeat the name of the Lord your God in vain [that is, lightly or frivolously, in false affirmations or profanely]; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain. ( Amplified Bible)

-The common generic term for deities and idols elohim is plural. Hebrew words that end with 'im', vavim, baalim, are plural.The saying 'as the elohim [gods] our lord lives' was utilized in the practice of swearing a religious conjuration, and the Scribes carried out that practice to continue doing the will of the father of the beliefs.-Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : updateEdited by CrazyDiamond7, : updateEdited by CrazyDiamond7, : updateEdited by CrazyDiamond7, : update

Dear CrazyDiamond7,Nice to hear from you again, although I had hoped you would have commented on my post(s) instead of expanding your own point. I have a few questions about this statement:

1. How many Hebrew Bibles are we talking about?
2. Fragments of what exactly?
3. What do you mean by the phrase: doing as righteousness?
4. You say that the Scribes translated EL (abbreviation of ELYON) as elohim Did you get this information from a historical document; a book written by a scholar?
   1. Who told you that the scribes did this?
   2. Could you tell me what document(s)/book(s) you got this information from?

One last Question.If, as you stated: It is not a question of claiming which term would be the appropriate one for ELYON or The Most High than why are you still insisting that God, Lord, Elohim, etc are some how inappropriate?If there is nothing inappropriate about using these terms then why are you dwelling on what terms should and should not be used to refer to The Great Creator?

- -The offerings imposed by the Law for the sins were all about prices to be paid and only offered a temporary solution because the person knew that 'if there is a price payable for the sins, then his life still belongs to himself and it is not taken away from him', and this fact also implies that 'paying a price for the sins' has never been a real solution.-If a person dies in I AM,
In one's time of dying, nobody is requested to still talk about price being paid,All I AM wants for you to do is bring the body home (completeness of repose) by not using it for sin anymore, that is to die easy.- For it is by graciousness--unmerited compassion that you become saved, through fidelity. And this [salvation--forgiveness] is not by any merit of your own, it is the Eternal’s gift. And after a great debt was pardoned, the account became totally cleared up to have no debt nor credit any longer. Justification [to be declared righteous] is according to the grace of ELYON [THE ONE THAT DECLARES]. — And this salvation does not depend on anything of your own spirit. Unmerited means that nothing of the spirit of man gives any reason for him to be forgiven.-the Roman doctrine fides quae creditur becomes obsolete

quote:

---

quotation from Spotlight,

​

Salvation obtained for having credit is fides quae credited (warranted) by the spirits of men (potentates from down); a desolation stands where it ought not.

---

The term 'price paid for sin' implies that there was a solution or price to be paid which would solve the problem and the sinner would not die.However, if there was a solution or price payable for the sins, then nobody died since the lamb would have allegedly paid that price dying in the system of the Roman laws which had nothing to do with the Law given to the Hebrews.- -The statement that it was allegedly necessary for the lamb to pay the price for one’s debts, (rather than the clear fact that I AM has bought the entire debtor),does coincide with the same point of view of the Roman doctrine fides quae creditur and the story inserted in the bibles during the 13 hundred years of prosperity of the eighth kingdom, (State of Vatican) which is of the seven (Rome being one of the seven kingdoms that form the head of the beast--or doctrine that was, and is not, and is sealed to go into perdition).For the lamb was sent as a free offering to I AM,
you can't hijack that lamb, he was sent by I AM and was offered to I AM.and the cause of death was death by UNCTION with flamed glittering light from the density of the clouds, THE SPIRIT WAS DELIVERED IN THE HANDS OF I AM,not in the death's hand. The death itself was won and did not have any participation in this.-Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : updateEdited by CrazyDiamond7, : updateEdited by CrazyDiamond7, : subtitle UPDATE, Power of Remission does not depend on paying a price Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update

-Is not this the reason for your error, that you have no knowledge of the Holly [Separate] Writings or of the power of ELYON [THE ONE THAT DECLARES]?When the spirits come back from the dead bodies, they do not get married, but are like the angels in heaven. But as to the dead coming back to life;have you seen in the book of Mosheh, about the burning thorn-tree,
how ELYON [THE ONE THAT DECLARES] said to him, I AM ELYON to Abraham, and ELYON to Isaac, and ELYON to Jacob? ELYON declares not to the dead, but to the living: you have been greatly in error.-

quote:

---

Bible in Basic English

​

The living are conscious that death might come to them, but the dead are not conscious of anything,

---

-Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : updateEdited by CrazyDiamond7, : update

