Greek Mythology in the Bible?

[Rose]

It is ironic that the doctrine of Hell, adamantly held to by many Christians as a truth being taught by the one and only God, is actually not new to the Bible at all….it is in fact a myth that originated with the ancient Greeks. Tartarus, and Hades are both Greek gods that pre-date the New Testament by at least 700 years.

Tartarus is used only one time in the Bible as the place where the Angels who sinned are chained until judgment. The Greek philosopher, Plato wrote that souls were judged after death and those who received punishments were sent to Tartarus.
2Pet.2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell (Tartarus), and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
Tartarus in Greek mythology, is both a deity and a place in the underworld even lower than Hades. In ancient Orphic sources, Tartarus is also the unbounded first-existing entity from which the Light and the cosmos are born.

In Hesiod's Theogony c. 700 BC, the deity Tartarus was the third force to manifest in the yawning void of Chaos. In The Iliad (c. 700), Zeus asserts that Tartarus is "as far beneath Hades as heaven is high above the earth." It is one of the primordial objects that sprung from Chaos, along with Gaia (Earth) and Eros (Desire).

Now doesn’t it seem a bit odd that the Bible states that God is sending the angels who sinned to a mythological place called Tartarus?

The word Hades refers both to the ancient Greek underworld, the abode of Hades, and to the god of the underworld. The term hades in Christian theology (and in New Testament Greek) is parallel to Hebrew sheol (שאול, grave or dirt-pit), and refers to the abode of the dead.

In older Greek myths, the realm of Hades is the misty and gloomy abode of the dead where all mortals go. Later Greek philosophy introduced the idea that all mortals are judged after death and are either rewarded or cursed. Very few mortals could leave this realm once they entered. Five rivers are part of the realm of Hades, and their symbolic meanings, are Acheron (the river of sorrow, or woe), Cocytus (lamentation), Phlegethon (fire), Lethe (oblivion), and Styx (hate).

Also, what I find extremely interesting is that one of the five rivers of Hades is 'Fire' which is a direct parallel to Revelation where it is written that Hades is cast into the lake of fire.

So, my question is why is this mythological realm of Hades, being spoken of by Jesus as a real place of judgment?


Rev.1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore Amen; and have the keys of hell (Hades – the Grave) and of death.

Rev.6:8 And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell (Hades) followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.

Rev.20:13-14 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell (Hades) delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell (Hades) were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
Kind of makes one question where the whole doctrine of eternal damnation came from?


Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Fascinating study my dear! :flowers:

I must admit that it is mysterious in the extreme (from a traditional Christian point of view) to find pagan Greek mythology taught authoritatively as truth in Scripture.

Peter's use of the word "Tartarus" is most perplexing because it is nowhere defined in Scripture. Thus, there is no way for any Christian to know what the Bible means without studying pagan Greek mythology. But worse, Peter's use of that word appears to be an implicit endorsement of the entire Greek mythological system, because "Tartarus" was the lowest place in Hades.

Likewise, John personified Thanatos (Death) and Hades (Hell) in the same way as the Greeks when they invented their gods who went by those names:
Revelation 6:8 And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.
You have opened a most interesting topic.

Richard

[Beck]

Most interesting topic, Now I'll have to read and study Greek mythology :pop2: Or just read the bible :thumb:

[Rose]

Most interesting topic, Now I'll have to read and study Greek mythology :pop2: Or just read the bible :thumb:

That's too funny....:hysterical:

Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Here's A. T. Robertson's entry (http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/robertsons-word-pictures/2-peter/2-peter-2-4.html) in his Word Pictures in the New Testament.
Cast them down to hell (ταρταρωσας [tartarōsas]). First aorist active participle of ταρταροω [tartaroō], late word (from ταρταρος [tartaros], old word in Homer, Pindar, LXX Job 40:15; 41:23, Philo, inscriptions, the dark and doleful abode of the wicked dead like the Gehenna of the Jews), found here alone save in a scholion on Homer. Ταρταρος [Tartaros] occurs in Enoch 20:2 as the place of punishment of the fallen angels, while Gehenna is for apostate Jews. The plot thickens. Jude quotes from the book of Enoch, which speaks of Tartaros as the place of punishment of the fallen angels, exactly as stated in Peter. And both Jude and Peter spoke of the angels kept in chains:
Jude 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

2 Peter 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell [tartarus], and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
Both Peter and Jude speak of fallen angels chained in darkness. This is the standard Greek mythology about Tartarus. Here's a snippet from the wiki article:
When Zeus ordered Thanatos to chain Sisyphus in Tartarus upon his death, Sisyphus tricked Thanatos by asking him how the chains worked and ended up chaining Thanatos which caused no one to die.
Note that "Thanatos" is Death personified. This is the exact name of the Rider of the Fourth Horse in Revelation! This is pure, unadulterated Greek mythology. Indeed, we now enter into a full frontal display of pagan Greek mythology complete with the pantheon of imaginary gods in R. J. Bauckham's entry in the Word Biblical Commentary:
ἀλλὰ σειραῖς ζόθου ταρταρώσας ηαρέσωκεν, “but cast them into hell and committed them to fetters of nether darkness.” The verbs ταρταροῦν and (rather more common) καταταρταροῦν mean “to cast into Tartarus,” and were almost always used with reference to the early Greek theogonic myths, in which the ancient giants, the Cyclopes and Titans, were imprisoned in Tartarus, the lowest part of the underworld, by Uranos, Kronos and Zeus (Pearson, GRBS 10 [1969] 76–78). They are not used in the Greek version of 1 Enoch,; though τάρταρος (“Tartarus”) is used of the place of divine punishment in 1 Enoch 20:2, as elsewhere in Jewish Greek literature (LXX Job 40:20; 41:24; Prov 30:16; Sib. Or. 4:186; Philo, Mos. 2.433; praem 152). But Hellenistic Jews were aware that the Greek myth of the Titans had some similarity to the fall of the Watchers (though Philo, Gig. 58, rejects any comparison). Sometimes the Watchers’ sons, the giants (the Nephilim), were compared with the Titans (Josephus, Ant. 1.73; cf. LXX Ezek 32:27; Sir 16:7) but in Jdt 16:6 (and also the Christian passage Sib. Or. 2:231) the Watchers themselves seem to be called τιτᾶνες (“Titans”). Thus in using a term reminiscent of the Greek myth of the Titans the author of 2 Peter follows Hellenistic Jewish practice.Say what? I'm reading a commentary on the Christian Bible, the source book for the truth about heaven and hell and I am being told that the fallen angels were tossed into Tartarus, the same place that the pagan gods Uranos, Chronos, and Zeus threw the Cyclopes and Titans?

Suddenly, this doesn't sound like a "Bible" study at all! Zeus? Chronos? Titans? This is "God's truth"???

We've got some work to do folks! How is it possible that we all have been studying Scripture all these years and haven't noticed these facts? Willful ignorance? I know I'll be reflecting on this for a while.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Adam Clarke provided this ridiculous and vain attempt to "explain" the presence of Greek mythology in the Bible (source (http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=2pe&chapter=002)):
"The ancient Greeks appear to have received, by tradition, an account of the punishment of the 'fallen angels,' and of bad men after death; and their poets did, in conformity I presume with that account, make Tartarus the place where the giants who rebelled against Jupiter, and the souls of the wicked, were confined. 'Here,' saith Hesiod, Theogon., lin. 720,1, 'the rebellious Titans were bound in penal chains.'
So the pagan Greek mythology had somehow preserved a true revelation of the fate of the fallen angels? What was the source of that revelation? It's not in the Hebrew OT, and it pre-dates the Christian NT. So this "explanation" only exacerbates the problem by implicitly admitting it's intractability.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Leviathan is another example of mythology in the Bible.

And the "seven-headed dragon" rising out of the sea? Ancient Mesopotamian mythology from the 3rd millennium BCE! Check this wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan), and these excepts (http://books.google.com.au/books?id=yCkRz5pfxz0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Dictionary+of+Deities+and+Demons+in+the+Bible&source=bl&ots=aFsweXp22u&sig=dztd0T9lrsBte41nWVfAQhwNjkk&hl=en&ei=Hf4GTIrpK9CHcdfghLYO&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Leviathan&f=false) from the Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. For example:
A seven-headed serpent (mus-sag-imin) partly overcome by an anthropomorphic hero or god is attested as early as the third mill. BCE in Mesopotamian iconography (H. FRANKFORT, Stratified Cylindedr Seals from hte Diyala Region [OIP 72, Chicago 1955] 37. pl. 47:497) and texts, but later survives in the textual records only, until he reappears in the Greek Hydra tradition from the 6th century on.
A seven-headed serpent? DOES THAT RING ANY BELLS? It's just the Greek myth of the Hydra! (http://www.eaudrey.com/myth/hydra.htm) Which usually had seven or nine heads.

http://www.eaudrey.com/myth/images/Hydra.gif

Now let's reflect on this.

Christians reject "mythology" OUT OF HAND as obviously false! Yet they accept the Bible, which is filled with the very mythology they reject in every other context.

My mind is numb. How could I have been so blind for so long?

[CWH]

It is ironic that the doctrine of Hell, adamantly held to by many Christians as a truth being taught by the one and only God, is actually not new to the Bible at all….it is in fact a myth that originated with the ancient Greeks. Tartarus, and Hades are both Greek gods that pre-date the New Testament by at least 700 years.

Tartarus is used only one time in the Bible as the place where the Angels who sinned are chained until judgment. The Greek philosopher, Plato wrote that souls were judged after death and those who received punishments were sent to Tartarus.
2Pet.2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell (Tartarus), and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
Tartarus in Greek mythology, is both a deity and a place in the underworld even lower than Hades. In ancient Orphic sources, Tartarus is also the unbounded first-existing entity from which the Light and the cosmos are born.

In Hesiod's Theogony c. 700 BC, the deity Tartarus was the third force to manifest in the yawning void of Chaos. In The Iliad (c. 700), Zeus asserts that Tartarus is "as far beneath Hades as heaven is high above the earth." It is one of the primordial objects that sprung from Chaos, along with Gaia (Earth) and Eros (Desire).

Now doesn’t it seem a bit odd that the Bible states that God is sending the angels who sinned to a mythological place called Tartarus?

The word Hades refers both to the ancient Greek underworld, the abode of Hades, and to the god of the underworld. The term hades in Christian theology (and in New Testament Greek) is parallel to Hebrew sheol (שאול, grave or dirt-pit), and refers to the abode of the dead.

In older Greek myths, the realm of Hades is the misty and gloomy abode of the dead where all mortals go. Later Greek philosophy introduced the idea that all mortals are judged after death and are either rewarded or cursed. Very few mortals could leave this realm once they entered. Five rivers are part of the realm of Hades, and their symbolic meanings, are Acheron (the river of sorrow, or woe), Cocytus (lamentation), Phlegethon (fire), Lethe (oblivion), and Styx (hate).

Also, what I find extremely interesting is that one of the five rivers of Hades is 'Fire' which is a direct parallel to Revelation where it is written that Hades is cast into the lake of fire.

So, my question is why is this mythological realm of Hades, being spoken of by Jesus as a real place of judgment?


Rev.1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore Amen; and have the keys of hell (Hades – the Grave) and of death.

Rev.6:8 And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell (Hades) followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.

Rev.20:13-14 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell (Hades) delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell (Hades) were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
Kind of makes one question where the whole doctrine of eternal damnation came from?


Rose

But Jesus believed in Hades. Would He have mentioned or taught about Hades if Hades was something false or non-existent?

Matthew 11:23
And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades. For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day.

Matthew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Luke 10:15
And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades.

Luke 16:23
In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side.

Revelation 1:18
I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.

Revelation 6:8
I looked, and there before me was a pale horse! Its rider was named Death, and Hades was following close behind him. They were given power over a fourth of the earth to kill by sword, famine and plague, and by the wild beasts of the earth.

Revelation 20:13
The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done.

Revelation 20:14
Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death.

I wonder where did the Greeks got their idea of Hades from?... perhaps the ancient Jews or Egyptians.

Many Blessings.

[Rose]

But Jesus believed in Hades. Would He have mentioned or taught about Hades if Hades was something false or non-existent?

Matthew 11:23
And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades. For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day.

Matthew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Luke 10:15
And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades.

Luke 16:23
In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side.

Revelation 1:18
I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.

Revelation 6:8
I looked, and there before me was a pale horse! Its rider was named Death, and Hades was following close behind him. They were given power over a fourth of the earth to kill by sword, famine and plague, and by the wild beasts of the earth.

Revelation 20:13
The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done.

Revelation 20:14
Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death.

I wonder where did the Greeks got their idea of Hades from?... perhaps the ancient Jews or Egyptians.

Many Blessings.

Hi Cheow,

Those are two excellent questions...:thumb:

When you stop and think about it, all the other gods associated with the Greeks, Romans and Egyptians have been dismissed long ago by all Christians, so why did Jesus promote belief in an ancient mythological god, and place? As noted in Acts, the Romans believed in so many gods they wanted to make sure none were left out!
Acts 17:23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
It seems what Jesus did is just continue on with a belief system that was commonly held by Jews, and other peoples of the time, but it doesn't really matter which particular race of people made up the myth because two common threads run through most religious belief systems:

1. There is always some type of god, or gods
2. There is always some type of punishment meted out by the god, or gods for sins

So, we know this idea surely didn't originate with the Jews because its been around long before the Jews became a race. This issue brings up so many problems....for one, what was Jesus doing promoting a myth of a pagan god when the whole reason for most of the problems with the Jews in the Old Testament was their following after pagan gods? QUESTIONS, Questions, questions????? :confused:

Blessings,
Rose

[whirlwind]

Most interesting topic, Now I'll have to read and study Greek mythology :pop2: Or just read the bible :thumb:



:eek: That is a very offensive statement.


Matthew 12:36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.

Psalm 40:7 Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of Me,


.

[whirlwind]

So, we know this idea surely didn't originate with the Jews because its been around long before the Jews became a race. This issue brings up so many problems....for one, what was Jesus doing promoting a myth of a pagan god when the whole reason for most of the problems with the Jews in the Old Testament was their following after pagan gods? QUESTIONS, Questions, questions????? :confused:

Blessings,
Rose


Israel became a race in the garden of Eden. You are gravely mistaken on this Rose.


.

[gilgal]

Leviathan is another example of mythology in the Bible.

And the "seven-headed dragon" rising out of the sea? Ancient Mesopotamian mythology from the 3rd millennium BCE! Check this wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan), and these excepts (http://books.google.com.au/books?id=yCkRz5pfxz0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Dictionary+of+Deities+and+Demons+in+the+Bible&source=bl&ots=aFsweXp22u&sig=dztd0T9lrsBte41nWVfAQhwNjkk&hl=en&ei=Hf4GTIrpK9CHcdfghLYO&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Leviathan&f=false) from the Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. For example:
A seven-headed serpent (mus-sag-imin) partly overcome by an anthropomorphic hero or god is attested as early as the third mill. BCE in Mesopotamian iconography (H. FRANKFORT, Stratified Cylindedr Seals from hte Diyala Region [OIP 72, Chicago 1955] 37. pl. 47:497) and texts, but later survives in the textual records only, until he reappears in the Greek Hydra tradition from the 6th century on.
A seven-headed serpent? DOES THAT RING ANY BELLS? It's just the Greek myth of the Hydra! (http://www.eaudrey.com/myth/hydra.htm) Which usually had seven or nine heads.

http://www.eaudrey.com/myth/images/Hydra.gif

Now let's reflect on this.

Christians reject "mythology" OUT OF HAND as obviously false! Yet they accept the Bible, which is filled with the very mythology they reject in every other context.

My mind is numb. How could I have been so blind for so long?
These things must be taken from the Zodiacs. Though I personaly have noe understanding how to read stars and personify constellations (I don't know how they do it) but they do have the Hydra, Hercules, Hermes (Her mes is actually son of Ham. Ham is Her according to Alexader Hyslop's The Two Babylons), Leo (the Lion of Judah). So I think the Greeks had their mythology derived from this and the Hebrews and Jews had their revelations from this.


Revelation 12

1And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

2And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

3And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.

4And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

5And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.
http://beforeitsnews.com/ckfinder/userfiles/0000000000007914/images/hydra.gif (http://beforeitsnews.com/story/316/429/Revelation_12,_the_Virgo_and_Hydra_Constellations. html)

Revelation 12, the Virgo and Hydra Constellations
December 18, 2010 8:37

In Revelation Chapter 12 we read of a 'great wonder in the heaven'. It describes a 'woman' clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of 12 stars. We also read of 'another wonder in heaven'; a great red dragon having seven heads. People familiar with ancient astronomy will recognize the 12 stars as the zodiac signs and the seven heads as the seven classical planetary spheres.

If you look at a sky chart, you will see that the Virgo stands right next to the Hydra constellation in the sky (the heaven).


These are the two largest constellations in the sky, and the Hydra is 90 degrees long. Remember that the text reads 'his tail drew down the third part of the stars in heaven' (meaning that he was BIG).

We are told that people that were outside a lot at night looked at the sky and devised names for stars that appear to be grouped together, then made up stories to fit what they saw. But looking at the length of the Hydra constellation, you can see that is NOT what happened with it. There is no 'grouping logic' to naming a constellation 90 degrees long which runs right beside several other constellations.

It appears that the story came first, and that IT was then projected onto the sky; not the other way around. If you ever studied hyrdas in a science class, you will know that they are water animals that you can cut inhalf any way you like, and that each half will regenerate its other half again. A plant form of this is the weeping willow tree. You can cut a willow branch off, and put either end in the ground, and it will grow roots and thrive (with air, sunlight and water). They are virtually indestructible in the right environment, like an Aloe Vera plant. Any and all of these could be chosen to represent 'the force of life' itself.

The Virgo is the New Testament human form of this symbol of the vessel of the life force, just as Eve is the Old Testament symbol of that. In Genesis 3:20 we read, "And Adam called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living".

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Israel became a race in the garden of Eden. You are gravely mistaken on this Rose.

That just your opinion. You gave no facts to support it, and that's because there are no facts to support it.

When are you going to learn that "Just saying so won't make it so?"

Is this all you have to offer? A mountain of unsupported, irrational, and unbiblical opinions?

[gilgal]

That just your opinion. You gave no facts to support it, and that's because there are no facts to support it.

When are you going to learn that "Just saying so won't make it so?"

Is this all you have to offer? A mountain of unsupported, irrational, and unbiblical opinions?
Relax Richard. Some people have no intention of learning. They just want to disturb others.

[Rose]

Israel became a race in the garden of Eden. You are gravely mistaken on this Rose.


.

Actually Whirlwind, you are mistaken. The Jews started with their father Abraham, and became a race with Jacob's (Israel) 12 sons.
Gen.48:8-10 And Israel beheld Joseph's sons, and said, Who are these? And Joseph said unto his father, They are my sons, whom God hath given me in this place. And he said, Bring them, I pray thee, unto me, and I will bless them. Now the eyes of Israel were dim for age, so that he could not see. And he brought them near unto him; and he kissed them, and embraced them.

Gen.49:2 Gather yourselves together, and hear, ye sons of Jacob; and hearken unto Israel your father.
The Bible calls Adam and Eve the first humans, which are the ancestors of us all.

Blessings,
Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Relax Richard. Some people have no intention of learning. They just want to disturb others.
Good point.

But truly, I am feeling pretty relaxed. Indeed, I am usually laughing out loud when I answer Judi's lunatic ravings. I will simply ban her when she out-lives her purpose as a terrible example of what happens to folks who allow their religious delusions to take over their minds. I think she knows this, and that's why she keeps amplifying her delusions - a kind of "job security" here on the forum so I don't ban her. I mean. she's now raving about Joe and I being "servants of Satan" because she can not refute a single argument we have presented!

:rofl:

There was a time I thought we could reason with her, but the more she writes, the more convinced I am that she is utterly and totally immune to all logic, common sense, or rationality. And so she may be coming to the end of her usefulness after all.

[whirlwind]

Actually Whirlwind, you are mistaken. The Jews started with their father Abraham, and became a race with Jacob's (Israel) 12 sons.
Gen.48:8-10 And Israel beheld Joseph's sons, and said, Who are these? And Joseph said unto his father, They are my sons, whom God hath given me in this place. And he said, Bring them, I pray thee, unto me, and I will bless them. Now the eyes of Israel were dim for age, so that he could not see. And he brought them near unto him; and he kissed them, and embraced them.

Gen.49:2 Gather yourselves together, and hear, ye sons of Jacob; and hearken unto Israel your father.
The Bible calls Adam and Eve the first humans, which are the ancestors of us all.

Blessings,
Rose


Adam and Eve were the first in the line to Christ...not of mankind. All races didn't come from one man.

The line of Christ is the family of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob...father of the twelve tribes, one of which is Judah...the Jews. The others are not Jews.


.

[Beck]

:eek: That is a very offensive statement.


Matthew 12:36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.

Psalm 40:7 Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of Me,


.

Some how I don't think we are of the same understanding, this thread is formed because of the amount of Greek mythology found with in our holy bibles. That is what I meant that I would then rather study the bible itself rather that spend hours studying the Greek myths. That a deep breath my friend.

[whirlwind]

Some how I don't think we are of the same understanding, this thread is formed because of the amount of Greek mythology found with in our holy bibles. That is what I meant that I would then rather study the bible itself rather that spend hours studying the Greek myths. That a deep breath my friend.


:) I have taken a deep breath and do apologize. I misread your reply. It appeared to me that you were agreeing that the Bible was filled with mythology which would mean it was not truth. And...truth it is.


.:yo:

[whirlwind]

Good point.

But truly, I am feeling pretty relaxed. Indeed, I am usually laughing out loud when I answer Judi's lunatic ravings. I will simply ban her when she out-lives her purpose as a terrible example of what happens to folks who allow their religious delusions to take over their minds. I think she knows this, and that's why she keeps amplifying her delusions - a kind of "job security" here on the forum so I don't ban her. I mean. she's now raving about Joe and I being "servants of Satan" because she can not refute a single argument we have presented!

:rofl:


Did I rave about Joe being a servant of Satan? Again I ask you Richard...please quote the accusation.





There was a time I thought we could reason with her, but the more she writes, the more convinced I am that she is utterly and totally immune to all logic, common sense, or rationality. And so she may be coming to the end of her usefulness after all.



I am here for a reason. There is someone I am to reach, a seed I am to sow. When that has happened, if not already, then my testimony will be finished. God will decide to allow you to ban me (overcome and kill).



John 17:20-21 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on Me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be one in Us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent Me.


Revelation 11:7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.




.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Good point.

But truly, I am feeling pretty relaxed. Indeed, I am usually laughing out loud when I answer Judi's lunatic ravings. I will simply ban her when she out-lives her purpose as a terrible example of what happens to folks who allow their religious delusions to take over their minds. I think she knows this, and that's why she keeps amplifying her delusions - a kind of "job security" here on the forum so I don't ban her. I mean. she's now raving about Joe and I being "servants of Satan" because she can not refute a single argument we have presented!

:rofl:
Did I rave about Joe being a servant of Satan? Again I ask you Richard...please quote the accusation.

Yes you did. Here are you exact words:


I would add for you and Joe.....



11 Corinthians 11:13-15 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.




.

Now why did you make me waste my time proving that you wrote the words you know you wrote? It makes me think you reading disability so bad that you can't even understand you own posts!





There was a time I thought we could reason with her, but the more she writes, the more convinced I am that she is utterly and totally immune to all logic, common sense, or rationality. And so she may be coming to the end of her usefulness after all.
I am here for a reason. There is someone I am to reach, a seed I am to sow. When that has happened, if not already, then my testimony will be finished. God will decide to allow you to ban me (overcome and kill).
John 17:20-21 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on Me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be one in Us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent Me.


Revelation 11:7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them. .
Your "word" has already been "overcome" by logic, truth, facts, and Scripture.

And quit playing the martyr already. You are simply deluded by your gross arrogance coupled with your grand ignorance that allows you to imagine that your crazy ideas are "Divinely inspired" They are not. You are deluded and it has been abundantly proven.

But given that you have made it clear you are not interested in rational discourse, I guess it is time to ban you.

Bye bye.

(Guess that means you accomplished your purpose! Congrats! :clap2:)

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Here's a very interesting resource for researching pagan mythology in the Bible. It was published in 1897.

Babylonian Influence on the Bible and Popular Beliefs

Available online from Google books here (http://books.google.com/books?id=CYr8d1tfiVgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=babylonian+influence+on+the+bible+and+popular+b eliefs+a+comparative+study+of+genesis+1+2&source=bl&ots=F-TL_cr4C6&sig=9u2lg4A9kSdZSSAiz7pJIVyTsvM&hl=en&ei=ru1dTfrICIr4sAOc8dDfCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false).

And in a variety of formats from Archive.org here (http://www.archive.org/details/babylonianinflu00palmgoog).

[Richard Amiel McGough]

2 Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

2 Peter 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell [Tartarus - the pagan Greek mythological pit where Zeus imprisoned the Titans], and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
Say what? The Greek myths are not fables?

[CWH]

Hi Cheow,

Those are two excellent questions...:thumb:

When you stop and think about it, all the other gods associated with the Greeks, Romans and Egyptians have been dismissed long ago by all Christians, so why did Jesus promote belief in an ancient mythological god, and place? As noted in Acts, the Romans believed in so many gods they wanted to make sure none were left out!
Acts 17:23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
It seems what Jesus did is just continue on with a belief system that was commonly held by Jews, and other peoples of the time, but it doesn't really matter which particular race of people made up the myth because two common threads run through most religious belief systems:

1. There is always some type of god, or gods
2. There is always some type of punishment meted out by the god, or gods for sins

So, we know this idea surely didn't originate with the Jews because its been around long before the Jews became a race. This issue brings up so many problems....for one, what was Jesus doing promoting a myth of a pagan god when the whole reason for most of the problems with the Jews in the Old Testament was their following after pagan gods? QUESTIONS, Questions, questions????? :confused:

Blessings,
Rose

It's absurd even to think that Jesus promoted a myth of pagan God. He will never promote falsehood! The reason why Jesus mentioned and taught about Hades is because Hades is real. And the existent of Hades is something which you rejected and now you are trying to rationalize its non-existence.

Many Blessings.

[Rose]

It's absurd even to think that Jesus promoted a myth of pagan God. He will never promote falsehood! The reason why Jesus mentioned and taught about Hades is because Hades is real. And the existent of Hades is something which you rejected and now you are trying to rationalize its non-existence.

Many Blessings.

I understand your sentiments, but all I'm doing is stating FACTS. Hades was a mythological Greek god of the underworld and a place where the wicked were sent; that is what the Greeks believed long before Jesus came in the 1st century. It seems that Jesus took their myth and promoted it as a scare tactic to frighten people.

You are right, I have always rejected the idea of Hell and now I'm presenting facts as to why the idea of a place called Hell where people are sent for punishment is ABSURD!

Blessings,
Rose

[CWH]

I understand your sentiments, but all I'm doing is stating FACTS. Hades was a mythological Greek god of the underworld and a place where the wicked were sent; that is what the Greeks believed long before Jesus came in the 1st century. It seems that Jesus took their myth and promoted it as a scare tactic to frighten people.

You are right, I have always rejected the idea of Hell and now I'm presenting facts as to why the idea of a place called Hell where people are sent for punishment is ABSURD!

Blessings,
Rose

Wow! Joe will love it, Jesus using scare tactics just like the futurists. Anyway, I am not against the idea as Proverbs say it right, "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom". God in fact did use fear as a tactic, "Do not fear those who can kill the body but cannot kill the soul rather fear God who can destroy both body and soul in Hell".

Many Blessings.

[Rose]

Wow! Joe will love it, Jesus using scare tactics just like the futurists. Anyway, I am not against the idea as Proverbs say it right, "the fear of the lord is the beginning of wisdom. God in fact did use fear as a tactic, "Do not fear those who can kill the body but cannot kill the soul rather fear God who can destroy both body and soul in Hell".

Many Blessings.

It's one thing to have a fear of something that is real, like I should have a fear of Grizzly bears....but its quite another thing to fear something that is a proven myth.

Don't we today laugh at the ancients who believed in Zeus, and all the other silly mythological gods people worshiped? So, why do people still believe in a mythological Hades? Makes no sense to me....:confused:

Blessings,
Rose

[Rose]

The Enûma Eliš is the Babylonian creation story dated at around 1800 BC., this is at least 300 years before the earliest date given for Moses writing the 5 books of the Torah (1500 BC) - which means that at the time of Moses the common world-view among pagans was their creation story of Enûma Eliš. The Enûma Eliš has about a thousand lines and is recorded in Old Babylonian cuneiform on seven claytablets, each holding between 115 and 170 lines of text.

The ancient Mesopotamian's believed that:



The earth was a flat circular disc surrounded by a saltwater sea.
The habitable earth was a single giant continent inside this sea
The sky was a solid dome above the earth, curved to touch the earth at its rim, with the dwelling of the gods above the sky or on top of the solid sky
In both Enûma Eliš and Genesis, creation is an act of divine speech
In both Enûma Eliš and Genesis the primordial world is formless and empty (the tohu wa bohu of Genesis 1:2), the only existing thing is the watery abyss which exists prior to creation.
In both, the firmament, conceived as a solid inverted bowl, is created in the midst of the primeval waters to separate the sky or heights from the earth
Day and night precede the creation of the luminous bodies ( Enûma Eliš 1:38), whose function is to yield light and regulate time.
In Enûma Eliš, the gods consult before creating man (6:4), while Genesis has: "Let us make man in our own image..." and in both, the creation of man is followed by divine rest.


More food for thought....:pop2:
Rose

Link to the Seven Tablets (http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/blc/blc07.htm) of Enuma Elis.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The Enûma Eliš is the Babylonian creation story dated at around 1800 BC., this is at least 300 years before the earliest date given for Moses writing the 5 books of the Torah (1500 BC) - which means that at the time of Moses the common world-view among pagans was their creation story of Enûma Eliš. The Enûma Eliš has about a thousand lines and is recorded in Old Babylonian cuneiform on seven claytablets, each holding between 115 and 170 lines of text.

The ancient Mesopotamian's believed that:


The earth was a flat circular disc surrounded by a saltwater sea.
The habitable earth was a single giant continent inside this sea
The sky was a solid dome above the earth, curved to touch the earth at its rim, with the dwelling of the gods above the sky or on top of the solid sky
In both Enûma Eliš and Genesis, creation is an act of divine speech
In both Enûma Eliš and Genesis the primordial world is formless and empty (the tohu wa bohu of Genesis 1:2), the only existing thing is the watery abyss which exists prior to creation.
In both, the firmament, conceived as a solid inverted bowl, is created in the midst of the primeval waters to separate the sky or heights from the earth
Day and night precede the creation of the luminous bodies ( Enûma Eliš 1:38), whose function is to yield light and regulate time.
In Enûma Eliš, the gods consult before creating man (6:4), while Genesis has: "Let us make man in our own image..." and in both, the creation of man is followed by divine rest.


More food for thought....:pop2:
Rose
Picking up on the two points I highlighted bold red, we see that ancient conception of the world persisted in even in Europe until the discovery of America! Here is a reconstruction of Anaximander's "map of the world" from around 546BC:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a0/Anaximander_world_map-en.svg/600px-Anaximander_world_map-en.svg.png

This is from this post (http://biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=19097#post19097) in the thread where we were discussing the meaning of "world" and "earth" in the Bible because Futurists consistently misinterpret it to mean the entire globe of planet earth.

[gilgal]

2 Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

2 Peter 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell [Tartarus - the pagan Greek mythological pit where Zeus imprisoned the Titans], and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
Say what? The Greek myths are not fables?

Anyone know what the meaning of the name Titan is?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Anyone know what the meaning of the name Titan is?
It means "mighty one" or "giant." It denotes the 12 sons of the gods Uranus (Heaven) and Gaia (Earth). Note the number 12.

Irenaeus noted that Teitan in Greek sums to 666, which is curious since they were imprisoned by Zeus in Tartarus, the lowest part of Hades.

[gilgal]

It means "mighty one" or "giant." It denotes the 12 sons of the gods Uranus (Heaven) and Gaia (Earth). Note the number 12.

Irenaeus noted that Teitan in Greek sums to 666, which is curious since they were imprisoned by Zeus in Tartarus, the lowest part of Hades.
...and that in Revelation 9, 11, 13, 17. The beast came up from the bottomless pit.


Words Searched For: bottomless pit + Apollyon + Abaddon



Revelation 9
1 And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit.
2 And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit.
3 And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power.
4 And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads.
5 And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man.
6 And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.
7 And the shapes of the locusts were like unto horses prepared unto battle; and on their heads were as it were crowns like gold, and their faces were as the faces of men.
8 And they had hair as the hair of women, and their teeth were as the teeth of lions.
9 And they had breastplates, as it were breastplates of iron; and the sound of their wings was as the sound of chariots of many horses running to battle.
10 And they had tails like unto scorpions, and there were stings in their tails: and their power was to hurt men five months.
11 And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.
12 One woe is past; and, behold, there come two woes more hereafter.
13 And the sixth angel sounded, and I heard a voice from the four horns of the golden altar which is before God,
14 Saying to the sixth angel which had the trumpet, Loose the four angels which are bound in the great river Euphrates.
15 And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men.
16 And the number of the army of the horsemen were two hundred thousand thousand: and I heard the number of them.
17 And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that sat on them, having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone: and the heads of the horses were as the heads of lions; and out of their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone.
18 By these three was the third part of men killed, by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone, which issued out of their mouths.
19 For their power is in their mouth, and in their tails: for their tails were like unto serpents, and had heads, and with them they do hurt.
20 And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk:
21 Neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts.

Revelation 11
7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.

Revelation 13
1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.

Revelation 17
8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

Teitan...how is it spelled in Greek? Usually the Sh in Hebrew is translated as T. Seraphim- Teraphim, Shekel-Tekel, Sheitan-Teitan?

Who is Irenaeus? The apostle John's disciple? Who wrote this mythology?

Teitans must have been the giants of old.

T(300)+e(5)+i(10)+t(300)+a(1)+n(50)=666

[Richard Amiel McGough]

...and that in Revelation 9, 11, 13, 17. The beast came up from the bottomless pit.

Teitan...how is it spelled in Greek? Usually the Sh in Hebrew is translated as T. Seraphim- Teraphim, Shekel-Tekel, Sheitan-Teitan?

Who is Irenaeus? The apostle John's disciple? Who wrote this mythology?

Teitans must have been the giants of old.
According to wiki, it is spelled just like in English Titan which sums to 661. But Irenaeus said it was spelled Teitan which makes it sum to 666.

I've heard somewhere that Sheitan was connected with Titan, but I don't have any confirmation of that right now.

Irenaeus was a prolific early church father - 2nd century. He claimed to be a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of John. But I don't know if I believe him. He had a lot of nutty ideas, and we must remember that religion has always been dominated by liars and charlatans, so he might have made it up to elevate his status for all we know.

As for the "bottomless pit" - that is the "abussos" (abyss) which is an essential element of all the Babylonian, Mediterranean, Mesopotamian mythologies.

[CWH]

Picking up on the two points I highlighted bold red, we see that ancient conception of the world persisted in even in Europe until the discovery of America! Here is a reconstruction of Anaximander's "map of the world" from around 546BC:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a0/Anaximander_world_map-en.svg/600px-Anaximander_world_map-en.svg.png

This is from this post (http://biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=19097#post19097) in the thread where we were discussing the meaning of "world" and "earth" in the Bible because Futurists consistently misinterpret it to mean the entire globe of planet earth.

When God created the world, the sun, the planets, the moons, it is always globes. Therefore when God say the earth, the world, in Jesus/God's mind it is always the globe, never a disk. God don't make the earth which looks like a disc but a globe. Therefore when God commanded to spread the gospel throughout the world, He meant throughout the whole globe that He have created. People of the first century may still think the world was a disc, it's ok, but in God's mind, it is always the whole globe. You mean Jesus did not know the earth is a globe when He was the one who created the earth?

This is the map of the world from the viewpoint of the Romans in the 1st century. Could the gospel have spread to the far reaches of the ancient Roman world by AD 70?...I doubt so.

http://www.tonyperrottet.com/paganholiday/images/map_roman.jpg

Many Blessings.

[gilgal]

According to wiki, it is spelled just like in English Titan which sums to 661. But Irenaeus said it was spelled Teitan which makes it sum to 666.

I've heard somewhere that Sheitan was connected with Titan, but I don't have any confirmation of that right now.

Irenaeus was a prolific early church father - 2nd century. He claimed to be a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of John. But I don't know if I believe him. He had a lot of nutty ideas, and we must remember that religion has always been dominated by liars and charlatans, so he might have made it up to elevate his status for all we know.

As for the "bottomless pit" - that is the "abussos" (abyss) which is an essential element of all the Babylonian, Mediterranean, Mesopotamian mythologies.
Could it be that the Titans banished to Tartarus were the giants spoken of in Genesis 6? What would be the difference of the abyss and Tartarus?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

When God created the world, the sun, the planets, the moons, it is always globes. Therefore when God say the earth, the world, in Jesus/God's mind it is always the globe, never a disk.

Hey there Cheow, :yo:

Just because we now know that the earth is a globe does not mean that the original authors of the Bible knew it. But even if Paul knew that the earth was a globe, the word "earth" still did not have that meaning in the verses that talked about the Gospel going forth into "all the earth." We know this because Paul said it had already happened in the first century!

It's really simple stuff Cheow. I don't understand why you don't accept it.



God don't make the earth which looks like a disc but a globe. Therefore when God commanded to spread the gospel throughout the world, He meant throughout the whole globe that He have created. People of the first century may still think the world was a disc, it's ok, but in God's mind, it is always the whole globe.

That's an invalid argument. We know what God meant. He meant that the Gospel had to go out [of just being Israel] into "all the world" outside of Israel. It has absolutely nothing to do with it being preached at every physical point of the planet at the same time. There never could be a time when "every" person hears the Gospel because there will always be children who don't understand language at the time it is being preached. That doctrine is logically incoherent. It's not what the Bible meant at all. The true meaning is very plain, as described above.

Great chatting,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

According to wiki, it is spelled just like in English Titan which sums to 661. But Irenaeus said it was spelled Teitan which makes it sum to 666.

I've heard somewhere that Sheitan was connected with Titan, but I don't have any confirmation of that right now.

Irenaeus was a prolific early church father - 2nd century. He claimed to be a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of John. But I don't know if I believe him. He had a lot of nutty ideas, and we must remember that religion has always been dominated by liars and charlatans, so he might have made it up to elevate his status for all we know.

As for the "bottomless pit" - that is the "abussos" (abyss) which is an essential element of all the Babylonian, Mediterranean, Mesopotamian mythologies.
Could it be that the Titans banished to Tartarus were the giants spoken of in Genesis 6? What would be the difference of the abyss and Tartarus?
Yes indeed. The mythological "giants" (aka Nephilim) in Genesis 6 very well could have been derived from the stories about the Titans.

[CWH]

Hey there Cheow, :yo:

Just because we now know that the earth is a globe does not mean that the original authors of the Bible knew it. But even if Paul knew that the earth was a globe, the word "earth" still did not have that meaning in the verses that talked about the Gospel going forth into "all the earth." We know this because Paul said it had already happened in the first century!

It's really simple stuff Cheow. I don't understand why you don't accept it.


That's an invalid argument. We know what God meant. He meant that the Gospel had to go out [of just being Israel] into "all the world" outside of Israel. It has absolutely nothing to do with it being preached at every physical point of the planet at the same time. There never could be a time when "every" person hears the Gospel because there will always be children who don't understand language at the time it is being preached. That doctrine is logically incoherent. It's not what the Bible meant at all. The true meaning is very plain, as described above.

Great chatting,

Richard

AS far as we know when Paul said the gospel have been preached to every creature in the world, he meant to every adult human beings in the Roman Empire. He obviously did not means spreading the gospel to every dogs and cats and humans to the far reaches of the globe. Nevermind what the author thought about the earth as a disc or a globe, God/Jesus created the world as a globe and that's exactly what Jesus meant when He said to spread the gospel to the furthest reaches of the globe and this has obviously been done and still on-going in the 21st century. When will the preaching ends?:

Matthew 24:14And this good news of the kingdom (the Gospel) will be preached throughout the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then will come the end.

Many Blessimgs.

[gilgal]

Neptune/Poseidon near the US Library of Congress. Beneath Poseidon is, I believe a sea creature, eel or serpent spewing water out of it's mouth like the dragon after the woman.

http://andrewprokos.com/d/library-of-congress-neptune-fountain-3?g2_itemId=7267&g2_serialNumber=8 (http://andrewprokos.com/photos/washington-dc/library-of-congress-neptune-fountain-3/)

Could it be that the water represents pseudo-knowledge in both cases? Since it is in front of the Library.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

AS far as we know when Paul said the gospel have been preached to every creature in the world, he meant to every adult human beings in the Roman Empire. He obviously did not means spreading the gospel to every dogs and cats and humans to the far reaches of the globe. Nevermind what the author thought about the earth as a disc or a globe, God/Jesus created the world as a globe and that's exactly what Jesus meant when He said to spread the gospel to the furthest reaches of the globe and this has obviously been done and still on-going in the 21st century.

Many Blessimgs.
You are missing the point Cheow, and you don't seem interested in learning the truth on this matter. You are merely repeating yourself without responding to the evidence I gave. Your assertion about what "God/Jesus meant" is wrong, and it is easy to prove it is wrong by showing how the words "earth" and "world" are used in the Bible. Many folks in this forum have shown you this evidence, and you have never refuted it. You just ignore it and repeat your opinion.

So I guess we are done with this topic. I've given the evidence. You have rejected the evidence in favor of your unsupported opinion. So be it.

All the very best,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Neptune/Poseidon near the US Library of Congress. Beneath Poseidon is, I believe a sea creature, eel or serpent spewing water out of it's mouth like the dragon after the woman.

http://andrewprokos.com/d/library-of-congress-neptune-fountain-3?g2_itemId=7267&g2_serialNumber=8 (http://andrewprokos.com/photos/washington-dc/library-of-congress-neptune-fountain-3/)

Could it be that the water represents pseudo-knowledge in both cases? Since it is in front of the Library.
Water can occasionally be used as a symbol of knowledge in the Bible.

We are washed with the water of the Word.

And the Torah is a "fountain of life."

And a "flood of deception" comes from the mouth of the dragon in Revelation.

But I'd be surprised if such a meaning were intended with Poseidon in front of the library.

[Beck]

It is difficult to determine. If a myth isn't real then why is the bible given to so much of the Greek and Mesopotamian myths? How is that to give a picture in lanuage?

Take for instant the word angel - aggelos a messenger. Which is deplored by 2 Peter 2:1-4 as false prophets and teachers. Peter uses the myth to say that these messengers were cast down to Hell -tartaroō reserved unto judgment. So in a sence Peter use of the myth is in relating that those false messengers have been casted into the grave and now await for their day of judgment. Which he given those that of old world and that of Sodom and Gomorrha. How that God known how to deliver the godly from tempations, How that God would know his children from among the children of the wicked. That we are to discern those that are in sheep clothing from among the true sheep. So that we would not be deceived by their doctrine of lies.

Since the Jewish people made use of metaphor's, peotic parallelism's and parables in their picture language it seem natural that they would use the myth's in another application of picture language. That's how I reason it's use in the bible anyway.

[CWH]

It is ironic that the doctrine of Hell, adamantly held to by many Christians as a truth being taught by the one and only God, is actually not new to the Bible at all….it is in fact a myth that originated with the ancient Greeks. Tartarus, and Hades are both Greek gods that pre-date the New Testament by at least 700 years.

Tartarus is used only one time in the Bible as the place where the Angels who sinned are chained until judgment. The Greek philosopher, Plato wrote that souls were judged after death and those who received punishments were sent to Tartarus.
2Pet.2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell (Tartarus), and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
Tartarus in Greek mythology, is both a deity and a place in the underworld even lower than Hades. In ancient Orphic sources, Tartarus is also the unbounded first-existing entity from which the Light and the cosmos are born.

In Hesiod's Theogony c. 700 BC, the deity Tartarus was the third force to manifest in the yawning void of Chaos. In The Iliad (c. 700), Zeus asserts that Tartarus is "as far beneath Hades as heaven is high above the earth." It is one of the primordial objects that sprung from Chaos, along with Gaia (Earth) and Eros (Desire).