Dear CrazyDiamond7,Great to hear from you again. To buy something is to inherently assume there is a price to be prayed for whatever is being bought.If the Great ‘I Am’ did not ‘pay’ the ‘price’ for our ‘debts’ than what was owed to whom?According to the Bible man incurs a debt to God (The Great ‘I Am’) when he/she commits ‘sin’ (rebellion against the Creators perfect and Divine Will for their lives).The cost of ‘Sin’ is death1. This is a debt owed to God by man for their sin. This Law of sin and death2 has existed since the beginning; when God told Adam and Eve not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil3.God does not change, nor does his view of ‘sin’; therefore the price of ‘sin’ will always be required to be paid.Again, according to the Bible, Jesus freely (of His own will and volition {No one forced Him}) paid that price {i.e. the cost of our sin} in our place at the cross.The ‘cost’ of my rebellion against the Great Creator is eternal separation from Him {Death}; Jesus took upon Himself the penalty of my rebellion {He took my place} and died so that I could be reconciled to The ‘Great I Am’.The Item was ‘Sin’ {rebellion against a Holy God}
The ‘Price was eternal separation from the Eternal God eternally {Death}God’s Justice could allow no less punishment.Jesus ‘paid’ that ‘price’ for my ‘sin’. {Romans 6: 23}_________________________________________________________________________________________ 1. Romans 6: 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989, S.)
2. Romans 8: 2 For the law of the Spirita of life in Christ Jesus has set you b free from the law of sin and of death. (The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989, S.)
3. Genesis 2: 17------------------------------------------------
a Or spirit
b Here the Greek word you is singular number; other ancient authorities read me or us

-

JRTjr writes: ​ God does not change, nor does his view of ‘sin’; therefore the price of ‘sin’ will always be required to be paid.

-If the eclipsed version of bible you use does imitate the justice of the scribes and was made in part for the system of religion and doctrines and their type of justice, --that is to use on the plates of the scale one common generic term: god and elohim, for the idols and deities and, at the same time, use that same generic term also for the Most High ELYON (THE ONE THAT DECLARES)--,and if one imitates that form of justice, system and eclipsed version, saying,

quote:

---

the god does not change ,
the price of ‘sin’ will always be required to be paid .

---

Is that not the same as saying that the god will not forgive ?-

JRTjr writes: ​ The ‘cost’ of my rebellion against the Great Creator is eternal separation from Him {Death};

Unless you are forgiven-

....died so that I could be reconciled to The ‘Great I Am’

You would be reconciled to I AM anyway, in every time and season that is called now,
if you had read, known or done what the eternal instruction of I AM does declare, by IsaIah, saying, Come now, let us reason together, says I AM: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool. --Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : updateEdited by CrazyDiamond7, : updateEdited by CrazyDiamond7, : update

Dear CrazyDiamond7,Thank you for your participation. Yes; and No.Yes, the Great I Am will not arbitrarily forgive ‘sin’ because He is Absolutely Just; His Absolute Justice can not allow ‘sin’ to go unpunished.‘23For the wages which sin pays is death...’ (Romans 6: 23a Amplified Bible)’‘22[In fact] under the Law almost everything is purified by means of blood, and without the shedding of blood there is neither release from sin and its guilt nor the remission of the due and merited punishment for sins .’ ( Hebrews 9:22 (Amplified Bible)) {Emphases added}’However; Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross means that He pain my debt in my place.‘23but the [bountiful] free gift of God is eternal life through (in union with) Jesus Christ our Lord.’ (Romans 6: 23b Amplified Bible)’ Are you saying that the Great Creator of the universes will arbitrarily forgive ‘sin’ with out requiring anything; that all we have to do is say ‘I’m sorry’ and that’s it; your ‘sin’ will become forgiven?You’ve said yourself: So, you seam to agree with Romans 6: 23!?So, which do you believe? Does the Great Creator arbitrarily forgive ‘sin’? Or; Dos His Justice require that the penalty for ‘sin’ be paid in full?‘Arbitrary forgiveness’ or ‘substitutionary forgiveness’?Again I ask: If there was no price to be paid for sin; then why an OFFERING TO PUT AN END TO ALL SINS.?Looking forward to hearing from you again,
JRTjr