Now doesn’t it seem a bit odd that the Bible states that God is sending the angels who sinned to a mythological place called Tartarus?

The word Hades refers both to the ancient Greek underworld, the abode of Hades, and to the god of the underworld. The term hades in Christian theology (and in New Testament Greek) is parallel to Hebrew sheol (שאול, grave or dirt-pit), and refers to the abode of the dead.

In older Greek myths, the realm of Hades is the misty and gloomy abode of the dead where all mortals go. Later Greek philosophy introduced the idea that all mortals are judged after death and are either rewarded or cursed. Very few mortals could leave this realm once they entered. Five rivers are part of the realm of Hades, and their symbolic meanings, are Acheron (the river of sorrow, or woe), Cocytus (lamentation), Phlegethon (fire), Lethe (oblivion), and Styx (hate).

Also, what I find extremely interesting is that one of the five rivers of Hades is “Fire” which is a direct parallel to Revelation where it is written that Hades is cast into the lake of fire.

So, my question is why is this mythological realm of Hades, being spoken of by Jesus as a real place of judgment?


Rev.1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore Amen; and have the keys of hell (Hades – the Grave) and of death.

Rev.6:8 And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell (Hades) followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.

Rev.20:13-14 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell (Hades) delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell (Hades) were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
Kind of makes one question where the whole doctrine of eternal damnation came from?


Rose

It's totally erroneous to say that the Jews got the myths friom the Greek but rather the other way round because the Jews got thousands of years of history before Greek civilisation. Myths are usually stories passed down from one generation to another. The Hebrews probably got their myths from their own, the Egyptians, the Mesopotamians and the Phoenecians spread them throughout Europe which include Greece and Rome.Therefore, it is immaterial whether the Bible used Hades or Tatarus or whatever Greek mythology terms as after all it was the same ideas that were originated during Hebrews time. The names are just Greek terms whose mythological ideas originated from Hebrews or Egyptians or Mesopotamians, easily understood by the common peoples of their times. As such it is legitimate for Jesus to use Greek mythology originated form Hebrews in the Bible so that many people of His times understood what he was talking about. In fact, many Greek myths have some common with Hebrew myths such as the mention of giants, the mention of Zeus (God), the mention of the Garden of Eden, the Great Flood etc. Are all myths real? I believe many of them were actual events and some were altered, adulterated, exagerrated or amended as they were passed down through the generations.

I see no reason why foreign myths cannot be used in the Bible as long as people understood its meanings and used them in day-to-day communication. This is analogious to our current use of English when we also used myths from Greek and Romans and other countries in communication legitimately and understood by every English speaking people; good examples are the Months such as January - the Janus God and days of the week such as Thursday - Thor's day and holidays such as Easter and Xmas etc. Therefore, Please do not be misled that the use of foreign myths in the Bible is illegitimate or inappropriate or false.

http://www.seiyaku.com/customs/days-months-seasons.html

Many Blessings.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I see no reason why foreign myths cannot be used in the Bible as long as people understood its meanings and used them in day-to-day communication. This is analogious to our current use of English when we also used myths from Greek and Romans and other countries in communication legitimately and understood by every English speaking people; good examples are the Months such as January - the Janus God and days of the week such as Thursday - Thor's day and holidays such as Easter and Xmas etc. Therefore, Please do not be misled that the use of foreign myths in the Bible is illegitimate or inappropriate or false.

http://www.seiyaku.com/customs/days-months-seasons.html

Many Blessings.
Excellent point! And since we modern folks use myths without believing they are literally true, I guess you are saying that we have not reason to believe the Greek myth of Hades (Hell) is literally true either! :thumb:

[gilgal]

Have you watched Zeitgeist? The mythologies he claims have things in common with the bible. Is that true?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Have you watched Zeitgeist? The mythologies he claims have things in common with the bible. Is that true?
Is that a movie?

[gilgal]

Is that a movie?
Yes. Documentary.
http://www.google.com/search?q=zeitgeist&oe=utf-8&rls={moz:distributionID}:{moz:locale}:{moz:officia l}&biw=1280&bih=832&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=vid:1&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=iv

See the wheel of the zodiac
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNf-P_5u_Hw

You can watch the movies online:
http://www.zeitgeistthefilm.com/

[CWH]

Excellent point! And since we modern folks use myths without believing they are literally true, I guess you are saying that we have not reason to believe the Greek myth of Hades (Hell) is literally true either! :thumb:

I believe that the authors of the New Testaments used Greek mythology in order to spread Christianity to the Greeks and Romans. The Romans understood Greek mythology very well as their culture was influenced by the Greeks. To use Hebrew myths and terms about Hell, Judgement Day and God etc. may caused more confusion. Therefore, it was prudent to use Greek terms and mythology that the Greeks and Romans understood. It is like translating an English Bible to the Chinese, it must use Chinese terms equivalent of heaven and hell, God, Judgement Day and some Chinese myths in order for the Chinese to understand. For example: hell in Chinese literally means "earth's prison" and heaven literally means "sky court" and God literally means "Higher/Upper Emperor"; to use heaven and hell and God in literal English, Hebrew or Greek terms such as Tartarus or Gerhenna or Yahweh will be confusing to the Chinese. Same if the Chinese were to preach Christianity to the English, they cannot use Chinese terms such as "sky court" for heaven and "earth's prison" for hell and expect the English to understand.

God's Blessings to all.:pray:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I believe that the authors of the New Testaments used Greek mythology in order to spread Christianity to the Greeks and Romans. The Romans understood Greek mythology very well as their culture was influenced by the Greeks. To use Hebrew myths and terms about Hell, Judgement Day and God etc. may caused more confusion. Therefore, it was prudent to use Greek terms and mythology that the Greeks and Romans understood. It is like translating an English Bible to the Chinese, it must use Chinese terms equivalent of heaven and hell, God, Judgement Day and some Chinese myths in order for the Chinese to understand. For example: hell in Chinese literally means "earth's prison" and heaven literally means "sky court" and God literally means "Higher/Upper Emperor"; to use heaven and hell and God in literal English, Hebrew or Greek terms such as Tartarus or Gerhenna or Yahweh will be confusing to the Chinese.

God's Blessings to all.:pray:
OK - so you believe that God used falsehoods to communicate his truth? How then are we supposed to know which part is true and which part is false?

[CWH]

OK - so you believe that God used falsehoods to communicate his truth? How then are we supposed to know which part is true and which part is false?

There is no falsehood, it's just using the nearest interpretative terms that the locals can understand or associate with the concept. For example in my example of preaching to the Chinese, one should start with the most basic term of God which the Chinese can understand which is "Higher or Upper Emperor" which is based on Chinese myth in which the very first Emperor of China (known as the Yellow Emperor") was someone from the heavens. Therefore, "Upper Emperor" was obviously someone higher than this very first Emperor from the heavens and thus giving the concept of God. It does not mean the "Upper Emperor" is the God Yahweh or telling a lie that "Upper Emperor" is Yahweh. Once that concept is understood, we can then slowly introduce the Christian God named Yahweh. If you go into a Chinese Church today and used the word "Yahweh", it is readily understood by the congregation to also mean the Christian God. Yahweh is now used interchangeably in Chinese churches with the "Upper Emperor" although "Upper Emperor" was derived from Chinese mythology. Do you consider this as a lie? As such in the same context, I believe that Tartarus was used interchangeably as Hell in early Greek churches. Same goes with Hades and so on.

God's Blessings to all. :pray:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

There is no falsehood, it's just using the nearest interpretative terms that the locals can understand or associate with the concept. For example in my example of preaching to the Chinese, one should start with the most basic term of God which the Chinese can understand which is "Higher or Upper Emperor" which is based on Chinese myth in which the very first Emperor of China was someone from the heavens. Therefore, "Upper Emperor" was obviously someone higher than this very first Emperor from the heavens and thus giving the concept of God. It does not mean the "Upper Emperor" is the God Yahweh or telling a lie that "Upper Emperor" is Yahweh. Once that concept is understood, we can then slowly introduce the Christian God named Yahweh. If you go into a Chinese Church today and used the word "Yahweh", it is readily understood by the congregation to also mean the Christian God. Yahweh is now used interchangeably in Chinese churches with the "Upper Emperor" although "Upper Emperor" was derived from Chinese mythology. Do you consider this as a lie?

God's Blessings to all. :pray:
Very well explained Cheow Wee! Your writing skills are improving a lot. It shows who "practice makes perfect."

But I still have a problem understanding what you are getting at. If God uses false pagan mythology to express his truth, how am I supposed to know which part is true and which is false? For example, Peter says that God imprisoned fallen angels in Tartarus which is the mythological place that the mythological god Zeus imprisoned the mythological Titans. So are you telling me that I should ignore the mythological origin of all those Biblical ideas? What then am I supposed to believe? Should I believe that God/Zeus imprisoned angels/Titans in Tartarus or not?

[CWH]

Very well explained Cheow Wee! Your writing skills are improving a lot. It shows who "practice makes perfect."

But I still have a problem understanding what you are getting at. If God uses false pagan mythology to express his truth, how am I supposed to know which part is true and which is false? For example, Peter says that God imprisoned fallen angels in Tartarus which is the mythological place that the mythological god Zeus imprisoned the mythological Titans. So are you telling me that I should ignore the mythological origin of all those Biblical ideas? What then am I supposed to believe? Should I believe that God/Zeus imprisoned angels/Titans in Tartarus or not?

Thanks for your compliments RAM :signthankspin: You have made my day ....eh... I mean night over here. That is also one of my goals here on my writing and debate skills.

Sorry, I can't answer your question which I believe depends on personal conviction. My conviction is that Peter and most of the NT's authors were using basic Greek mythology to explain to the Greeks and Romans in regards to a foreign Hebrew religion called Christianity. It does not implied that Zeus was Yahweh but just using an association. Anyway, there is no mention of Zeus or Titans in the Bible; it is your own additions. I think we should put ourselves into Peter's shoes about the problems he faced trying to explain to the Greeks using the nearest possible interpretative terms and concepts that the Greeks could understand and associate in regards to a foreign Hebrew religion.

God's Grace to all.:pray:

[Unregistered]

Fallen angles are cast out of heaven. Upon arrival on earth claim to be "The Gods" of mythology. History is written in poems and stories about them. Later on, after years upon years, God wipes out many, runs off others. Sends his "Son" (also a Human God hybrid) and speaks of the history that has already occurred. What is so difficult to understand. Open your eyes, and know the Bible is not a real book. It is many books that some one else decided you could handle. Take a look at history, including many "myths" and it all starts to make sense.

[malachigreenidge]

people, the problem here is that you believe what modern history has taught you. We have been taught that the ancient Greeks just "imagined" all these gods up in their head. They didn't. These gods were "REAL" beings. They ruled the earth before the flood, and just after the flood as well. The Bible mentions them in Genesis 6. It doesn't go through a thorough history for us, just a mention to help put those gods into the historical context of the scriptures. We can now date that society by biblical dating methods, and get an exact time to confirm the days that the "sons of God" were on the earth.
The Bible doesn't speak of myths, its speaks of truth. The truth is the Greek gods existed. But they weren't "real" gods. "Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me." (Isaiah 46:9)
They were fallen angels, and hybrids of their offspring with human women. And they lied to the humans of that age, and came with "great signs and wonders" (Matt. 24:24), decieving them, just like they will do again in this present age, right before the FINAL return of Christ. The Greeks wrote a history of the events, of the acts of these gods as it pertained to Greek culture. And apparently it completely sculpted their culture. Archeology supports greek culture and the acts of many of these gods.
the Bible did not write a history of the greeks, thats all. The Bible wrote a history of the Jews, and the One True God, that would one day come back to save the world! Praise God! Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the greek gods were mythos, or that other "gods" (as percieved by humans), do not exist. They are not the Creator God of the Bible, because they too are created beings. There is only One True Creator God,(Ex 20:1-4) Ancient humans viewed the Greek gods as gods, because they had powers beyond human ability. The Bible clearly states that satan is the "prince of the power of the air." They had the power of lightning, and fire, and DNA mixed breeding of humans with fallen angels and with animals as well. Some could change form at will, etc. Its all there, just read the Illiad, or greek gods and heroes. There all in the book of Enoch, if you want a Jewish version of the Greek Gods. Its not canon, but its still a historical document, and it stabilizes the greek mythos not as mythos at all, but as accurarate, reverent human-kind history.
Jesus is God!! And He will land on Israel soon, and reign on the Holy Mount Zion, in Jerusalem, His chosen city, and put all those other gods to shame!! Come soon Lord Jesus!!!

[duxrow]

:welcome: Whew! What an imagination! The little I know of myths, makes this notion on the order of 'Martians from Krypton'. Even if that were so, why would it make a difference today?

The "sons of God" back then, probably included Abel and Enoch, and Gen6:3 put there as a first taste :hug:
of why marriage should be between believers: one man, one woman.

2Cor6:14"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness?
and what communion hath light with darkness?" :eek:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

people, the problem here is that you believe what modern history has taught you. We have been taught that the ancient Greeks just "imagined" all these gods up in their head. They didn't. These gods were "REAL" beings. They ruled the earth before the flood, and just after the flood as well. The Bible mentions them in Genesis 6. It doesn't go through a thorough history for us, just a mention to help put those gods into the historical context of the scriptures. We can now date that society by biblical dating methods, and get an exact time to confirm the days that the "sons of God" were on the earth.

Hey there Malachi,

Welcome to our forum!

:welcome:

How precise is the "exact time" that the "sons of God" were on the earth. It would be interesting if you explained your "biblical dating methods."

I think that the flood is obviously a myth. How could you think otherwise? We know it is part of much mythology in many cultures. Have you ever thought about the problems with the flood, how it contradicts logic and science? Here are a few questions to get you started, from this post (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3631-The-great-flood/page3&p=52849#post52849) in the thread The Great Flood (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3631-The-great-flood) (which would be a good place to answer if you want to really dig into them):

Evidence against the flood:

1) Continuous ice core samples from Antarctica show no global flood in the last 100,000 years.

2) No mass extinction of land animals in the last 5000 years.

3) No genetic bottle neck that would have come from a mass extinction

4) No explanation for where the millions of species came from (they obviously were not all on the ark)

Etc. The list is essentially endless. The idea of a global flood like that described in the Bible is demonstrably false.




The Bible doesn't speak of myths, its speaks of truth.

How do you know that? The Bible speaks of a seven headed dragon that is very reminiscent of the mythological Greek hydra:

http://www.eaudrey.com/myth/images/Hydra.gif

Merely asserting that the Bible is "true" without giving any good reasons is not very convincing. Muslims and Mormons say the same thing about their "holy books". If you don't believe them, why should anyone believe you? You need to give reasons for your beliefs.



The truth is the Greek gods existed.

That's mere assertion. What evidence do you have?



But they weren't "real" gods. "Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me." (Isaiah 46:9)

They were fallen angels, and hybrids of their offspring with human women.

Why would God create angles that could reproduce with humans? What was his motivation? Did he intend angels to have children with humans? If not, why would he design them with reproductive organs and the ability to produce fertile offspring with an entirely different species? Have you actually thought about this much?



And they lied to the humans of that age, and came with "great signs and wonders" (Matt. 24:24), decieving them, just like they will do again in this present age, right before the FINAL return of Christ.

Christians are like a broken car alarm. They have been blaring "IT IS THE END" for two thousand years. Nothing could be more absurd than to believe them now after a perfect unbroken two thousand year long record of error. There is no group on the planet that should be trusted less than a Christian declaring that we are in the end times. Use car salesmen are ten thousand times more reliable and trustworthy than Christians who claim we are in the "end times".



The Greeks wrote a history of the events, of the acts of these gods as it pertained to Greek culture. And apparently it completely sculpted their culture. Archeology supports greek culture and the acts of many of these gods.

Please quote some "archeology" that supports the "acts of many of these gods." That should be quite interesting! :p



the Bible did not write a history of the greeks, thats all. The Bible wrote a history of the Jews, and the One True God, that would one day come back to save the world! Praise God! Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the greek gods were mythos, or that other "gods" (as percieved by humans), do not exist.

Not true:

Psalm 96:5 For all the gods of the nations are idols: but the LORD made the heavens.

And what are idols? Nothing but dead objects made by the hands of men. There is no life in them and they have no power to do anything at all:

Psalm 115:4 Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men's hands. 5 They have mouths, but they speak not: eyes have they, but they see not: 6 They have ears, but they hear not: noses have they, but they smell not: 7 They have hands, but they handle not: feet have they, but they walk not: neither speak they through their throat. 8 They that make them are like unto them; so is every one that trusteth in them.


Jeremiah 10:14 Every man is brutish in his knowledge: every founder is confounded by the graven image: for his molten image is falsehood, and there is no breath in them. 15 They are vanity, and the work of errors: in the time of their visitation they shall perish.



They are not the Creator God of the Bible, because they too are created beings.

This is your fundamental error. There is not one verse in the bible that says God created the gods worshiped by the nations.



There is only One True Creator God,(Ex 20:1-4) Ancient humans viewed the Greek gods as gods, because they had powers beyond human ability. The Bible clearly states that satan is the "prince of the power of the air." They had the power of lightning, and fire, and DNA mixed breeding of humans with fallen angels and with animals as well. Some could change form at will, etc. Its all there, just read the Illiad, or greek gods and heroes. There all in the book of Enoch, if you want a Jewish version of the Greek Gods. Its not canon, but its still a historical document, and it stabilizes the greek mythos not as mythos at all, but as accurarate, reverent human-kind history.

So you believe the mythology is true. But where is your evidence?



Jesus is God!! And He will land on Israel soon, and reign on the Holy Mount Zion, in Jerusalem, His chosen city, and put all those other gods to shame!! Come soon Lord Jesus!!!

Soon? Really? That's what Christians have been saying for two thousand years! So are you saying that we should expect Jesus to come in the year 4013? :lmbo:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The "sons of God" back then, probably included Abel and Enoch, and Gen6:3 put there as a first taste :hug:
of why marriage should be between believers: one man, one woman.

David, a "man after God's own heart" had many wives. And we know God totally approved, because not only did he not reprove David for having many wives, but he also gave them to David himself!

2 Samuel 12:8 And I [THE LORD] gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

Likewise, Solomon, the wisest man ever to live, had a thousand women (seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines), and God never told him it was against the "divine plan" for marriage as being "one man and one woman".

Folks are imposing their modern ideas upon the Bible. Jesus said not one jot or tittle of the law could pass, and the law allows for polygamy! Therefore, if you are against polygamy you deny the law of God.

[duxrow]

David, a "man after God's own heart" had many wives. And we know God totally approved, because not only did he not reprove David for having many wives, but he also gave them to David himself!

2 Samuel 12:8 And I [THE LORD] gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

Likewise, Solomon, the wisest man ever to live, had a thousand women (seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines), and God never told him it was against the "divine plan" for marriage as being "one man and one woman".

Folks are imposing their modern ideas upon the Bible. Jesus said not one jot or tittle of the law could pass, and the law allows for polygamy! Therefore, if you are against polygamy you deny the law of God.
:talk002: No problem, RAM, but must include the diff between Old and New Testaments. Naturally we enjoy reading about the harems, and Joseph Smith, etc., and no question that it happened, but maybe not "what GOD wants for today", anymore than he intended for the 'incest' of the Abraham era to continue after the Law introduced.
The Solomon story something else again, 'cause he's a type of the New Testament reader who's blessed to be building our spiritual Temple with the material stored in the Bible (like David stored materials for Solomon)for riches of today and knowing that the Holy Spirit is here looking for brides for the Bridegroom, as exemplified by Abraham sending his 'servant' with thirsty camels after a bride for Isaac. :winking0071:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

:talk002: No problem, RAM, but must include the diff between Old and New Testaments. Naturally we enjoy reading about the harems, and Joseph Smith, etc., and no question that it happened, but maybe not "what GOD wants for today", anymore than he intended for the 'incest' of the Abraham era to continue after the Law introduced.
The Solomon story something else again, 'cause he's a type of the New Testament reader who's blessed to be building our spiritual Temple with the material stored in the Bible (like David stored materials for Solomon)for riches of today and knowing that the Holy Spirit is here looking for brides for the Bridegroom, as exemplified by Abraham sending his 'servant' with thirsty camels after a bride for Isaac. :winking0071:
Hummm ... my wife has never "enjoyed" reading about the harems of women owned by "men of God" in the Old Testament.

I don't follow how Solomon owning a thousand women is supposed to be a metaphor for modern Christians "building a spiritual Temple". How does something as carnal as owning a thousand women serve as a symbol for something spiritual and good?

[duxrow]

hmm..sorry 'bout your wife. MEN are the OT focus, and many, if not most of us men, have enjoyed those Arabian scenes.. Even so, in this modern world it seems that more women are following Christ, than men. Kinda like before the Resurrection maybe?

The allegory is that WE in the NT are 'brides' for the coming Bridegroom. Yeah, that's right, even the men are 'bridegrooms' and pregnant at that (if they have Christ within..):winking0071: So in effect, it's GOD (or Jesus) who has the many wives!

[regalia432]

I can't even begin to quote so many things i could comment on here, but I do have to admit I have thought that the myths of ancient times weren't in fact "myths." Especially when it comes to Greek gods/goddesses. The ancient pictographs depict giants and half human, half animal hybrids (nephilim-types), especially drawn much taller than the people in the images. I have seen some showing waves and technologies that were very advanced, so I must agree with fellow new-poster above. So Christians do believe in "mythology" (at least this one does)!
I'd like to submit a couple things if I may. The Bible speaks of Og and others being 13-30+ feet tall (in cubits of course) so I knew there were giants. My best guess was that 1. The earth was billions of years old (according to the 3 earth ages spoken of in 2 Peter 3:5-10, Matt 13:39-40, Isa 51:9) so very possible that this is a cyclical event recurring in history. 2. The word "world" can be translated as "land mass" and "age" so I don't think it was a full-earth flood. The book of Jubilees (and possibly Jasher...can't recall) confirms this. 3. Paul was a major plagiarist (give me a second, brethren), who happens to have the same spelling as Sheol in Hebrew, has some nasty parallels with King Saul (also spelled Sheol) and until students compare the Benjamite "wolf" (their mascot) in sheep's clothing that Yehoshua warned about (who makes the Bible appear to contradict itself) we will think all Christians believe the infallible Word is only contained in those books. In The Testament of the 12 Patriarchs, Benjamin foretells that one of his future "sons" will give their tribe the name of ravenous wolves.
Next I found that Luke specifically calls Paul out for being buddies with the trojan horse spies to give us clues. Acts 5:3: "`Ananias,' Peter asked, `why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit?'"
Why would Paul's best buddy who healed him from his "blindness" be a liar? Pretty strong words. Clue 1.
This next quote is from http://www.thenazareneway.com/The%20Gospel%20of%20Paul.htm
*
And Luke also mentioned the very important name, Pyrrhus:
*
Acts 20:4-6: "[Paul] was accompanied by Sopater, son of Pyrrhus of Beroea…these went ahead and were waiting for us at Troas…where we stayed for seven days." (Troy)
*
One of the early translators did a strange thing with the name, Pyrrhus: He omitted it! And the King James Version did the same.
*
Who was Pyrrhus to the Greeks? Pyrrhus, The Fool of Hope, was a story Plutarch wrote and titled at about the same time Luke's gospel was being penned. Why is it important? It includes the following:
*
"Pyrrhus also sent some agents, who pretended to be Macedonians.* These spies spread the suggestion that now the time had come to be liberated from the harsh rule of Demetrius by joining Pyrrhus, who was a gracious friend of soldiers."
*
"And so without fighting, Pyrrhus became King of Macedonia…" (Emphases added.)
*
Another piece of information about Pyrrhus is of great importance, and it's probably the reason his name was expunged from early biblical texts: According to the Legend of Troy as told by Homer, Pyrrhus was one of the soldiers who participated in the Trojan horse saga. And that is the best-known legacy from the legend of Troy. It's what everyone thinks of when Troy and the Trojan War are mentioned. The name Pyrrhus was inserted here in Luke's gospel in the same sentence as Troas to direct the reader to the legend of the Trojan Horse. According to both Homer and Plutarch, Pyrrhus was the most famous spy in history at the time Luke's gospel was being written!
*
Plutarch*wrote Pyrrhus, The Fool of Hope after the early churches had begun using Paul's epistles as their "gospel." Luke wrote about this Fool of Hope to alert “Theophilus� to the truth about Paul, knowing that some would eventually see the parallel he had drawn between Pyrrhus and Paul.

By the way, history records that Paul went by at least 4 different names. Pretty interesting if he hung out with spies. ;)
I ignored these facts for a long time as I wasn't ready to "hear" them, but the evidence is overwhelming that Paul's writings came from Hellenistic teachings of Hermes and Philo (and even Corinthians 13 "love" verses are taken from Essene Gospel of Peace). So there is the tie in to the mythology...Paul stole Hermes' writings (link below-Jewish encyclopedia cites the exact places and pages).
I must study it more in Revelation, but Just reading through the verses quoted, the keys to hell just may have very well been old Sheol/Paul himself. After all, if I am correct about him being a false apostle, then millions of people are lead astray by the fact that Yehoushua says he came not to change one jot or tittle of the law (Matt 5:17), and Paul teaches Christ did away with the law. I dont know why I never saw this before. The Roman Catholic church canonized the Bible books and called Paul "the father of Christianity." Here's a deeper thought. Paul baptized the woman selling purple, Lydia of Thyatira...woman clothed in purple from Revelation, perhaps?? Matt 13:33 Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.
Who are we warned about from Messiah himself? The leaven of the Pharisees. Paul was a Pharisee. We are given so, so many warnings and we fail to see it (at least I did). Looking forward to responses as I am just being shown all of this Paul stuff. I can't even go into the number 13 and the 13th apostle writing 13 epistles. Matthew 13 sums it all up.
http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13232-saul-of-tarsus
http://problemswithpaul.com/

[malachigreenidge]

Hey there Malachi,

Welcome to our forum!

:welcome:

How precise is the "exact time" that the "sons of God" were on the earth. It would be interesting if you explained your "biblical dating methods."

I will have to get back to you on this one in its own post!

I think that the flood is obviously a myth. How could you think otherwise? We know it is part of much mythology in many cultures. Have you ever thought about the problems with the flood, how it contradicts logic and science? Here are a few questions to get you started, from this post (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3631-The-great-flood/page3&p=52849#post52849) in the thread The Great Flood (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3631-The-great-flood) (which would be a good place to answer if you want to really dig into them):

Evidence against the flood:

1) Continuous ice core samples from Antarctica show no global flood in the last 100,000 years.

2) No mass extinction of land animals in the last 5000 years.

3) No genetic bottle neck that would have come from a mass extinction

4) No explanation for where the millions of species came from (they obviously were not all on the ark)

Etc. The list is essentially endless. The idea of a global flood like that described in the Bible is demonstrably false.

Hi RIchard, glad to search and try to answer your questions! Let me first start by explaining my life-view, or the paradigm from which I operate. I believe this is where most people cannot bridge gaps. Because we are not going to agree on dates of events. The dates you mention are based on an evolutionary world view. I operate from a Biblical World View. The reality is this: Neither of us were there at the beginning, so whether you believe in the Bible, the greek myths, or evolution, we are ALL putting faith in the writers of these world views. My biblical beliefs are based on my relationship with Jesus Christ, and my experiences in and through Him in this world. I hold the Bible to be true, and as my measuring stick to all other texts and things written or imagined, including evolution. My faith in Jesus leads me to this conclusion, not the other way around. Although my growing knowledge of the Bible certainly increases my faith.
1) I do not regard evolution as fact at all, or any part of it, as it pertains to the origin of the cosmos or of any life on earth. I consider it myth. So Im not going to argue about "proofs" concerning evolution vs. creation. With that in mind, I believe in a biblical world view that the earth is less than 10000 years old.
So 100 000 yr old ice caps are not evidence to me, they're a lie. Even so, if I am to consider it for the sake of this argument, simple logic leads me to this question. How is it that people (evolutionists) believe the earth was once covered in "ice," but a world-wide-flood couldnt happen??? Is not ice just frozen water??? Did the ice-age ice "flow" throughout the earth while it was frozen?? No, this is completely illogical. The water would have had to cover the earth first, and then some cataclysmic event would have frozen it. There would be no ice-age without water covering the earth in its liquid form first. Furthermore, there are over 200 world-wide flood stories from ancient literature. If that many different cultures and peoples wrote about an event, chances are it happened in some form or another. The reality is, we both believe that the world was once covered in water. You believe it was frozen, I believe it was from a flood. So its not the event thats in question here, its the source from which the story was told. I hold to the testimony that the Biblical Interpretation is the correct one.
2)3) & 4) Again this question is based on an evolutionary wold view. The animals did not go extinct according to the Bible. They were preserved, some by 2's and some in groups of 7's, on the Ark. The bible says they brought forth after their own "kind." Dogs breed dogs, lizards after lizards, birds after birds, etc. Modern scientific defintion of a "species" (which is a study in iteself) is not the biblical definition of a "kind" (another study) of animal. Evolutionary scientists love to come up with "new species" of dinosaurs for example, cause it gets them a new grant to continue their work, money, fame, etc. But the death of all animals at the time of the flood, was not extinction. There were still dinosaurs after the flood as well. But the earth was different pre and post flood. According to the Bible, (Genesis) before the flood, the earth was watered by a mist from the ground, and there was an atmosphere of water around the earth as well. (which would have blocked out all radiation, and is why people lived so long pre-flood) It did not rain until the flood. The waters that were under the earth, (of which there are still many today) broke open into the sky and atmosphere, the waters above the earth were released as well and also fell on the earth, causing a world wide flood. If there was no flood, and at one time according to evolution, the earth was not 70% covered in water but was one giant land mass, then where did all the water come from??? THey have no answer for this, nor migration of people, or how people even got here, and became male and female, or how we got different races of humans either.There are more holes and questions in evolution than in the Biblical creation account.
side note: Seventy-one percent of the earth's surface today is indeed water-the oceans average 3.8 kilometers deep. Only 29% of the earth's surface is land-whose average elevation is only 623 meters! If all the continents and land masses were leveled into the sea using a giant bulldozer, nearly two miles of water would cover our entire earth. Glaciers and ice caps hold about two percent of earth's water; were they all to melt, sea levels around the world would rise 40 meters-a big problem for many large sea-level cities should this happen. The earth's atmosphere today holds only about two inches of precipitable water-this is constantly being replenished by the hydrologic cycle. There was a flood Richard!

How do you know that? The Bible speaks of a seven headed dragon that is very reminiscent of the mythological Greek hydra:

http://www.eaudrey.com/myth/images/Hydra.gif

Merely asserting that the Bible is "true" without giving any good reasons is not very convincing. Muslims and Mormons say the same thing about their "holy books". If you don't believe them, why should anyone believe you? You need to give reasons for your beliefs.

That's mere assertion. What evidence do you have?

So you believe in dinosaurs but not dragons?? Whats the difference, theyre both just giant lizards. Evolutionists also believe that T-rex was possibly fire breathing. All of eastern and European cutlures have dragons in their artwork, literature, and architecture. It would seem by the account of our ancestors that there were dragons. The word "dinosaur" was not invented until 1842 by paleontologist Richard Owen, which is derived from the latin meaning, "terrible lizard." Dragons are terrible lizards, wouldn't you say? Also, it is a well known characteristic of lizards, that they keep growing until they die. How big do you think a lizard would get if it lived 1000 years, like people did in pre-flood era?? So again, we arrive at the same conclusion, that there were once giant lizard animals that lived on the earth. And again, its the source of our world views that creates the different beliefs as to when, how and why. Dragons existed, just as other "terrible lizards" did, along side mankind.

Why would God create angles that could reproduce with humans? What was his motivation? Did he intend angels to have children with humans? If not, why would he design them with reproductive organs and the ability to produce fertile offspring with an entirely different species? Have you actually thought about this much?

Good question. I do not know why God created things the way He did. Or even why He allows sin, or any of this. I don't know why. But one day I believe I will. Just like when we die, we will know for sure who is right and wrong. My faith in the Bible starts with my relationship with the Person of Jesus. That may not be acceptable to you, and I understand that, but I believe its important for the sake of this and future discussions. Back to the angels, according to the Bible, the Angels were created "good" (perfect, without sin). They sinned, satan first, and 1/3 of the others followed him. They were not suppose to mingle with women, but they did. (Jude 1, Genesis 6). And what we have now are written accounts of " some sort of non-human, but human-like beings coming from the heavens, (what today's science calls outerspace) with supernatural abilities beyond human capacity." The greeks, the babylonians, the egyptians, the Jews, the phoenicians, all wrote of accounts with heavenly beings. So are they all lying? Do we have these accounts today? Do you know how many governments have released information in the past 20 years on previously classified UFO and alien files?? Google it, its unbelievable what they are now admitting. And what are aliens by modern standards? "some sort of non-human, but human like beings that come from outer space (the heavens) with technological abilities beyond our own understanding." have YOU considered it? oh, and on a side note, bones of GIANTS have been found and documented for over 4 centuries now. Even just here in North America alone. what did the smithsonian do with all those bones they were sent?? You think humans built the pyramids? These questions are easily answered when we consider the Biblical worldview.

Christians are like a broken car alarm. They have been blaring "IT IS THE END" for two thousand years. Nothing could be more absurd than to believe them now after a perfect unbroken two thousand year long record of error. There is no group on the planet that should be trusted less than a Christian declaring that we are in the end times. Use car salesmen are ten thousand times more reliable and trustworthy than Christians who claim we are in the "end times".

haha, Israel is made a nation in 1948 on the heals of the holocaust after 2000 years without a land, thanks to the United Nations, who have us spiralling toward a unified one-world government. Just the temple needs to be rebuilt now. Even the furnishings have been made to Torah specs, and are stored away awaiting its erection! The earth is clearly dying, and its people are lost. You know of anyone else coming back? No? me neither.


Please quote some "archeology" that supports the "acts of many of these gods." That should be quite interesting! :p
http://www.bootsnall.com/articles/11-04/9-greek-archaeological-sites-that-will-leave-you-breathless.html

in depth research will be in my book, here's a quick link.

Not true:

Psalm 96:5 For all the gods of the nations are idols: but the LORD made the heavens.

And what are idols? Nothing but dead objects made by the hands of men. There is no life in them and they have no power to do anything at all:

Psalm 115:4 Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men's hands. 5 They have mouths, but they speak not: eyes have they, but they see not: 6 They have ears, but they hear not: noses have they, but they smell not: 7 They have hands, but they handle not: feet have they, but they walk not: neither speak they through their throat. 8 They that make them are like unto them; so is every one that trusteth in them.


Jeremiah 10:14 Every man is brutish in his knowledge: every founder is confounded by the graven image: for his molten image is falsehood, and there is no breath in them. 15 They are vanity, and the work of errors: in the time of their visitation they shall perish.


This is your fundamental error. There is not one verse in the bible that says God created the gods worshiped by the nations.

These are the psalms of David. He was born 907 BCE and died 837 BCE. The earliest of Greek religions and Gods began when the Ionics built their culture on the Greek peninsula. This was between 1400 B.C.E. and 1200 B.C.E. Thats a 300-500 year difference. The "gods" of the ancient greeks were dead by the time of David. Even though Homer wrote in the same century as David, he was writing of the past. David was writing about the "present" of his time. The "gods" the other nations were worshipping at that time were statues they had built of these ancient deities, that they believed once lived. But greek "mythology" clearly tells us that the people of that time DID in fact worship these gods. You may not believe it, but thats what is written. So it is Greek mythology that tells us people worshipped these gods come down from the sky, and it is the Bible that tells us that these gods were fallen angels, and that all things in the universe were created by God.


So you believe the mythology is true. But where is your evidence?
I believe it to be true, which I am now on a quest to prove. This is part of it. Don't have it bound in a book for you yet, but hopefully soon I will. Ill send you the first copy Richard!



Soon? Really? That's what Christians have been saying for two thousand years! So are you saying that we should expect Jesus to come in the year 4013? :lmbo:
you beleive the earth to be what, 10 billion years old or so?? If that is your timeframe, then yes, even 4013 would be really soon considering that equation. A man that doesnt show himself for 10 billion years, suddenly appears on the scene, claims to be God, dies, ressurrects, goes back to heaven and tells His followers, "Im coming again soon." I'd say 2000 or 4000 years is extremely soon within the "billions of years" timeframe, wouldn't you? If you had 10 billion dollars and I asked you for two thousand of it, or how about this, since its really actually hard for most of us to even fathom such a large number as a billion. Comparitively, If you had 1 million dollars in your hand, would you consider it much if I asked you for 20 or 40 cents? Probably not. He's coming back REAL soon Richard!

[malachigreenidge]

:welcome: Whew! What an imagination! The little I know of myths, makes this notion on the order of 'Martians from Krypton'. Even if that were so, why would it make a difference today?

You write as a believer, I hope you are, praise be to God. But you just admitted you know very little about myths, so please educate yourself before you reply. Especially since were common in the faith, brothers in Christ. My imagination is certainly no greater than those millions that built alters, idols and powerful societies to the beliefs that the Greek gods were real. Regardless of your or my beliefs, we stand on the shoulders of giants in this modern day society.
What has been is what will be,
and what has been done is what will be done;
there is nothing new under the sun.
Ecclesiastes 1:9

And as I told Richard, aliens, or "martians from krypton" as you put it(by the way, martians would be from mars, and kryptonites would be from krypton), have been documented for ions. Everything can be simplified to its lowest common denominator. What are aliens by modern terms? Non-human, but human-like beings that come from outerspace. What are the "sons of god" mentioned in the bible? Non-human, but human like beings that come from the heavens (now called outerspace). Documentation of aliens in this century are at an all-time high. Just google it. See how many governments have released peviously classified intel in the last 20 years on UFO interaction. Look at Hollywood, what are they promoting? Supernatural beings, DC Comic movies, werewolves and vampires, alien movies, paranormal, etc, the list goes on. They are preparing the unprepared masses for the acceptance of "other" life forms. Lying and decieving people about the real origin of these coming creatures. They will come and land on earth and usher in the short-lived One world totalitarian government of the anti-christ. They will show powers "signs and wonders" that this present population of the world has not seen. What we believe to be myth. And many will be lead astray because of it. God help us...


The "sons of God" back then, probably included Abel and Enoch, and Gen6:3 put there as a first taste :hug:
of why marriage should be between believers: one man, one woman.

Probably??? is that the basis of your argument, probably?? Are you dutch reform? If you open your dusty Bible to the book of Job, you will see that the "sons of God" were with satan at the trials of Job as well. You think that was Abel and Enoch too? It is the exact same term in the Hebrew text in Genesis as it is in Job. The Bible clearly explains that Abel was the son of Adam, and Enoch his grandson from Cain. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that either of them were "sons of God."
Why do people twist Biblical texts, it drives me NUTS, especially when its just as plain as day as it reads, straight from the text.


2Cor6:14"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness?
and what communion hath light with darkness?" :eek:

?????? What has this to do with anything on this topic?

[malachigreenidge]

Im sorry about this, but How do i separate my texts from the texts Im responding to in those nice little boxes??

[duxrow]

OK, Malachee, separate the text using the icons clear to the right of the bolden or underline text. I'm prob not the best one to describe, but maybe will help..

Scuze my sumzhymer, mybad, for not remembering or recognizing ur zeal for mythology -- Nope, don't see any way that connects to scripture, unless Gen6:3 verbal notion 'inspired' Grk writers and orators of an early era. Story telling leads to hyperbole, you think?

Genesis expounds on the four (4) generations of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph (father-to-son) and speaks of the four (4) generations they will spend in Egypt. Matthew expounds on the 3x14 Generations of Jesus.

God-breathed of Gen2:7, John20:22, and 2Tim3:16. The Holy Ghostwriter is telling us about Jesus being "the Way, the Truth, and the LIFE that comes from The WORD (Sword of the Spirit, Eph6).

From the Mark on Cain in Genesis, to Mark of Beast in Revelation, and more than 30 similarities between these two 'Book-Ends' of the Bible. :thumb:

[malachigreenidge]

Evidence against the flood:

1) Continuous ice core samples from Antarctica show no global flood in the last 100,000 years.

2) No mass extinction of land animals in the last 5000 years.

3) No genetic bottle neck that would have come from a mass extinction

4) No explanation for where the millions of species came from (they obviously were not all on the ark)

Etc. The list is essentially endless. The idea of a global flood like that described in the Bible is demonstrably false.

1) I do not regard evolution as fact at all, or any part of it, as it pertains to the origin of the cosmos or of any life on earth. I consider it myth. So Im not going to argue about "proofs" concerning evolution vs. creation. Its endless, and will just lead off course. With that in mind, I believe in a biblical world view that the earth is less than 10000 years old. That is my stance.
So 100 000 yr old ice caps are not evidence to me, they're a lie. Even so, if I am to consider that it is possible, for the sake of this argument, how is it that people believe the earth was once covered in "ice," but a world-wide-flood couldnt happen??? Is not ice just frozen water??? Did the ice-age ice "flow" throughout the earth while it was frozen?? No, this is illogical. The water would have had to cover the earth first, and then some cataclysmic event would have frozen it. There would be no ice-age without water covering the earth in its liquid form first. Furthermore, there are over 200 world-wide flood stories from ancient literature. If that many different cultures and peoples wrote about an event, chances are it happened in some form or another. The reality is, we both belive that the world was once covered in water. You believe it was frozen, I believe it was from a flood. So its not the event thats in question here, its the source from which the story was told. I hold to the testimony that the Biblical Interpretation is the correct one.
2)3) & 4) Again this question is based on an evolutionary wold view. The animals did not go extinct according to the Bible. They were preserved, some by 2's and some in groups of 7's, on the Ark. The bible says they brought forth after their own "kind." Dogs breed dogs, lizards after lizards, birds after birds, etc. Scientific defintion of a "species" is not neccesarily the biblical definition of a "kind" of animal. Evolutionary scientists love to come up with "new species" of dinosaurs for example, cause it gets them a new grant to continue their work, money, fame, etc. But the death of all animals at the time of the flood, was not extinction. There were still dinosaurs after the flood as well. But the earth was different pre and post flood. According to the Bible, (Genesis) before the flood, the earth was watered by a mist from the ground, and there was an atmosphere of water around the earth as well. (which would have blocked out all radiation, and is why people lived so long pre-flood) It did not rain until the flood. The waters that were under the earth, broke open into the sky and atmosphere, the waters above the earth were released as well and also fell on the earth, causing a world wide flood. If there was no flood, and at one time according to evolution, the earth was not 70% covered in water but was one giant land mass, then where did all the water come from??? THey have no answer for this, nor migration of people, or how people even got here, and became male and female, or how we got different races of humans either. There are more holes and questions in evolution than in the Biblical creation account.


How do you know that? The Bible speaks of a seven headed dragon that is very reminiscent of the mythological Greek hydra:

Here again, you are starting from a place where you believe that the dragon is "mythological." Even though you don't believe in them, have you put these questoins into a hypothetical context, so that you can discern them unbiasedly? I want to know, how is it you believe in dinosaurs but not dragons?? Whats the difference? Theyre both just giant lizards. Evolutionists have presented scientific evidence that what they call "T-rex" was possibly fire breathing. All of eastern and European cultures have dragons in their artwork, literature, and architecture. It would seem by the account of our ancestors that there were dragons. The word "dragon" wasn't specifically attached to just "fire-breathing" giant lizards either. It was the common word to group the type of animals for what we now call dinosaurs. The word "dinosaur" was not invented until 1842 by paleontologist Richard Owen, which is derived from the latin meaning, "terrible lizard." Dragons, real or false, are terrible lizards, wouldn't you say? Also, it is a well known characteristic of lizards, that they keep growing until they die, if not limited by the size of their environment. How big do you think a lizard would get if it lived 1000 years, like people did in pre-flood era?? So again, if we look at the lowest comon denominator, we arrive at the same conclusion. That there were once giant lizard animals that lived on the earth. And again, its the source of our world views that creates the different beliefs as to when, how and why. Dragons existed, just as other "terrible lizards" did, along side mankind.