- -Neither the lamb that I AM was offered to continue the old system of operation of law, nor does the offering that establishes the New and eternal Covenant have anything to do with being ruled under the obligations of the old covenant by operation of law. You also have the option of inquiring this,
If All died in the lamb that I AM, then why all the world had been accustomed to believe (or take as [if it was] truth) that the lamb would have been sent to die for one’s debts rather than the debtor, and for the sins rather than the entire sinner;Is that not evidence that all the world has been amazed after the doctrine of the eighth nation (the State of Vatican) and has been showing reverence (in matters to the spirit) before the image and likeness of beasts (imposed directives) and the false prophet (theology);In the time it is clear that All died it is evident that, before the lamb of the eternal covenant, there was no justification for the sins any longer. By sending the lamb to die in your place, the lamb died for the entire sinner; not for anyone’s debts. You are forgiven if you ascertain and know that, in the lamb that I AM, all died. Therefore, in matters to the Spirit, you’re dead and you will not live unless you come back to life by the lamb of the new covenant.Therefore the forgiveness that I AM is according to grace and choice (election). Both election which is by grace and the celestial forgiveness are unconditional and spontaneous;Forgiveness is not automatically substitutional nor conditional either, because the Forgiveness that I AM has Power of remission which does not depend on paying a price;

quote:

---

The fragments (excerpts) of ancient texts clear up that the Power of remission of sins does not depend on price being paid, I AM WHO SAVES said,

​

But that you may know that the First-fruit of man --the first-fruit of the Spirit that I AM that vivifies and becomes a part of the man-- has power to remove the sins; ‘Arise, take up your pallet and go to your house.’

---

I AM who sent the lamb to die not in exchange of having a price paid for whatever you have done; it is not about one’s debts or sins any more because you already died. I AM sent the lamb to die in exchange of having you. Your life does not belong to you any longer.

quote:

---

IT WAS NEVER ABOUT A LAMB BEING REQUESTED TO PAY A PRICE FOR YOUR SINS
BUT A LAMB BEING A FREE OFFERING TO PUT AN END TO ALL SINS.
ALSO IT WAS NEVER ABOUT A PRICE TO BE PAID NOR ANY PRICE IMPOSED BY THE LAW EITHER
BUT A LAMB OFFERED AS A FREE AND SPONTANEOUS OFFER:
In the words: 'THE LAMB THAT DIED FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD', which translates: EVEN FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE BOOK OF SCRIPTURE: book of Genesis,
so the meaning: the same type of offering of the lamb that was offered even in the beginning of Genesis.

---

Instruction is given that one has access to salvation by Jhvh’s graciousness, which means they are saved because of Jhvh’s Power of remission, through the lamb, (that is, through the Word that I AM; the word that was made flesh, and by fidelity--Hebrew word Emunah ). The death and resurrection of the lamb puts an end to all sins because this new covenant clears up that the only solution for the sinner is to become a new person.Therefore, the death and resurrection of the lamb puts an end to all sins as it was quoted in the book of Daniel, because it is the sinner that dies in the lamb, and it has nothing to do with paying price for one's debts.The lamb in the book Revelations clears up that this is not a type of lamb for a price being paid.The offering of the lamb that I AM was a free and unexpectedly one, a semblance of the lamb that was offered in the beginning of Genesis.Apocalipse reveals that it was an unexpected offering that has nothing to do with obligation nor imposition of law.
the lamb called Jehavh'shua (I AM WHO SAVES) was sent to be given as a free offering: unexpectedly (spontaneously) as in the beginning of the book (Genesis).

quote:

---

Both the book of Hebrews and the book Apocalipse make a clear distinction between a free and unexpected offering and a price being paid,

​

I - the same type of offering of the lamb that was offered even in the beginning of Genesis.

​

From a mastercopy left to the Vatican: ...even in the beginning of the world

​

II — Revelation says: ‘With your blood --a blood that was freely offered-- the souls were bought,

​

III - Thus, one is bought without price: by a free and unexpected offering.

​

A FREE OFFERING IS NOT ABOUT A PRICE BEING PAID

​

Just as the type of offering of the lamb that Abel offered in the beginning of Genesis is different from a price being paid,
even so the lamb that I AM has nothing to do with the ones that died through the priesthood of the sons Levi
which were according to obligations and ordinances that had been left to the sons of Aaran;

​

For in the priesthood of Aaran the lambs were brought to the priest as a price paid for sins.

---

Whenever the doctrines of faiths [that had been given and left in part of the translations for the book of 66 books; as a likeness and image that belongs to the Roman docrine fides quae creditur], and the image of that directive does use the term price paid for the sins,that image of the beast is implying that the lamb would have been allegedly offered to continue the old system of operation of law,thus the beast and the false prophet (theology) have been succesful in the job of proposing that an offering which establishes the New and eternal Covenant would have anything to do with paying a price for one's debts, and with being ruled under the obligations of the old covenant by operation of law.-