[QOUTE]Merely asserting that the Bible is "true" without giving any good reasons is not very convincing. Muslims and Mormons say the same thing about their "holy books". If you don't believe them, why should anyone believe you? You need to give reasons for your beliefs.[/QUOTE]

I believe the Bible to be true, based on my personal relationship and ongoing experiences with the person of Jesus Christ. I was a drug dealing, using, lost sinner. Jesus saved me, and brought me to a place of understanding that I needed Him to be in right standing with God. The Bible is the Word of God, according to the Bible (John 1). I understand that this may not, or does not bear significance with you, but that is my stance. From there, what you and others decide to believe is up to you.


Why would God create angles that could reproduce with humans? What was his motivation? Did he intend angels to have children with humans? If not, why would he design them with reproductive organs and the ability to produce fertile offspring with an entirely different species? Have you actually thought about this much?

Good question. I do not know "why" God created things the way He did. Or even why He allows sin, or any of this. I don't know "why." But one day I believe I will. Just like when we die, we will know for sure who is right and wrong. That's like me asking you "why" did evolution happen? You can give me all the scientific data you want, but it doesn's answer the question "why," it just answers "how." Back to the angels. According to the Bible, the Angels were created "good" (perfect, without sin). They sinned, satan first, and 1/3 of the others followed him. They were not suppose to mingle with women, but they did. (Jude 1, Genesis 6). If we go back to the lowest common denominator, what we have now are written accounts (ie: Greek mythology) of "some sort of non-human, but human-like beings coming from the heavens, (what today's science calls outerspace) with supernatural abilities beyond human capacity." The greeks, the babylonians, the egyptians, the Jews, the phoenicians, all wrote of accounts with heavenly beings. So are they all lying? Do we have these accounts today? Do you know how many governments have released information in the past 20 years on previously classified UFO and alien files?? Google it, its unbelievable what they are now admitting. And what are aliens by modern standards? "some sort of non-human, but human like beings that come from outer space (the heavens) with technological abilities beyond our own understanding." have YOU considered it? oh, and on a side note, bones of GIANTS have been found and publicly documented for over 4 centuries now, even just here in North America alone. What did the smithsonian do with all those bones they were sent?? You think humans built the pyramids? These questions and others like it are easily understood and answered when we consider the Biblical worldview.


Christians are like a broken car alarm. They have been blaring "IT IS THE END" for two thousand years. Nothing could be more absurd than to believe them now after a perfect unbroken two thousand year long record of error. There is no group on the planet that should be trusted less than a Christian declaring that we are in the end times. Use car salesmen are ten thousand times more reliable and trustworthy than Christians who claim we are in the "end times".
haha, where do I start and still make this short? Israel is made a nation in 1948 on the heals of the holocaust after 2000 years without a land, thanks to the United Nations(head of the NWO), who have us spiralling toward a unified one-world government. Just the temple needs to be rebuilt now. Even the furnishings have been made to Torah specs, and are stored away awaiting its erection! The earth is clearly dying, (even the false teaching of evolution tells us this) and its people are lost. Wars, rumours of wars, etc., I could go on and on. You're well versed in the Bible, you know what the signs are, now open your eyes Richard.


Please quote some "archeology" that supports the "acts of many of these gods." That should be quite interesting! :p
http://www.bootsnall.com/articles/11-04/9-greek-archaeological-sites-that-will-leave-you-breathless.html
Richard, they built an Empire based on these beliefs. Temples, Pantheons, idols, statues, and on and on. More in depth research will be in my book, here's a quick link.


Psalm 115:4 Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men's hands. 5 They have mouths, but they speak not: eyes have they, but they see not: 6 They have ears, but they hear not: noses have they, but they smell not: 7 They have hands, but they handle not: feet have they, but they walk not: neither speak they through their throat. 8 They that make them are like unto them; so is every one that trusteth in them.

Jeremiah 10:14 Every man is brutish in his knowledge: every founder is confounded by the graven image: for his molten image is falsehood, and there is no breath in them. 15 They are vanity, and the work of errors: in the time of their visitation they shall perish.

This is your fundamental error. There is not one verse in the bible that says God created the gods worshiped by the nations.
These are the psalms of David. He was born 907 BCE and died 837 BCE. The earliest of Greek religions and Gods began when the Ionics built their culture on the Greek peninsula. This was between 1400 B.C.E. and 1200 B.C.E. The "gods" of the ancient greeks were dead by the time of David. Even though Homer wrote in the same century as David, he was writing of the past. David was writing about the "present" of his time. The "gods" the other nations were worshipping at that time were statues (idols) they had built of these ancient deities, that they believed once lived. But greek "mythology" clearly tells us that the people of that time DID in fact worship these gods. You may not believe they were real, but thats what is written. So it is Greek mythology that tells us people worshipped these gods come down from the sky. When you cross reference the greek beliefs with the authority of the Bible, we see it written that these "gods" came down from the sky, and had sex with women and bore children,(Genesis 6) which is exactly what the Greek "myths" propose. That is the entire basis of Greek "mythology." The Bible tells us that God created ALL things in the universe, and without Him, NOTHING was created(Collosians 1:16). So that would include the fallen angels in Genesis who presented themselves to the Greeks (and other cultures) as gods.


Soon? Really? That's what Christians have been saying for two thousand years! So are you saying that we should expect Jesus to come in the year 4013? :lmbo:

So then, if you hold to the evolutionary theory, you beleive the earth to be what, 10 billion years old or so?? If that is your timeframe, then yes, even 4013 would be really soon considering that equation. A man that doesnt show himself for 10 billion years, suddenly appears on the scene, claims to be God, dies, ressurrects, goes back to heaven and tells His followers, "Im coming again soon." I'd say 2000 or 4000 years is extremely soon within the "billions of years" timeframe, wouldn't you? If you had 10 billion dollars and I asked you for two thousand of it, or how about this, since its really actually hard for most of us to even fathom such a large number as a billion. Comparitively, If you had 1million dollars in a briefcase in your hand, would you consider it much if I asked you for 20 or 40 cents? Unless you were extremely selfish, probably not. He's coming back REAL soon Richard!

[malachigreenidge]

Hi Dux, my Name is Malachi, not malachee. Its the last book of the old testament, and it means Angel, or Messenger of God." How fitting!:winking0071:
my Zeal is for God, and His truth. And the truth is, that "the sons of God" came down from the heavens and had sex with women, and bore children. I don't know how you don't see the relation between Genesis 6 and the Greek gods. Are we reading a different bible?

Gen 1:1 - When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with[a] humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.�4 [b]The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

This is exactly what Greek "mythology" asserts. That the gods came down and had sex with human women. Thats the whole basis of the entire "mythos"

why would the text read in verse 4, "the sons of God went to the daughters of humans, and had children by them." if they weren't non-human beings. If it was Abel or Enoch who went into these women, the text wouldnt need to specify that they were the daughters of humans. And the text would have just read that it was Abel or Enoch, not the "sons of God." Show me in the scripture WHERE it references Abel or Enoch being described as "the sons of God." You can't , because it doesnt.


Genesis expounds on the four (4) generations of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph (father-to-son) and speaks of the four (4) generations they will spend in Egypt. Matthew expounds on the 3x14 Generations of Jesus.

God-breathed of Gen2:7, John20:22, and 2Tim3:16. The Holy Ghostwriter is telling us about Jesus being "the Way, the Truth, and the LIFE that comes from The WORD (Sword of the Spirit, Eph6).

From the Mark on Cain in Genesis, to Mark of Beast in Revelation, and more than 30 similarities between these two 'Book-Ends' of the Bible.

this has nothing to do with the topic at hand, I have no idea why you posted this. Here is my part of my rebuttal to a question Richard proposed, which he hasn't allowed to be put up yet, even though Ive posted it twice.


Why would God create angles that could reproduce with humans? What was his motivation? Did he intend angels to have children with humans? If not, why would he design them with reproductive organs and the ability to produce fertile offspring with an entirely different species? Have you actually thought about this much?

Good question. I do not know "why" God created things the way He did. Or even why He allows sin, or any of this. I don't know why. But one day I believe I will. Just like when we die, we will know for sure who is right and wrong. Back to the angels, according to the Bible, the Angels were created "good" (perfect, without sin). They sinned, satan first, and 1/3 of the others followed him. They were not suppose to mingle with women, but they did. (Jude 1, Genesis 6). If we go back to the lowest common denominator, what we have now are written accounts of "some sort of non-human, but human-like beings coming from the heavens, (what today's science calls outerspace) with supernatural abilities beyond human capacity." The greeks, the babylonians, the egyptians, the Jews, the phoenicians, all wrote of accounts with heavenly beings. So are they all lying? Do we have these accounts today? Do you know how many governments have released information in the past 20 years on previously classified UFO and alien files?? Google it, its unbelievable what they are now admitting. And what are aliens by modern standards? "some sort of non-human, but human like beings that come from outer space (the heavens) with technological abilities beyond our own understanding." have YOU considered it? oh, and on a side note, bones of GIANTS have been found and publicly documented for over 4 centuries now, even just here in North America alone. What did the smithsonian do with all those bones they were sent?? You think humans built the pyramids? These questions and others like it are easily understood and answered when we consider the Biblical worldview.

[malachigreenidge]

Hi RIchard, glad to search and try to answer you questions! Let me first start by explaining my life-view, or the paradigm from which I operate. I believe this is where most people cannot bridge gaps. Because we are not going to agree on dates of events. The dates you mention are based on an evolutionary world view. I operate from a Biblical World View. The reality is this: Neither of us were there at the beginning, so whether you believe in the Bible, the greek myths, or evolution, we are ALL putting faith in the writers of these world views. My biblical beliefs are based on my relationship with Jesus Christ, and my experiences in and through Him in this world. I hold the Bible to be true, and as my measuring stick to all other texts and things written or imagined, including evolution. My faith in Jesus leads me to this conclusion, not the other way around. Although my growing knowledge of the Bible certainly increases my faith.

Evidence against the flood:

1) Continuous ice core samples from Antarctica show no global flood in the last 100,000 years.

2) No mass extinction of land animals in the last 5000 years.

3) No genetic bottle neck that would have come from a mass extinction

4) No explanation for where the millions of species came from (they obviously were not all on the ark)

Etc. The list is essentially endless. The idea of a global flood like that described in the Bible is demonstrably false.

1) I do not regard evolution as fact at all, or any part of it, as it pertains to the origin of the cosmos or of any life on earth. I consider it myth. So Im not going to argue about "proofs" concerning evolution vs. creation. Its endless, and will just lead off course. With that in mind, I believe in a biblical world view that the earth is less than 10000 years old. That is my stance.
So 100 000 yr old ice caps are not evidence to me, they're a lie. Even so, if I am to consider it for the sake of this argument, how is it that people believe the earth was once covered in "ice," but a world-wide-flood couldnt happen??? Is not ice just frozen water??? Did the ice-age ice "flow" throughout the earth while it was frozen?? No, this is illogical. The water would have had to cover the earth first, and then some cataclysmic event would have frozen it. There would be no ice-age without water covering the earth in its liquid form first. Furthermore, there are over 200 world-wide flood stories from ancient literature. If that many different cultures and peoples wrote about an event, chances are it happened in some form or another. The reality is, we both belive that the world was once covered in water. You believe it was frozen, I believe it was from a flood. So its not the event thats in question here, its the source from which the story was told. I hold to the testimony that the Biblical Interpretation is the correct one.
2)3) & 4) Again this question is based on an evolutionary wold view. The animals did not go extinct according to the Bible. They were preserved, some by 2's and some in groups of 7's, on the Ark. The bible says they brought forth after their own "kind." Dogs breed dogs, lizards after lizards, birds after birds, etc. Scientific defintion of a "species" is not neccesarily the biblical definition of a "kind" of animal. Evolutionary scientists love to come up with "new species" of dinosaurs for example, cause it gets them a new grant to continue their work, money, fame, etc. But the death of all animals at the time of the flood, was not extinction. There were still dinosaurs after the flood as well. But the earth was different pre and post flood. According to the Bible, (Genesis) before the flood, the earth was watered by a mist from the ground, and there was an atmosphere of water around the earth as well. (which would have blocked out all radiation, and is why people lived so long pre-flood) It did not rain until the flood. The waters that were under the earth, broke open into the sky and atmosphere, the waters above the earth were released as well and also fell on the earth, causing a world wide flood. There is a theory put forth by Kent Hovind that you might want to look into regarding these events. Its called the Hovind theory, check it out. If there was no flood, and at one time according to evolution, the earth was not 70% covered in water but was one giant land mass, then where did all the water come from??? THey have no answer for this, nor migration of people, or how people even got here, and became male and female, or how we got different races of humans either.There are more holes and questions in evolution than in the Biblical creation account.


How do you know that? The Bible speaks of a seven headed dragon that is very reminiscent of the mythological Greek hydra:

Here again, you are starting from a place where you believe that the dragon is "mythological." Even though you don't believe in them, have you put these questoins into a hypothetical context, so that you can discern them unbiasedly? I want to know, how is it you believe in dinosaurs but not dragons?? Whats the difference? Theyre both just giant lizards. Evolutionists have presented scientific evidence that what they call "T-rex" was possibly fire breathing. All of eastern and European cultures have dragons in their artwork, literature, and architecture. It would seem by the account of our ancestors that there were dragons. The word "dinosaur" was not invented until 1842 by paleontologist Richard Owen, which is derived from the latin meaning, "terrible lizard." Dragons, real or false, are terrible lizards, wouldn't you say? Also, it is a well known characteristic of lizards, that they keep growing until they die, if not limited by the size of their environment. How big do you think a lizard would get if it lived 1000 years, like people did in pre-flood era?? So again, if we look at the lowest comon denominator, we arrive at the same conclusion. That there were once giant lizard animals that lived on the earth. And again, its the source of our world views that creates the different beliefs as to when, how and why. Dragons existed, just as other "terrible lizards" did, along side mankind.


Why would God create angles that could reproduce with humans? What was his motivation? Did he intend angels to have children with humans? If not, why would he design them with reproductive organs and the ability to produce fertile offspring with an entirely different species? Have you actually thought about this much?
Good question. I do not know "why" God created things the way He did. Or even why He allows sin, or any of this. I don't know why. But one day I believe I will. Just like when we die, we will know for sure who is right and wrong. Back to the angels, according to the Bible, the Angels were created "good" (perfect, without sin). They sinned, satan first, and 1/3 of the others followed him. They were not suppose to mingle with women, but they did. (Jude 1, Genesis 6). If we go back to the lowest common denominator, what we have now are written accounts of "some sort of non-human, but human-like beings coming from the heavens, (what today's science calls outerspace) with supernatural abilities beyond human capacity." The greeks, the babylonians, the egyptians, the Jews, the phoenicians, all wrote of accounts with heavenly beings. So are they all lying? Do we have these accounts today? Do you know how many governments have released information in the past 20 years on previously classified UFO and alien files?? Google it, its unbelievable what they are now admitting. And what are aliens by modern standards? "some sort of non-human, but human like beings that come from outer space (the heavens) with technological abilities beyond our own understanding." have YOU considered it? oh, and on a side note, bones of GIANTS have been found and publicly documented for over 4 centuries now, even just here in North America alone. What did the smithsonian do with all those bones they were sent?? You think humans built the pyramids? These questions and others like it are easily understood and answered when we consider the Biblical worldview.


Christians are like a broken car alarm. They have been blaring "IT IS THE END" for two thousand years. Nothing could be more absurd than to believe them now after a perfect unbroken two thousand year long record of error. There is no group on the planet that should be trusted less than a Christian declaring that we are in the end times. Use car salesmen are ten thousand times more reliable and trustworthy than Christians who claim we are in the "end times".
haha, where do I start and still make this short? Israel is made a nation in 1948 on the heals of the holocaust after 2000 years without a land, thanks to the United Nations(head of the NWO), who have us spiralling toward a unified one-world government. Just the temple needs to be rebuilt now. Even the furnishings have been made to Torah specs, and are stored away awaiting its erection! The earth is clearly dying, (even the false teaching of evolution tells us this) and its people are lost. Wars, rumours of wars, etc., I could go on and on. You're well versed in the Bible, you know what the signs are, now open your eyes Richard.


Please quote some "archeology" that supports the "acts of many of these gods." That should be quite interesting! :p
http://www.bootsnall.com/articles/11-04/9-greek-archaeological-sites-that-will-leave-you-breathless.html
Richard, they built an Empire based on these beliefs. Temples, Pantheons, idols, statues, and on and on. More in depth research will be in my book, here's a quick link.

[duxrow]

Why would God create angles that could reproduce with humans?
To my knowledge, he didn't and hasn't, and no marriage in heaven.. Mk12:25
Some think so because of Gen6, but IMO I don't see it..

Greek mythology no more than "Alice in Wonderland", Gulliver's Travels, or Pinocchio..
Grimm's Fairy Tales, and I was once an avid 'Science Fiction' fan, but the Bible is much more
challenging than what Ellery Queen has written, and more profound than what they teach in Sunday School.

I posted the extras to show the 'connection' between OT and NT, and how our Great Author
is also a Teacher and mystery writer who knows the end from the beginning and brings us along carefully to the final chapters. :thumb:

[duxrow]

Roger that, Malachi. When I pastored, I sometime's asked folks to turn to Malachee, just for their consternation, but there's a play on the pronunciation of words between Job and Lot that has always intrigued me, like my studies have said the Jews were so 'touchy' about the name Jehovah that later generations weren't sure of the pronunciation. hah. Point being, I'll pronounce it like it reads, thank you, and maybe for the benefit of the young readers. [*kidding about mal-a-kai]

On a side-note, the word 'pyramid' is not in the Bible, but Egypt is referred to as 'The Land of Ham' in Ps105:23. I've thought about those long-lived persons and how many years they had to do things (much more time than the way we've gone from horse and buggy to space travel).

As Richard would say, 'Nice chatting', and have a good 'un. :yo:

[sylvius]

Hi Dux, my Name is Malachi, not malachee. Its the last book of the old testament, and it means Angel, or Messenger of God." How fitting!:winking0071:
my Zeal is for God, and His truth. And the truth is, that "the sons of God" came down from the heavens and had sex with women, and bore children. I don't know how you don't see the relation between Genesis 6 and the Greek gods. Are we reading a different bible?

Gen 1:1 - When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with[a] humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.�4 [b]The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

This is exactly what Greek "mythology" asserts. That the gods came down and had sex with human women. Thats the whole basis of the entire "mythos"

why would the text read in verse 4, "the sons of God went to the daughters of humans, and had children by them." if they weren't non-human beings. If it was Abel or Enoch who went into these women, the text wouldnt need to specify that they were the daughters of humans. And the text would have just read that it was Abel or Enoch, not the "sons of God." Show me in the scripture WHERE it references Abel or Enoch being described as "the sons of God." You can't , because it doesnt.






http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8171#showrashi=true


the sons of the nobles:Heb. בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים, the sons of the princes (Targumim) and the judges (Gen. Rabbah 26:5). Another explanation: בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים are the princes who go as messengers of the Omnipresent. They too mingled with them (Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer, ch. 22). Every אֱלֹהִים in Scripture is an expression of authority, and the following proves it (Exod. 4:16): “And you shall be to him as a lord (לֵאלֹהִים)â€�; (ibid. 7:1): “See, I have made you a lord (אֶלֹהִים).â€�


The Nephilim: [They were called נְפִילִים because they fell (נָפְלוּ) and caused the world to fall (הִפִּילוּ) (Gen. Rabbah 26:7), and in the Hebrew language it means giants (Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer, ch. 22 and Targum Jonathan).


in those days: in the days of the generation of Enosh and the children of Cain.

[David M]

Why would God create angles that could reproduce with humans?
To my knowledge, he didn't and hasn't, and no marriage in heaven.. Mk12:25
Some think so because of Gen6, but IMO I don't see it..

Hello Dux

I am pleased to hear that. I think you have just removed the faulty corner-stone supporting the false teaching about God's Angels. Taking away that out-of-true corner stone, which is Genesis 6:2, is like taking away the stone which is supporting the building and without it, the building falls down.

Jesus is the cornerstone on which our faith must be built on.
(1 Peter 2)
6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I (God) lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he (you and me) that believeth on him (Jesus) shall not be confounded.
7 Unto you therefore which believe he (Jesus) is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone (Jesus) which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

I think that last verse tells us that it is useless to expect to change the opinion of those people who are destined by their character and nature to remain disobedient and without humility see Jesus as an offensive and stumble in the sense of failing to understand the nature and purpose of Jesus in the purpose of God. Those people remain in the dark and will not come to the light (which is the teaching of Jesus) by which they could understand God's word and see the purpose of God which God has for his Creation.

All the best
David

[malachigreenidge]

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8171#showrashi=true

Thank you for that Sylvius!

[David M]

"The sons of God" which can apply to both Angels and humans means that it is not certain that God's Angels sinned and had sex with women. Angels are not of flesh and blood though they could appear in human form. What the substance of Angels is, we do not know. The context from the whole of the chapter 6 in Genesis in which the "sons of God" are mentioned, is all about humans and the "daughters of men" is speaking about humans. In that context, the "sons of God" should be taken as human. Since it cannot be proven that Angels are of flesh and blood, that makes Angels of a different Kind and by definition, different Kinds cannot interbreed.

There is a division (two camps) in which society falls and the majority is in the camp that is enmity with God.

The two camps are; "the seed of the woman" and the "seed of the serpent". These two camps are there pre and post Flood and represented by those who exhibit one side or the other of man's nature. The one side is compliant and therefore obedient to God and the other side which is in opposition and rebellion is disobedient to God. Like "good" and "bad", "sinfulness" and "righteousness" we have two camps which are opposites.

This is evident in the story of Cain and Abel. Cain was the first murderer and Cain's offering was not acceptable to God and Abel's sacrifice was acceptable. The two men, were opposite in their attitude to God, which is a reflection of that which was in their minds. Post Flood, we have the story of Esau and Jacob. Esau was interested in physical gratification and Jacob was intent on receiving the blessing from God. Hence, we have the earthy and we have the spirit, which are opposites or adversaries and this is the war that goes on in the members of our body, as explained by the Apostle Paul (Rom 7:19).

God knew what the outcome of Esau and Jacob would be and that is why even before Esau was born, God said; "Esau have I hated".

All the stories in which the Devil, Satan or the Serpent feature are presented as picture stories or personifications, are representing the two sides of human nature. Whether individual, or as a group of people like an organization, it is the mind of people which can be represented by the Devil or Satan.

The enmity that was introduced at the beginning was between the "seed of the woman" and the "seed of the serpent". The devil was present in the mind of Jesus and it was the devil which Jesus had to overcome. Jesus resisted the devil which was in his mind which was manifest by the thoughts which were in opposition to God's will, and so Jesus had to suppress his own will and replace his will with doing God's will.

The final victory which Jesus won was over the devil and by the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, the devil was defeated. The penalty/wages of sin is death. and death leads to the grave and the returning to dust. The devil/satan leads to self gratification like that of Esau and is the same as the lust of the flesh. The sequence begins in the mind leading to the manifestation of sin. (James 1:14) But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. 15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. 16 Do not err, my beloved brethren.

(Gal 5:16) This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. 17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

The battle which is in human nature or the flesh is the way God has made us and it does not mean that we have been made imperfect by never being able to live a perfect life which is completely obedient to doing God's will. God he created man knowing that with the right guidance, it is possible for a human to live a perfect life. Jesus (a man) proved it was possible. The only thing that is not perfect in the way we have been made is that this body is corruptible. Without the means to live for ever, this body eventually dies. Jesus died even thought he had not sinned. It was for that reason, God could not leave the body of Jesus in the grave, because he had not sinned. Jesus had not earned the penalty of eternal death, and so God raised him form the dead, giving us the assurance of the resurrection from the dead. Our battle is with ourselves and that side of our nature (in the mind) that is the adversary to God. The final solution for those who win the victory through Christ, win the victory over the devil in that they are raised from the dead and are given an incorruptible body. This in effect is a spirit body, or a heavenly body, since the gift is from God (in Heaven) and through His only begotten Son is given unto them who are raised from the dead.

Jesus is in second place to God having been given the highest name that is above every name and Jesus is in Heaven waiting the time of the restitution of all things whereby he will return to the earth. In nature, those who are resurrected have the same eternal (spirit) body as Christ, and therefore have the same nature as Christ, but do not have his pre-eminence. Being eternal, the same as Christ is eternal, does not mean those given eternal lives have the same substance as God. God remains ONE of which there is none else like him and God is the sole Creator. Having eternal life, the same as Jesus has now, makes those equal with God in terms of not being able to die. They are still not equal with God, for all power belongs to God. That is why God's power was granted in fullness to Jesus for Jesus to use in the purpose of God. That was the greatest temptation for Jesus to use God's power for his own glory and not the glory of God. The most agonizing temptation for Jesus was that in which he desired the cup to depart from him. That cup represented the pain and suffering he would feel when tortured and crucified on the tree.

An understanding of Hebrews 2:14 in which Jesus defeats the devil that was in his nature and that part to his mind that if he followed his thoughts contrary to God's will would have lead to sin and death. That is what Jesus defeated and so vindicated God that it was possible to lead a sinless life.

(Hebrews 2:14) Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;. This has to be a personal battle and the devil inside us has to be destroyed (obliterated) eventually. If the devil is a fallen Angel of God responsible for causing everyone to go astray, how come the devil is still alive after Jesus destroyed (obliterated) the devil?

The grave of hell is finally obliterated because finally the last enemy to be defeated by Christ is death itself. That is when we read in Revelation of the symbolic throwing into the lake of fire, hell and death (Rev 20:14).

David


David

[Rose]

1) I do not regard evolution as fact at all, or any part of it, as it pertains to the origin of the cosmos or of any life on earth. I consider it myth. So Im not going to argue about "proofs" concerning evolution vs. creation. Its endless, and will just lead off course. With that in mind, I believe in a biblical world view that the earth is less than 10000 years old. That is my stance.


Hello Malachi

Why do you believe in a biblical worldview, based on an ancient book written by primitive men, who couldn't even get the order of Genesis right ... versus ... hundreds of thousands of scientists with evidence proving the Bible WRONG?!

[malachigreenidge]

Hello Malachi

Why do you believe in a biblical worldview, based on an ancient book written by primitive men, who couldn't even get the order of Genesis right ... versus ... hundreds of thousands of scientists with evidence proving the Bible WRONG?!

I alrready answered this question Rose, and I already stated that Im not getting into an evolution/creation debate. I believe the Bible because of my personal relationship with Jesus, and I believe it is the Word of God. Thats why. If you want to believe in the racist evolutionary doctrine put forth by a bunch of 18th century slave-owning white men, go right ahead, have at 'er! Im not bothered or moved by your beliefs. I believe the Bible, and that is my stance. Im not here to debate this ridiculous spinning wheel.
Im here to explore the notion that the Greek gods of ancient, were in fact not entirely mythos, but that there was much truth to there existence, and I believe that the Bible reveals their existence. There's not a Christian or non christian yet on this site that agrees with me, but thats ok. Im here for my own education as well, and ultimately to find the truth, whether Im right or wrong.
God Bless you Rose!

[malachigreenidge]

Why would God create angles that could reproduce with humans?
To my knowledge, he didn't and hasn't, and no marriage in heaven.. Mk12:25
Some think so because of Gen6, but IMO I don't see it..


Greek mythology no more than "Alice in Wonderland", Gulliver's Travels, or Pinocchio..
Grimm's Fairy Tales, and I was once an avid 'Science Fiction' fan, but the Bible is much more
challenging than what Ellery Queen has written, and more profound than what they teach in Sunday School.

I posted the extras to show the 'connection' between OT and NT, and how our Great Author
is also a Teacher and mystery writer who knows the end from the beginning and brings us along carefully to the final chapters. :thumb:

clearly the angels were capable of sexual affairs, as is revealed in Genesis 19. The men of sodom and Gomorrah wanted to have sex with the 2 angels that Lot was harbouring in his house. He even (oddly enough) offered them his daughters in place of the angels. Are you going to deny this text as well, as you have genesis 6?

I never said anything about "marriage in heaven." The son's of god did not marry in the heavens. The text is clear. They came to earth and took wives. That would be marriage on earth, albeit by heavenly beings, its still clear from the text that the marriages were here on earth.

that is just insane, that you would compare "greek mythology" to the likes of some popular kids novella's. Nobody over 10 has ever believed those stories to be true. But we well know that the greeks not only believed in the mythology, but they lived it. They built an empire based on those beliefs, whether those beliefs were merrited or not. Are you going to deny that?

I believe in the Bible, I have stated that countless times already, and I agree that it is challenging too. We do not disagree on this issue, or on the authority of the Bible as the Word of God.
Go look at the work of L.A Marsallis. He's found bones and skulls of what he believes to be the "Nephillim" of Genesis 6. And I believe that These things are being revealed to us at this time in history, because the world is about to be duped by these spiritual beings, posing as "aliens from outerspace." Hollywood has been conditioning us for years, making sure that we are all well aware of the possibility of alien lifeform for the past 80 years, and most of the world has swallowed it up like candy. I believe they are real, but they are not aliens. They are the "sons of god" mentioned in the Bible. You will soon see.

[Scott]

clearly the angels were capable of sexual affairs, as is revealed in Genesis 19. The men of sodom and Gomorrah wanted to have sex with the 2 angels that Lot was harbouring in his house. He even (oddly enough) offered them his daughters in place of the angels. Are you going to deny this text as well, as you have genesis 6?

I never said anything about "marriage in heaven." The son's of god did not marry in the heavens. The text is clear. They came to earth and took wives. That would be marriage on earth, albeit by heavenly beings, its still clear from the text that the marriages were here on earth.

that is just insane, that you would compare "greek mythology" to the likes of some popular kids novella's. Nobody over 10 has ever believed those stories to be true. But we well know that the greeks not only believed in the mythology, but they lived it. They built an empire based on those beliefs, whether those beliefs were merrited or not. Are you going to deny that?

I believe in the Bible, I have stated that countless times already, and I agree that it is challenging too. We do not disagree on this issue, or on the authority of the Bible as the Word of God.
Go look at the work of L.A Marsallis. He's found bones and skulls of what he believes to be the "Nephillim" of Genesis 6. And I believe that These things are being revealed to us at this time in history, because the world is about to be duped by these spiritual beings, posing as "aliens from outerspace." Hollywood has been conditioning us for years, making sure that we are all well aware of the possibility of alien lifeform for the past 80 years, and most of the world has swallowed it up like candy. I believe they are real, but they are not aliens. They are the "sons of god" mentioned in the Bible. You will soon see.

123 [45] 6*** 789 [0]

789-123=666
6x6x6=216
666-450=216

"The Son's Of GOD"=666+216

[malachigreenidge]

"The sons of God" which can apply to both Angels and humans means that it is not certain that God's Angels sinned and had sex with women. Angels are not of flesh and blood though they could appear in human form. What the substance of Angels is, we do not know. The context from the whole of the chapter 6 in Genesis in which the "sons of God" are mentioned, is all about humans and the "daughters of men" is speaking about humans. In that context, the "sons of God" should be taken as human. Since it cannot be proven that Angels are of flesh and blood, that makes Angels of a different Kind and by definition, different Kinds cannot interbreed.

[QUOTE]"The sons of God" which can apply to both Angels and humans means that it is not certain that God's Angels sinned and had sex with women

This term has certainly BEEN applied to both Angels and humans, but that application has been at the hands of non-biblical authors and writers. They were simply mistaken. The bible does not present this opinion at all.

Job 1:6-76 One day the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came with them.
7 The Lord said to Satan, “Where have you come from?� Satan answered the Lord, “From roaming throughout the earth, going back and forth on it.�
Job 2:1-21 On another day the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came with them to present himself before him.
2 And the Lord said to Satan, “Where have you come from?� Satan answered the Lord, “From roaming throughout the earth, going back and forth on it.�

Notice the Lord's question to satan, "where have you come from?" satan answered, "I've been roaming around on the earth." The sons of God were with satan, actually, he was with them it says. So We can conclude that they were not human, because humans do not have access to the heavenly realms of God, unless they are taken directly by God, or one of His Angels. Nor do humans hang out with satan in the presence of God. These sons of God were able to travel freely from earth to this heavenly realm. They're clearly not human.

This term "sons of God" is the exact same in these 2 passages of Job, and ALSO in the passage of Genesis 6:2. And they are the ONLY three places in scripture, where these terms match exactly.
bənê hāʼĕlōhîm (בְנֵי־הָֽאֱלֹהִים) sons of the Elohim.

But even without this proof, the text itself reveals the fact that these "sons of God" were not human, right in Gen 6:2, just read it...
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

why would the writer specify the daughters were of men? Aren't ALL daughters born of (wo)men? Yes. If the sons of God were mere human as well, the writer would not have bothered to make this distinction. If they were human, it would have said, "sons of men" or "Cain or Enoch's sons" or something of that nature. But the text clearly reads "sons of God" and "daughters of men." The problem with the interpretation is not in the text, its from our preconcieved notions that angels can't mate with humans. But that notion is not put forth in the scriptures at all. In fact, the exact opposite is put forth. Look as well at Genesis 19.

Genesis 19
1And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;
2 And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night.
3 And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.
4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

Clearly Angels and humans could have sexual relations.


Since it cannot be proven that Angels are of flesh and blood, that makes Angels of a different Kind and by definition, different Kinds cannot interbreed.

Different "kinds" of what? PLANTS & ANIMALS. God does not make this distinction anywhere in the scriptures relating to either men, women or angels. All through Genesis chapter 1, everything God creates "brings forth after its own kind," right up until when?? Until He creates man and woman in "His own image." 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.Nowhere after man is created, do you read the term, "bring forth after his or her own kind." No, we read, "28 Be fruitful, and multiply, subdue the earth..."

Furthermore, if it can't be proven that Angels are of flesh and blood, than it also can't be proven that they ARE NOT made of flesh and blood. So you can't come to the conclusion that they are a different "kind," because you have already admitted that you don't know what angels are made of. Yet we see in Genesis 19:2 that the angels are able to eat a feast and eat unleavened bread. Can "non-flesh-and-blood" beings eat food or feel hunger? I don't know, it doesn't really matter, either way, your argument fails.

whether or not the "sons of god" are angels, fallen angels or even perhaps another of Gods completely different and unique creations, the text reveals that these "sons of god" were not human, and that they were able to mate and produce some sort of offspring with human women. Specifically the Nephillim, which were giants. The remains of giants have been found and well documented since their existence, and even today still. I think its time to rethink your preconcieved notions my friend!

[malachigreenidge]

123 [45] 6*** 789 [0]

789-123=666
6x6x6=216
666-450=216

"The Son's Of GOD"=666+216

Hi Scott,
I dont know what this means, can you please explain these numbers to me, and your purpose in posting them?
Thank you

[Mystykal]

I alrready answered this question Rose, and I already stated that Im not getting into an evolution/creation debate. I believe the Bible because of my personal relationship with Jesus, and I believe it is the Word of God. Thats why. If you want to believe in the racist evolutionary doctrine put forth by a bunch of 18th century slave-owning white men, go right ahead, have at 'er! Im not bothered or moved by your beliefs. I believe the Bible, and that is my stance. Im not here to debate this ridiculous spinning wheel.
Im here to explore the notion that the Greek gods of ancient, were in fact not entirely mythos, but that there was much truth to there existence, and I believe that the Bible reveals their existence. There's not a Christian or non christian yet on this site that agrees with me, but thats ok. Im here for my own education as well, and ultimately to find the truth, whether Im right or wrong.
God Bless you Rose!

Hi Malik...
Can you explain what you mean by Greek mythical gods as being real? And how do you use the Bible to prove that idea?

Namaste,

Mystykal

[malachigreenidge]

Hi Malik...
Can you explain what you mean by Greek mythical gods as being real? And how do you use the Bible to prove that idea?

Namaste,

Mystykal

HI Mystykal
If you go back to my original post, #54 on page 6, and read the posts from there, then you will see the progression of this conversation. I don't want to repost everything, that would just take too much time.
thanx for your interest!

[duxrow]

:sEm_oops: The KJV translates Strongs H4397 (malak - angel) in the following manner: angel (111x), messenger (98x), ambassadors (4x), variant (1x). Comparing Lot's visitors with Rahab's 'spies', and how the latter may be allegory of "thy WORD have I hid in my heart", Ps119:11, inclines me to think Lot's two were NOT angels, but 'messengers' concerning the coming catastrophe. Nevertheless, I look forward to anything more on this subject.

1John3:1 "Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is".

So if God wants sons now, at the back of the book, why wouldn't he also have wanted them to begin with? In those early days, was it "absent from the body--present with the Lord", and is that what's meant when Enoch "was not, for God took him" ? :eek:

[GourmetDan]

These things are being revealed to us at this time in history, because the world is about to be duped by these spiritual beings, posing as "aliens from outerspace." Hollywood has been conditioning us for years, making sure that we are all well aware of the possibility of alien lifeform for the past 80 years, and most of the world has swallowed it up like candy. I believe they are real, but they are not aliens. They are the "sons of god" mentioned in the Bible. You will soon see.


Yes, I think you are correct.

Matthew 24:37 - "As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man."

They were here before and will show up again to deceive mankind. You know the evolutionists will buy into it hook, line and sinker and the hatred against Bible-believing Christians will multiply exponentially.

[Rose]

I alrready answered this question Rose, and I already stated that Im not getting into an evolution/creation debate. I believe the Bible because of my personal relationship with Jesus, and I believe it is the Word of God. Thats why. If you want to believe in the racist evolutionary doctrine put forth by a bunch of 18th century slave-owning white men, go right ahead, have at 'er! Im not bothered or moved by your beliefs. I believe the Bible, and that is my stance. Im not here to debate this ridiculous spinning wheel.
Hello Malachi

If you want to talk about racist, slave-owning men, the best place to look is the Bible. The Biblegod promotes owning slaves and if the slaves are foreigners they can be own for life and their children passed down as inheritance!

Lev.25:44-46 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.



Im here to explore the notion that the Greek gods of ancient, were in fact not entirely mythos, but that there was much truth to there existence, and I believe that the Bible reveals their existence. There's not a Christian or non christian yet on this site that agrees with me, but thats ok. Im here for my own education as well, and ultimately to find the truth, whether Im right or wrong.
God Bless you Rose!

I think it's just the opposite! The Greek myths reveal the mentality of the time period, even Jesus believed in the mythological place called Hades named after the Greek god of the underworld.

Take care
Rose

[Rose]

Yes, I think you are correct.

Matthew 24:37 - "As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man."

They were here before and will show up again to deceive mankind. You know the evolutionists will buy into it hook, line and sinker and the hatred against Bible-believing Christians will multiply exponentially.

No worries! Since there was no Flood nor "Days of Noah", and Jesus was just a man (not the son of god) there will be no "second coming". Most evolutionists don't hate Christians, they just feel sorry for their delusional beliefs.

[Rose]

clearly the angels were capable of sexual affairs, as is revealed in Genesis 19. The men of sodom and Gomorrah wanted to have sex with the 2 angels that Lot was harbouring in his house. He even (oddly enough) offered them his daughters in place of the angels. Are you going to deny this text as well, as you have genesis 6?



I do agree that the Bible strongly suggests that beings other than humans were capable of having sexual relations with humans ... that is one of the many reason why we know the Bible is false, because it is based on mythologies.

[malachigreenidge]

I do agree that the Bible strongly suggests that beings other than humans were capable of having sexual relations with humans ... that is one of the many reason why we know the Bible is false, because it is based on mythologies.

Rose, let me ask you this. Do you believe in aliens? or do you believe there is NO other life anywhere in the universe except on earth?

[sylvius]

Thank you for that Sylvius!

I think maybe I got the clue.

Samson Raphael Hirsch contends that "b'nei haelohim" , sons of God, denote the (male) descendants of Seth, while "et b'not haAdam" denote the (female) descendants of Cain.

Genesis 5 lists the generations of Adam via Seth until Noach and his three sons.

v.1:
This is the book of the generations of Adam; on the day that God created Adam, in the likeness of God He created him.

v.3:
And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and he begot in his likeness after his image, and he named him Seth.

So you might say that if Adam is "son of God", then Seth as well is "son of God".

v.6:
And Seth lived one hundred and five years, and he begot Enosh.

So he didn't beget Enosh "in his likeness after his image",

And so forth...

which might explain Genesis 4:26,
And to Seth also to him a son was born, and he named him Enosh; then it became common to call by the name of the Lord.

Rashi:

then it became common: Heb. הוּחַל, is an expression of חוּלִין profaneness: to name people and idols with the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, to make them idols and to call them deities. — [from Gen. Rabbah 23:7; Baraitha of 49 Methods, quoted in Yalkut Shimoni]

So you might think that from the time of Enosh on the "sons of God" did intermingle with the "daughters of man".

Also Noach did marry a "daughter of man":

Genesis 4:22,
And Zillah she too bore Tubal-cain, who sharpened all tools that cut copper and iron, and Tubal-cain's sister was Na'amah.

Rashi:

Na’amah: She was Noah’s wife. (Genesis Rabbah 23:3)

I fits to Rashi's comment on Genesis 6:4,

in those days: in the days of the generation of Enosh and the children of Cain.



the men of renown: Heb. אַנְשֵׁי הַשֵּׁם , "anshei hashem",Those who were called by name: Irad, Mechujael, Methushael, who were so named because of their destruction, for they were wiped out (מְחוּיָאֵל from נִמּוֹחוּ) and uprooted; (מְתוּשָׁאֵל from הֻתָּשׁוּ). Another explanation: men of desolation


The name Enosh does mean man, human being, mankind, (has no plural form)

"anashim" = people,men , is plural of "ish".

[Rose]

Rose, let me ask you this. Do you believe in aliens? or do you believe there is NO other life anywhere in the universe except on earth?

Hello Malachi

Given the size and age of our universe and the probability of there being millions of other planets like our own, I see no reason why there would not be some form of life existing elsewhere in the universe. Any life that exists elsewhere would be called alien life. So, to answer your question ... yes, I do believe that the probability of life alien to our own existing elsewhere in the universe is very high.

Take care
Rose

[duxrow]

Not likely, IMO, for Naamah being wife of Noah -- She would be older than him --there is a two-generation difference in their ages!
So maybe she was "robbing the cradle" ? :winking0071:

980

[sylvius]

Not likely, IMO, for Naamah being wife of Noah -- She would be older than him --there is a two-generation difference in their ages!
So maybe she was "robbing the cradle" ? :winking0071:

980

In the generations-list of Cain no ages are given.

Lamech the father of Naamah in the Seth-list figures as father of Noach.

[David M]

Hello malachigreeridge

Thank you for your reply. First of all, I have got the impression from another of your posts, you believe that other gods exist whether they be the gods of the Greeks or other so called mythical gods.
Personally, I find no place for any other gods to exist. God is extremely jealous that only he should be acknowledged as the Creator. We have to build our faith on a sure foundation. The foundation that God is ONE. This is not ambiguous, as others will try to make you think so. God is very emphatic, and reading chapters like Isaiah 45 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: leave me in no doubt. Read the whole chapter and see how many times this is emphasized. I cannot believe another God, of any description, exists. The Trinity is not taught in the Bible and the word does not appear in the Bible. To think there are other gods is pure superstition. We know how the apostle Paul started his address on Mars Hill saying how the people were "too superstitious" and had a statue to the 'unknown god'.



"The sons of God" which can apply to both Angels and humans means that it is not certain that God's Angels sinned and had sex with women. Angels are not of flesh and blood though they could appear in human form. What the substance of Angels is, we do not know. The context from the whole of the chapter 6 in Genesis in which the "sons of God" are mentioned, is all about humans and the "daughters of men" is speaking about humans. In that context, the "sons of God" should be taken as human. Since it cannot be proven that Angels are of flesh and blood, that makes Angels of a different Kind and by definition, different Kinds cannot interbreed.

This term has certainly BEEN applied to both Angels and humans, but that application has been at the hands of non-biblical authors and writers. They were simply mistaken. The bible does not

present this opinion at all.

Job 1:6-76 One day the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came with them.
7 The Lord said to Satan, “Where have you come from?� Satan answered the Lord, “From roaming throughout the earth, going back and forth on it.�
Job 2:1-21 On another day the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came with them to present himself before him.
2 And the Lord said to Satan, “Where have you come from?� Satan answered the Lord, “From roaming throughout the earth, going back and forth on it.�

Notice the Lord's question to satan, "where have you come from?" satan answered, "I've been roaming around on the earth." The sons of God were with satan, actually, he was with them it says. So We can conclude that they were not human, because humans do not have access to the heavenly realms of God, unless they are taken directly by God, or one of His Angels. Nor do humans hang out with satan in the presence of God. These sons of God were able to travel freely from earth to this heavenly realm. They're clearly not human.

This term "sons of God" is the exact same in these 2 passages of Job, and ALSO in the passage of Genesis 6:2. And they are the ONLY three places in scripture, where these terms match exactly.
bənê hāʼĕlōhîm (בְנֵי־הָֽאֱלֹהִים) sons of the Elohim. You have to understand that the Book of Job is not presented in a literal fashion but in the style of a play. Satan is personified and made to appear like a character. Satan represents what other people were thinking. We can all get jealous if we think someone is being given preferential treatment. That is what people thought God was doing to Job; hedging him about with great wealth. Those who thought like that are proved wrong and God tests Job and Job comes through the test and God blesses Job twice fold at the end. It was God who said he tested Job and did all the things to Job that are ascribed to Satan. At first, it appears God is doing Satan's bidding and God lets Satan do anything to Job except kill him. The Book of Job does not read like an everyday account, but is presented in the style of a play. The lessons that come from this play are profound and are seen throughout all scripture. What happened to Job could have been real, but the way it is presented, has been stylised. Hence, I do not see Satan as a real person or spirit being.


But even without this proof, the text itself reveals the fact that these "sons of God" were not human, right in Gen 6:2, just read it...
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

why would the writer specify the daughters were of men? Aren't ALL daughters born of (wo)men? Yes. If the sons of God were mere human as well, the writer would not have bothered to make this distinction. If they were human, it would have said, "sons of men" or "Cain or Enoch's sons" or something of that nature. But the text clearly reads "sons of God" and "daughters of men." The problem with the interpretation is not in the text, its from our preconcieved notions that angels can't mate with humans. But that notion is not put forth in the scriptures at all. In fact, the exact opposite is put forth. Look as well at Genesis 19. Sons and daughters represent different sexes just as men and women represent different sexes. We have different sexes and different seeds (in terms of sexes). This is in keeping with the "seed of the woman" and the "seed of the serpent" in Genesis 3:15 and as we are told there would be enmity between them. Now go and find out what is enmity with God. That will give you the clue to understanding this. We have the seed of the woman represented as the 'sons of God' and we have the seed of the serpent represented by the 'daughters of men'. The sons of God who were God-fearing by marriage and association become corrupted the same as Solomon was corrupted by his wives. This is a continual problem running through man's history and that is why God expected his people to rid the land of the heathen, the reprobates and prevent themselves becoming corrupted by them. The Israelites did not follow God's instruction and so they became corrupted.
In Genesis 6 we see the cause of the beginning of this downward spiral to the point where with the exception of Noah, not one person was righteous in God's eyes and as it is recorded; (Gen 6:5) And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. Hence God started again with Noah and his family.


Genesis 19
1And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;
2 And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night.
3 And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.
4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

Clearly Angels and humans could have sexual relations. Job is not a proof text to support what you say, and neither are any of the other texts you quote. I have thought about these verses a lot and the more I did so, the less convinced I became that they referred to God's Angels and more convinced there is a human connection. There is nothing from this last quote that proves Angels could have sex. We only know that it was humans who wanted to have sex and thought they could have sex with these Angels, who had taken on the external form of humans. We do not know these Angels could have sex. I am prepared to accept these Angels (messengers) were special and sent from God to look like humans. Can you imagine the surprise if those perverted humans had got to the Angels to have their way with them. It would be like finding someone dressed and looking like a woman, only to find out she is a man.



Different "kinds" of what? PLANTS & ANIMALS. God does not make this distinction anywhere in the scriptures relating to either men, women or angels. All through Genesis chapter 1, everything God creates "brings forth after its own kind," right up until when?? Until He creates man and woman in "His own image." 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.Nowhere after man is created, do you read the term, "bring forth after his or her own kind." No, we read, "28 Be fruitful, and multiply, subdue the earth..." I gave you the definition of Kind. Kinds cannot naturally interbreed and have offspring that will continue to procreate. It almost goes without saying following in the steps of the created animals that man and woman were a different kind. In fact, we do not have different kinds of men and women, the races are all of the same kind which can interbreed. You have no evidence that Angels are flesh and blood; just the opposite. Flesh and blood cannot be in Heaven in the presence of God and Angels can be in Heaven. Only when humans are resurrected and given a spirit body; one which does not corrupt, can a body like that be accepted in Heaven. With the exception of Jesus; "all have sinned". Therefore they cannot be in God's presence in Heaven.


Furthermore, if it can't be proven that Angels are of flesh and blood, than it also can't be proven that they ARE NOT made of flesh and blood. So you can't come to the conclusion that they are a different "kind," because you have already admitted that you don't know what angels are made of. Yet we see in Genesis 19:2 that the angels are able to eat a feast and eat unleavened bread. Can "non-flesh-and-blood" beings eat food or feel hunger? I don't know, it doesn't really matter, either way, your argument fails. In my paragraph before this I have given you the reason why Angels cannot be flesh and blood. By appearing to eat food, you have no idea, what takes place inside the Angel and what happens to that food; it is a complete unknown. Only the in outside appearance did they appear to be human. The other explanation that I have seen given is; these Angles were humans who somehow God used them for the specific purpose of saving Lot and his family. They would be like Melchizedek and no-one would know where they came from.


whether or not the "sons of god" are angels, fallen angels or even perhaps another of Gods completely different and unique creations, the text reveals that these "sons of god" were not human, and that they were able to mate and produce some sort of offspring with human women. Specifically the Nephillim, which were giants. The remains of giants have been found and well documented since their existence, and even today still. I think its time to rethink your preconcieved notions my friend! The text does not say they are not human. Please do not say I have preconceived notions when that is exactly the same as what I could say about what you believe. Be very careful to distinguish between what the text says and does not say. The Nephilim I accept were humans, but what is meant by "giants" and is that the most appropriate description or do we have a better word now? What if a person is great in authority. We could say that of certain people in authority today; "they are giants in their field". Hence giant does not have to mean large in physical stature.

The picture is never as clear as you think and the only clear picture that emerges is when all the misunderstanding is swept away. If you pursue a line of reasoning along mythical lines, or man-made ideas, then you remain in the world surrounded my mist and you remain in the clouds and not seeing clearly. I cannot expect you to think as I do, I have thought about these things for years and things have become clearer with time for me. If you so want, you can fast track by learning from someone else. Even then, I do not except anyone to blindly accept what I say, without confirming it with the Bible. I for sure examine what you say against the Bible, and if I do not find the words you claim are there, then I have grounds for not accepting what you say. It might sound arrogant, but I do not see anyone presenting the evidence from verses in the Bible to support these mythological ideas. There are other parts of scripture that support my view and that is why no-one has convinced me yet. Please keep trying, and I will keep giving you my reasons from scripture why I disagree.

All the best
David

[duxrow]

In the generations-list of Cain no ages are given.

Lamech the father of Naamah in the Seth-list figures as father of Noach.
WHAT! Maybe you're mixing up the two different Lamech's -- there are two Enoch's also and other names are similar but only those two a perfect match.

I agree we don't have ages in the Cain Line, so can't be certain.

Just for grins, consider how the King LINE generations of Matthew compares to the PRIEST LINE of Luke.. :thumb:

[duxrow]

BTW Sylvie, What do you make of the difference between Belshazzar (son of Nebuchadnezzar), and Bel TE shazzar (aramaic name of Daniel..). Thoughts? (protector of the king, some say). :yo:

[GourmetDan]

Given the size and age of our universe and the probability of there being millions of other planets like our own, I see no reason why there would not be some form of life existing elsewhere in the universe.


Sorry Rose, the size and age of the universe are assumed, not given or observed. Likewise, it is assumed and not observed that 'millions of other planets like our own' do in fact exist.

This is simply an example of very poor critical-thinking skills.



...I do believe that the probability of life alien to our own existing elsewhere in the universe is very high.


Well, you did get the 'belief' part right...

[sylvius]

Just for grins, consider how the King LINE generations of Matthew compares to the PRIEST LINE of Luke.. :thumb:


That's nonsense.

In Luke's line there is also a David who was not a priest.

Besides that, not all descendants of David are kings.

but maybe interesting, Luke has 77 generations from Adam to Jesus, by some seen as an allusion to the 77 times Lamech, descendant of Cain, had to be avenged.
But Luke also mentions Adam as being son of God.
So from God to Jesus there are 78 generations, to be seen as the line of the sons of God, whereas the 77 generationsline can be seen as the line of the sons of man.

78 is gematria of "lechem" = bread, of which Jesus said: "Take, this is my body".

78 is interesting number, triangle 12 = 6 x 13 = 3 x 26 = 2 x 39.

which might be the key to the miraculous multiplying of bread.

5 loaves of bread = 5 x 78 = 390 = "shamayim" = heaven. Bread from heaven,

7 loaves of bread = 7 x 78 = 2 x 273 -- the "wellknown" number of the 273 firstborn sons of Israel that exceeded the number of 22.000 Levites and had to be sold free (with money), and also as gematria of "arba"= four, and also as gematria of "rega" = the smallest unit of time (indivisible fraction of a second).

[Rose]

Sorry Rose, the size and age of the universe are assumed, not given or observed. Likewise, it is assumed and not observed that 'millions of other planets like our own' do in fact exist.

This is simply an example of very poor critical-thinking skills.



Well, you did get the 'belief' part right...

I see little reason to even respond to your comments, given your lack of contributing anything useful or intelligent to the conversation.

[GourmetDan]

Thank you for your reply. First of all, I have got the impression from another of your posts, you believe that other gods exist whether they be the gods of the Greeks or other so called mythical gods.


Interesting, I never got that impression from him at all.




The Trinity is not taught in the Bible and the word does not appear in the Bible.


Depends on your definition of 'taught', I suppose.



The Book of Job does not read like an everyday account, but is presented in the style of a play.


What do you think God was talking about when he said, "“I am angry with you and your two friends, because you have not spoken the truth about me, as my servant Job has."



Hence, I do not see Satan as a real person or spirit being.


Interesting. Are the 'bene ha-'elohim' not real beings either?




Job is not a proof text to support what you say, and neither are any of the other texts you quote.


Why not? Because you believe that the 'sons of God' cannot be spirit beings?




In my paragraph before this I have given you the reason why Angels cannot be flesh and blood. By appearing to eat food, you have no idea, what takes place inside the Angel and what happens to that food; it is a complete unknown. Only the in outside appearance did they appear to be human.


So, in spite of the fact that they are presented as eating food, you rationalize that description away?




The picture is never as clear as you think and the only clear picture that emerges is when all the misunderstanding is swept away. If you pursue a line of reasoning along mythical lines, or man-made ideas, then you remain in the world surrounded my mist and you remain in the clouds and not seeing clearly. I cannot expect you to think as I do, I have thought about these things for years and things have become clearer with time for me.


I have done the same and come to the opposite conclusion that you have. How are you not pursuing a line of reasoning that is man-made, surrounded by mist, in the clouds and not seeing clearly?



It might sound arrogant, but I do not see anyone presenting the evidence from verses in the Bible to support these mythological ideas. There are other parts of scripture that support my view and that is why no-one has convinced me yet. Please keep trying, and I will keep giving you my reasons from scripture why I disagree.


Seems to me that you explain-away any scriptures that you disagree with and accept only that which agrees with what you believe. That doesn't look much like 'giving reasons from Scripture' as you claim. Do you see that?

[GourmetDan]

I see little reason to even respond to your comments, given your lack of contributing anything useful or intelligent to the conversation.

While your rationalization may be disingenuous, I'm not at all disappointed in your failure to respond substantively...

[duxrow]

Sylvie, the Matt Genealogy is based on lineage from Solomon, and notable for 'skips' and omitting the 19 generations prior to Abraham.

The Luke Genealogy is based on lineage of Nathan (priest of David), and includes the generations (reverse order) all the way back to Adam, as you've noted.

So the King Line vs Priest Line isn't an all-inclusive tag, but the opening of Luke with Priest Zacharias must certainly be considered, and not forgetting about KING Solomon. :pop2:

[sylvius]

Sylvie, the Matt Genealogy is based on lineage from Solomon, and notable for 'skips' and omitting the 19 generations prior to Abraham.

The Luke Genealogy is based on lineage of Nathan (priest of David), and includes the generations (reverse order) all the way back to Adam, as you've noted.

So the King Line vs Priest Line isn't an all-inclusive tag, but the opening of Luke with Priest Zacharias must certainly be considered, and not forgetting about KING Solomon. :pop2:


the Matt Genealogy clearly stresses the number 42 as 3 x 14 generations, where 14 is the gematria of the name David (4+6+4).

42 is the number of desert-stations, where the plains of Moab were the last, where Moses died because of having hit the rock instead of speaking to it, and where Pinchas killed Zimri and Kozbi, by which he appeared to be Eliyah, the forerunner of the Messiah.

[duxrow]

Fishermen sometimes have to switch bait..

The two 'men' (anēr) in Acts 1:10 is the same word used for Mary's 'husband'. Any connection, you think, to how GOD is a Husband as well as a Father?

The number 42 really doesn't do that much for me... :p

[sylvius]

Fishermen sometimes have to switch bait..

The two 'men' (anēr) in Acts 1:10 is the same word used for Mary's 'husband'. Any connection, you think, to how GOD is a Husband as well as a Father?

The number 42 really doesn't do that much for me... :p


It reads: Iακὼβ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰωσὴφ τὸν ἄνδρα Μαρίας ἐξ ἧς ἐγεννήθη Ἰησοῦς ὁ λεγόμενος Χριστός. = Jacob fathered Joseph the husband of Mary out of whom was born Jesus with the nickname Christ.



We saw the name Joseph to mean: "May the Lord add to me another son", which was about Benjamin, (Binyamin, with final Nun), who only was conceived after Jacob's wrestling with the angel (man), who is said to have been Esau's guardian angel, etc.

[duxrow]

Right on, Sylvie.. and Mary's husband of that name may have noticed his own connection, in case he had any qualms about the baby being his own..:winking0071:

The variance in ages between various generations is why the 66 of Matthew is different from the 74 of Luke..:eek:

:signthankspin: Tks to you, this dialogue has made me aware of how the 19+14 applies to the genealogies. 19 generations prior to Abraham, and the 19 Kings from David to Jeconiah, compared to the 14 generations (3x14). This JesusPed gif helps..

981

[sylvius]

Right on, Sylvie.. and Mary's husband of that name may have noticed his own connection, in case he had any qualms about the baby being his own..:winking0071:

I also think Mary is called so after Miriam, Moses' sister, and especially so because of the "Miriam-well",

Numbers 20:1-2,
The entire congregation of the children of Israel arrived at the desert of Zin in the first month, and the people settled in Kadesh. Miriam died there and was buried there.The congregation had no water; so they assembled against Moses and Aaron.

Rashi:


had no water: From here [we learn that] all forty years they had the well in Miriam’s merit. — [Ta’anith 9a]

Next Moses went to hit the rock instead of speaking to it, because of what he couldn't enter the promised land.

[duxrow]

I don't understand, Sylvie: ?? ( the well in Miriam’s merit. — Ta’anith 9a) What meaneth that?:confused:

The Virgin Mary was once a Pregnant Virgin, and now WE can be pregnant virgins too, when we have Christ within us, Gal 4:19, and that's the essence of the New Birth. Our heavenly Father is a Gardener, a husbandman who plants seeds for our understanding all through his WORD, as well as planting His Son, (chip off the old block) in the form of the 66 Books of Scripture. Fine with me if she was named after Miriam -- could be!

"Let US go down and CONFOUND their language", Gen 11:7. So God came down on that 'mountain', and Jesus came as a baby, and the Holy Ghost as a mighty wind -- the three came down in succession! :thumb:

[malachigreenidge]

Hello David. I will not comment on everything you said, because most of the time you are just wind-bagging.


Thank you for your reply. First of all, I have got the impression from another of your posts, you believe that other gods exist whether they be the gods of the Greeks or other so called mythical gods.
Personally, I find no place for any other gods to exist. God is extremely jealous that only he should be acknowledged as the Creator. We have to build our faith on a sure foundation. The foundation that God is ONE. This is not ambiguous, as others will try to make you think so. God is very emphatic, and reading chapters like Isaiah 45 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: leave me in no doubt. Read the whole chapter and see how many times this is emphasized. I cannot believe another God, of any description, exists. The Trinity is not taught in the Bible and the word does not appear in the Bible. To think there are other gods is pure superstition. We know how the apostle Paul started his address on Mars Hill saying how the people were "too superstitious" and had a statue to the 'unknown god'.

If you can't understand my simple writings, I don't see how you can understand scripture(which you clearly dont)
Go back to post #54, and read it again. I dont believe they were God(s). I believe they posed as "gods," (lied) and that the Greeks believed them. I clearly stated that there is only One God, who is Jesus, who created everything, including these fallen angels who appeared to the ancient Greeks. And I qouted the same verse in Isaiah as you did.


You have to understand that the Book of Job is not presented in a literal fashion but in the style of a play. Satan is personified and made to appear like a character. Satan represents what other people were thinking. We can all get jealous if we think someone is being given preferential treatment. That is what people thought God was doing to Job; hedging him about with great wealth. Those who thought like that are proved wrong and God tests Job and Job comes through the test and God blesses Job twice fold at the end. It was God who said he tested Job and did all the things to Job that are ascribed to Satan. At first, it appears God is doing Satan's bidding and God lets Satan do anything to Job except kill him. The Book of Job does not read like an everyday account, but is presented in the style of a play. The lessons that come from this play are profound and are seen throughout all scripture. What happened to Job could have been real, but the way it is presented, has been stylised. Hence, I do not see Satan as a real person or spirit being.

A 3000 year old Jewish play?? Im not even gonna touch that one.
Satan is not a real person or spirit being? So who tempted Jesus in the desert? And who is being thrown into the lake of fire at the end of time? and Im not even going to bother to quote all the bible verses on the "person" of satan. (there are at least 35) Or perhaps you think they are all plays too...



In my paragraph before this I have given you the reason why Angels cannot be flesh and blood. By appearing to eat food, you have no idea, what takes place inside the Angel and what happens to that food; it is a complete unknown. Only the in outside appearance did they appear to be human. The other explanation that I have seen given is; these Angles were humans who somehow God used them for the specific purpose of saving Lot and his family. They would be like Melchizedek and no-one would know where they came from.
complete contradiction, in the same paragraph even. Utterly ridiculous my friend.


The Nephilim I accept were humans, but what is meant by "giants" and is that the most appropriate description or do we have a better word now? What if a person is great in authority. We could say that of certain people in authority today; "they are giants in their field". Hence giant does not have to mean large in physical stature.

"There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown" Gen 6:4
They were not human. They were the offspring of the "sons of God" and human women. Thats WHY they were giants. What is meant by "Giants" is what has always been meant by giants. Large people. What did David kill? a GIANT!!! The scriptures even give the physical dimensions of Goliath. Almost 10 feet tall, and over 400 pounds. I suppose you're just going to argue about the "actual" length of a cubit though. So its really pointless to interact with you, because you just explain everything away based on your own fantastic mind...


The picture is never as clear as you think and the only clear picture that emerges is when all the misunderstanding is swept away. If you pursue a line of reasoning along mythical lines, or man-made ideas, then you remain in the world surrounded my mist and you remain in the clouds and not seeing clearly. I cannot expect you to think as I do, I have thought about these things for years and things have become clearer with time for me.

apparently, the picture is ONLY clear to you. Pride was the fall of satan too. Oh no, sorry, he isn't real. That was just a play...
thanx for your thoughts

[sylvius]

I don't understand, Sylvie: ?? ( the well in Miriam’s merit. — Ta’anith 9a) What meaneth that?:confused:


Exodus 17 also relates the lack of water.

v. 7,
He named the place Massah [testing] and Meribah [quarreling] because of the quarrel of the children of Israel and because of their testing the Lord, saying, Is the Lord in our midst or not?

The little baby-boy born from the virgin Mary meant to be the final answer to this question:


Matthew 1:23,
“Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel,� which means “God is with us.�

[duxrow]

OK Sylvie, but "merit" -- is that Meribah?

We're understanding this differently I think -- when Moses struck the Rock the first time, was a figure of how Christ would be stricken as the centerpiece of Bible Story told as spiritual 'water'.
"That Rock was Christ".. 1Cor 10:4

When Moses struck the Rock the second time (instead of speaking to it), he was figuratively doing a second-Calvary, and for this was kept from going to Canaan (only seeing it from afar, perhaps like modern day Christians have been visualizing our Promised Land of Heaven).

Eph5:26 "That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word"

[malachigreenidge]

Hello Malachi

Given the size and age of our universe and the probability of there being millions of other planets like our own, I see no reason why there would not be some form of life existing elsewhere in the universe. Any life that exists elsewhere would be called alien life. So, to answer your question ... yes, I do believe that the probability of life alien to our own existing elsewhere in the universe is very high.

Take care
Rose

Mirriam-Webster Alien - 4. differing in nature or character typically to the point of incompatibility
Dictionary.com Alien - some(one) from outer space

Don't see what the age of the universe matters, but anyhow. Here's the thing, when 2 people have completely opposite worldviews, you have to find some common ground, or you just get on the endless spinning wheel.
The reason you reject the notion of angels or heavenly beings, is because you reject the scriptures. Anything supernatural in the Bible you dismiss, on the grounds that its "in the Bible, a book of myths." I understand your stance.

But if it's presented in the field of science, then you can consider it. It always comes down to what I like to refer to as, the lowest common denominator.

The definitions above could be used to describe both aliens and angels. Outerspace is just a modern scientific term to describe what has always commonly been called "the heavens."
So in the simplest terms, what you have are "beings that differ in form (from humans, and all known lifeform on earth) that are from outside of the realm of earth's atmosphere."

The difference is our worldviews. Because of my beliefs in the Bible, I believe these beings are angels, and/or other heavenly creatures that don't (normally) reside, or did not originate here on earth.
You believe they are aliens, or at least in the possibility of such.

The bible has always said that there is life, other than that which we see here on earth. Science has not.
But you've never seen an alien, or other life. This is not based on emperical, testable evidence. You believe in something you can't see, touch or have any scientific evidence of. Sounds like faith to me.

oh, and your Mr. Richard Dawkins, modern king of evolutionary theory is now suggesting that life was planted here on earth by aliens. (that he too can't see, touch, or have evidence of).

Hmmmm, life being planted on earth by other beings??? Sounds like a "god-theory" to me!

[sylvius]

OK Sylvie, but "merit" -- is that Meribah?

We're understanding this differently I think -- when Moses struck the Rock the first time, was a figure of how Christ would be stricken as the centerpiece of Bible Story told as spiritual 'water'.
"That Rock was Christ".. 1Cor 10:4

When Moses struck the Rock the second time (instead of speaking to it), he was figuratively doing a second-Calvary, and for this was kept from going to Canaan (only seeing it from afar, perhaps like modern day Christians have been visualizing our Promised Land of Heaven).

Eph5:26 "That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word"

Miriam's merit was that she persuaded her parents to have sex again, after they had divorced because of Pharao's decree to throw all newborn babyboys into the Nile.

Exodus 2:1,
A man of the house of Levi went and married a daughter of Levi.

Rashi:

and married a daughter of Levi: He was separated from her because of Pharaoh’s decree (and he remarried her. This is the meaning of went, that he followed [lit., he went after] his daughter’s advice that she said to him, Your decree is harsher than פַּרְעֹה. Whereas Pharaoh issued a decree [only] against the males, you [issued a decree] against the females as well [for none will be born]. This [comment] is found in an old Rashi ), and he took her back and married her a second time. She too was transformed to become like a young woman [physically], but she was [actually] 130 years old. For she was born when they came to Egypt between the חוֹמוֹת and they stayed there 210 years. When they left, Moses was 80 years old. If so, when she conceived him, she was 130 years old, yet [Scripture] calls her a daughter of Levi. [From Sotah 12a, Exod. Rabbah 1:19]

v.3,
[When] she could no longer hide him, she took [for] him a reed basket, smeared it with clay and pitch, placed the child into it, and put [it] into the marsh at the Nile's edge.

Rashi:

[When] she could no longer hide him: because the Egyptians counted her [pregnancy] from the day that he [Amram] took her back. She bore him after [only] six months and one day (Sotah 12a), for a woman who gives birth to a seven-month child may give birth after incomplete [months] (Niddah 38b, R.H. 11a). And they searched after her at the end of nine [months].

v.4,
His sister stood from afar, to know what would be done to him.

His sister = Miriam.

[sylvius]

Nice picture of Miriam's well:

http://aronbengilad.blogspot.nl/2009/11/jacob-frank-and-well-of-miriam.html


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_tR4bYTcAqeQ/SxE3fY3hnYI/AAAAAAAABzc/8XHzEqQzvjI/s400/well.bmp

Here you can see how it is about the "ed" of Genesis 2:6 :yo:

It is anywhere you go.

[sylvius]

Also interesting in this respect is Rashi's comment on Exodus 1:22,


And Pharaoh commanded all his people, saying, "Every son who is born you shall cast into the Nile, and every daughter you shall allow to live."


all his people: He issued this decree upon them as well. On the day Moses was born, his astrologers told him [Pharaoh], Today the one who will save them has been born, but we do not know whether from the Egyptians or from the Israelites, but we see that he will ultimately be smitten through water. Therefore, on that day he issued a decree also upon the Egyptians, as it is said: Every son who is born, and it does not say: who is born to the Hebrews. They did not know, however, that he [Moses] would ultimately suffer because of the water of Meribah (Num. 20:7-13) [i.e., that he would not be permitted to enter the Holy Land]. [From Sotah 12a, Exod. Rabbah 1:18, Sanh. 101b]

Matthew 2 seems to have been written after this midrash

[duxrow]

EX2:1"And there went a man of the house of Levi, and took to wife a daughter of Levi. 2:2 And the woman conceived, and bare a son: and when she saw him that he was a goodly child, she hid him three months".

Later we learn this 'man' is speaking of Amram, father of Moses, whose wife was ALSO of the same tribe, like Mary was of the same tribe as her husband Joseph. :thumb:

[malachigreenidge]

It is ironic that the doctrine of Hell, adamantly held to by many Christians as a truth being taught by the one and only God, is actually not new to the Bible at all….it is in fact a myth that originated with the ancient Greeks. Tartarus, and Hades are both Greek gods that pre-date the New Testament by at least 700 years.

Tartarus is used only one time in the Bible as the place where the Angels who sinned are chained until judgment. The Greek philosopher, Plato wrote that souls were judged after death and those who received punishments were sent to Tartarus.
2Pet.2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell (Tartarus), and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
Tartarus in Greek mythology, is both a deity and a place in the underworld even lower than Hades. In ancient Orphic sources, Tartarus is also the unbounded first-existing entity from which the Light and the cosmos are born.

In Hesiod's Theogony c. 700 BC, the deity Tartarus was the third force to manifest in the yawning void of Chaos. In The Iliad (c. 700), Zeus asserts that Tartarus is "as far beneath Hades as heaven is high above the earth." It is one of the primordial objects that sprung from Chaos, along with Gaia (Earth) and Eros (Desire).

Now doesn’t it seem a bit odd that the Bible states that God is sending the angels who sinned to a mythological place called Tartarus?

The word Hades refers both to the ancient Greek underworld, the abode of Hades, and to the god of the underworld. The term hades in Christian theology (and in New Testament Greek) is parallel to Hebrew sheol (שאול, grave or dirt-pit), and refers to the abode of the dead.

In older Greek myths, the realm of Hades is the misty and gloomy abode of the dead where all mortals go. Later Greek philosophy introduced the idea that all mortals are judged after death and are either rewarded or cursed. Very few mortals could leave this realm once they entered. Five rivers are part of the realm of Hades, and their symbolic meanings, are Acheron (the river of sorrow, or woe), Cocytus (lamentation), Phlegethon (fire), Lethe (oblivion), and Styx (hate).

Also, what I find extremely interesting is that one of the five rivers of Hades is 'Fire' which is a direct parallel to Revelation where it is written that Hades is cast into the lake of fire.

So, my question is why is this mythological realm of Hades, being spoken of by Jesus as a real place of judgment?


Rev.1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore Amen; and have the keys of hell (Hades – the Grave) and of death.

Rev.6:8 And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell (Hades) followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.

Rev.20:13-14 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell (Hades) delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell (Hades) were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
Kind of makes one question where the whole doctrine of eternal damnation came from?


Rose
The answer is simple. Its not "mythological" its real. Just because the greeks wrote of it before it was in the Bible, does not mean its mythological. And it doesn't discredit the Bible, or Jesus sayings at all. The Bible does not claim to be the "first" writing ever. The story of the Bible is that God saw law a lost world, and chose a people for Himself, with the purpose of raising that people up throughout the space/time continuum to prove to the world that He was the only One and True God. The jews did not write the words of God down until after their 400 years of slavery in Egypt. The greek gods, who are the "fallen angels, cast to earth" of the Bible, had knowledge of these things, and imbued certain knowledge on thier human subjects. satan has no new or original ideas, all he can do is skewer the truth. He gives a little bit of truth with a lot of lies, thats how he dupes people.
The Bible claims to be the ultimate authority, the Word of the One True God, and the ultimate truth regarding mankinds origins, purpose and final destination. Nowhere does it say that it was the first written account of mankind. It claims to be the first and only written account of God. That does not imply that people didn't have previous knowledge of things, including the afterlife. Oral tradition always precedes written tradition.
and he said "Let there be Light!" God spoke the world into existence first, THEN He wrote it down though his servants.
When we stop assuming that the Greek gods didn't exist, then this whole argument dissappears. The greek gods came from the heavenly places, so they knew heavenly things. They shared some of this knowledge with mankind before the Bible was written, thats all. Jesus' words confirm that these places are real. "I am the truth.."

[GourmetDan]

The answer is simple. Its not "mythological" its real. Just because the greeks wrote of it before it was in the Bible, does not mean its mythological. And it doesn't discredit the Bible, or Jesus sayings at all.


You can be sure that if there are any ideas that are exclusive to the Bible, somebody would argue that they can be ignored because they don't exist anywhere else...

[Rose]

The answer is simple. Its not "mythological" its real. Just because the greeks wrote of it before it was in the Bible, does not mean its mythological. And it doesn't discredit the Bible, or Jesus sayings at all. The Bible does not claim to be the "first" writing ever. The story of the Bible is that God saw law a lost world, and chose a people for Himself, with the purpose of raising that people up throughout the space/time continuum to prove to the world that He was the only One and True God. The jews did not write the words of God down until after their 400 years of slavery in Egypt. The greek gods, who are the "fallen angels, cast to earth" of the Bible, had knowledge of these things, and imbued certain knowledge on thier human subjects. satan has no new or original ideas, all he can do is skewer the truth. He gives a little bit of truth with a lot of lies, thats how he dupes people.

Hello Malachi

Your a bit off on the story of the Bible. God didn't see a lost world, he supposedly created humans that would fall and become lost so that he would need to send a savior. If the Bible were really true, the total blame would fall on its god for without him nothing would exist in the first place.

We have no more reason or evidence to believe in the Biblegod, then we have reason or evidence to believe in Leprechauns, Trolls, Fairy's, Pink Unicorns or the Abominable Snowman ... so, what makes you think that primitive men living three thousand years ago had more evidence then we do today? All your information about Yahweh comes from one book that is full of falsehoods, errors and contradictions. Would you believe and have faith in a doctor that told you babies are delivered by the stork, or that Santa Claus is a real person who delivers gifts to children with flying reindeer? I would hope not.


The Bible claims to be the ultimate authority, the Word of the One True God, and the ultimate truth regarding mankinds origins, purpose and final destination. Nowhere does it say that it was the first written account of mankind. It claims to be the first and only written account of God. That does not imply that people didn't have previous knowledge of things, including the afterlife. Oral tradition always precedes written tradition.
and he said "Let there be Light!" God spoke the world into existence first, THEN He wrote it down though his servants.
When we stop assuming that the Greek gods didn't exist, then this whole argument dissappears. The greek gods came from the heavenly places, so they knew heavenly things. They shared some of this knowledge with mankind before the Bible was written, thats all. Jesus' words confirm that these places are real. "I am the truth.."

2 Timothy is the only place in the entire Bible that claims inspiration of god, and that is only applicable to the Old Testament, because the New Testament was not written at that time. Nowhere does the Bible claim to be the first and only written account of god ... you just made that up!

2Tim.3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:



There are many different accounts of creation and the gods who participated in that event, but most have fallen by the wayside for a very good reason ... human knowledge and intelligence has grown. We know what causes lightening and thunder (not a god in the heavens), we know what causes rain and why there are droughts (not a god punishing people), we know how reproduction works (men don't carry around homunculus in their loins), the list could go on and on ...

The god of the Old Testament would have also followed the path of the Greek gods if Jesus hadn't come along and changed his image. The problem is the barbaric god of the Old Testament is inextricably tied to the god Jesus called his father, so even though Yahweh is just as barbaric as all the other mythological gods he can't be extricated because he's the same god.


Take care
Rose

[GourmetDan]

If the Bible were really true, the total blame would fall on its god for without him nothing would exist in the first place.


Interesting how some don't understand what Jesus Christ was all about...

[Rose]

http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Rose http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=59317#post59317)
If the Bible were really true, the total blame would fall on its god for without him nothing would exist in the first place.


Interesting how some don't understand what Jesus Christ was all about...

I'm embarrassed to say :sEm_blush8: that I was a Christian for nearly 28 years, :eek: so I think I understand what the doctrine of salvation is all about ... too bad it took me so long to wake up! I read a cute little saying once that really hit the nail on the head, it said: "Once you wake up, it's hard to go back to sheep!"

I must say that even when I was a Christian I never bought into the whole idea of one man and woman causing all of humanity to be born in a state of sin. It just never really made a whole lot of sense to me, and now I understand why. In many ways I guess I was just like so many other Christians who keep what makes sense to them while ignoring the rest ... :p

[David M]

I must say that even when I was a Christian I never bought into the whole idea of one man and woman causing all of humanity to be born in a state of sin. It just never really made a whole lot of sense to me,

Hello Rose

I always seem to have a different understanding of these things and whereas you never bought into the idea ..., that shows you were thinking differently and something was wrong with what you were being taught. You were right to think like that, but unfortunately, you have swung too far in the wrong direction. I do not have the problem you have got. The Bible makes sense to me, I have overcome most of the difficulties that people like to present and make every excuse for not believing God's word. There are by no means the hundreds or errors or contradictions people like to say they are, and they will happily be ignorant and not attempt to resolve the problems they see. Of the few problems that do remain, they are not sufficient to make me reject the whole which is totally consistent and coherent in its message.

You can think I am wrong and you can say I am wrong, but that does not mean I am wrong and I could be right. I make no boast, I reason things out, and so if you sustain the reasoning from the Bible, and reason everything out, we should be able eventually to come to an agreement. We can begin my asking; what is your proof or reason for saying Adam and Ever caused humanity to be born in a state of sin?

As I see this, Adam and Eve were not made already sinful, nor were their children born full of sin (sinful). Having the propensity to sin, is not the same thing as being born sinful. It is in everyone, given the right encouragement and guidance, to be sinless. The fact that we have failed does not mean we were never in the position not to fail. That is what we have to understand about Jesus, otherwise you would say he was born sinful. He cannot be said to be God if he was born sinful.That is not to say Jesus was God, who could do no sin. Jesus was born a man.

It is very clear that Jesus was tempted to sin on many occasions and he had to resist and he did resist. We know of one method he used in order to combat temptation; he would recall the instruction of God that guided him to do what God wanted. It is no different for you and I except we do not do what Jesus was prepared to do.

God is vindicated by the perfect life of Jesus, who was a man. It cannot be said; it is impossible for a human to live a sinless life. Jesus proved it was possible and since Jesus proved it was possible, you cannot say that men and women are born sinful.

All the best
David

[Rose]

Hello Rose

I always seem to have a different understanding of these things and whereas you never bought into the idea ..., that shows you were thinking differently and something was wrong with what you were being taught. You were right to think like that, but unfortunately, you have swung too far in the wrong direction. I do not have the problem you have got. The Bible makes sense to me, I have overcome most of the difficulties that people like to present and make every excuse for not believing God's word. There are by no means the hundreds or errors or contradictions people like to say they are, and they will happily be ignorant and not attempt to resolve the problems they see. Of the few problems that do remain, they are not sufficient to make me reject the whole which is totally consistent and coherent in its message.

Hello David

I think there are a lot more errors and contradictions then you are willing to admit, not to mention all the arbitrary laws based on ignorance and superstitions along with a substantial amount of misinformation about the cause of diseases. If the Bible were truly inspired by a deity it should contain no errors or falsehoods and all its laws should be just and equitable ... sadly that is not the case.


You can think I am wrong and you can say I am wrong, but that does not mean I am wrong and I could be right. I make no boast, I reason things out, and so if you sustain the reasoning from the Bible, and reason everything out, we should be able eventually to come to an agreement. We can begin my asking; what is your proof or reason for saying Adam and Eve caused humanity to be born in a state of sin?

As I see this, Adam and Eve were not made already sinful, nor were their children born full of sin (sinful). Having the propensity to sin, is not the same thing as being born sinful. It is in everyone, given the right encouragement and guidance, to be sinless. The fact that we have failed does not mean we were never in the position not to fail. That is what we have to understand about Jesus, otherwise you would say he was born sinful. He cannot be said to be God if he was born sinful.That is not to say Jesus was God, who could do no sin. Jesus was born a man.

The teaching of Adam and Eve's sinfulness comes from the Apostle Paul. He teaches that the reason women are put in subjection to men is because Eve was the one who transgressed, for that reason all women must suffer ... and even though Adam also sinned, a much greater burden of suffering was placed on the woman. Thanks to men like Paul women have endured horrible hardships at the hands of men ever since.


2Tim.2:11-15 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.




It is very clear that Jesus was tempted to sin on many occasions and he had to resist and he did resist. We know of one method he used in order to combat temptation; he would recall the instruction of God that guided him to do what God wanted. It is no different for you and I except we do not do what Jesus was prepared to do.

God is vindicated by the perfect life of Jesus, who was a man. It cannot be said; it is impossible for a human to live a sinless life. Jesus proved it was possible and since Jesus proved it was possible, you cannot say that men and women are born sinful.

All the best
David

What was the point of the immaculate conception if Jesus could have lived a sinless life as a full human? The Bible says Jesus was different because he did not have an earthly father of the flesh, so how can you compare Jesus to a full human. According to the Bible humans need a savior because they are sinful.
Rom.5:18-19 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.




Take care
Rose

[David M]

Hello Rose

Hello David
I think there are a lot more errors and contradictions then you are willing to admit, not to mention all the arbitrary laws based on ignorance and superstitions along with a substantial amount of misinformation about the cause of diseases. If the Bible were truly inspired by a deity it should contain no errors or falsehoods and all its laws should be just and equitable ... sadly that is not the case. You have to say that, because you have to justify your position though you have not proven what you say. I agree with others that there are only a few difficult passages in the Bible to understand. You cannot prove that any word of God was said by him in error. All the errors come later from what is written down, copied, translated, and speculated about.

The laws are equitable. The 10 commandments are equitable. The reward of eternal life is equitable, and so I can go on.
If I say I have 10 or 20 errors in the Bible (not errors in God's original word) which I am still trying to find an explanation for, then even that number is far less than the 700 errors claimed by other people. You will not accept my explanations which eliminate and correct those errors, and therefore, the errors remain to you. They do not remain to me.


The teaching of Adam and Eve's sinfulness comes from the Apostle Paul. He teaches that the reason women are put in subjection to men is because Eve was the one who transgressed, for that reason all women must suffer ... and even though Adam also sinned, a much greater burden of suffering was placed on the woman. Thanks to men like Paul women have endured horrible hardships at the hands of men ever since.

2Tim.2:11-15 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
Now you are changing the subject and we can take this up in another thread. The present discussion is on the fact that you said; "be born in a state of sin". I have reasoned against that. What is wrong with my reasoning? You are following your agenda and not staying on topic. Keep reasoning against the words I replied, or else accept you are in error for saying in effect; children are born in a state of already being full of sin (sinful).


What was the point of the immaculate conception if Jesus could have lived a sinless life as a full human? The Bible says Jesus was different because he did not have an earthly father of the flesh, so how can you compare Jesus to a full human. According to the Bible humans need a savior because they are sinful.
Rom.5:18-19 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
This is still off the topic of our discussion, but I will answer you anyway in the hope that if you do not accept what I say, someone will appreciate my explanation.
God fathered Jesus by creating effectively the male sperm essential for fertilizing the egg in Mary. There is no change in the physical process of procreation. Jesus was not born of the substance of God, which we know is Spirit and is therefore not of flesh and blood. (1 Cor 15:20) flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; Given that we have to accept that statement as true, then God or Jesus cannot now be flesh and blood. God has never been flesh and blood and cannot be, for flesh and blood is less than the Spirit, which God is. Jesus was flesh and blood to begin with, but since he has been raised from the dead, and given a body that is incorruptible, not made of corruptible flesh and blood, that is why Jesus can be in Heaven and in the Kingdom of God. We are told that at the resurrection the saints are given an incorruptible body like that of Jesus has now. All those in the Kingdom of God, living eternal lives, will have bodies not referred to as; "flesh and blood". More than that, I cannot say. I do not know what the new "spirit" body will consist of, though I do not mind having a speculative discussion on the subject.

I would hope Rose that some of what I have been saying to you in this and other replies to you, you are no totally ignoring and that you can see where you have not understood God's word correctly. When all the things I have been saying are put together, the whole purpose of God becomes clearer and is not the picture or story which mainstream Christendom teaches. You were brought up in that culture and it is good you have turned away from that culture, but in turning away, you have failed to know what the Truth is. That is the real pity about your situation from my point of view. You say you have an open mind, but are you closing it to what I say when I am backing it up with the word of God and sound reasoning? I will reason with you, but please stay on track and finish off one subject at a time. The subject is; are children born sinful? I have answered; no. I have given you my reasons for saying; no. What are your reasons for saying; yes?

All the best.

David

[David M]

Hello malachigreenidge


Hello David. I will not comment on everything you said, because most of the time you are just wind-bagging. I would not call giving rational reasons "wind-bagging". At least, I do not generally give sound-bites which are not backed up.


If you can't understand my simple writings, I don't see how you can understand scripture(which you clearly dont)Let us see who of us understands scripture more. This should make for good rational debate/argument/discourse.


Go back to post #54, and read it again. I dont believe they were God(s). I believe they posed as "gods," (lied) and that the Greeks believed them. I clearly stated that there is only One God, who is Jesus, who created everything, including these fallen angels who appeared to the ancient Greeks. And I qouted the same verse in Isaiah as you did. I did not have your post open in front of me at the time. It is good you believe in one God, but God being Jesus, I disagree with you. I expect you to join in the two threads going on at the moment; 'Jesus is not God' and 'Jesus is God'. Can both be right?


A 3000 year old Jewish play?? Im not even gonna touch that one. Why not? Have you not read any of Shakespeare's plays or similar? If not, I can understand why you do not recognize dramatization.


Satan is not a real person or spirit being? So who tempted Jesus in the desert? And who is being thrown into the lake of fire at the end of time? and Im not even going to bother to quote all the bible verses on the "person" of satan. (there are at least 35) Or perhaps you think they are all plays too...I have started a thread; http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2776-What-is-meant-by-the-term-Satan Why not start there and continue that thread. In the meantime, I will for those reading this post, simply say that the enemy of God is the carnal mind (Romans 8:7) 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God:. I have come to understand the Serpent, The Devil, and Satan are all part of our mind. (Rev 12:7) that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: (Jer 17:9 ) The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
10 I the LORD search the heart,


complete contradiction, in the same paragraph even. Utterly ridiculous my friend.You sound so like Richard our host.


"There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown" Gen 6:4
They were not human. They were the offspring of the "sons of God" and human women. Thats WHY they were giants. What is meant by "Giants" is what has always been meant by giants. Large people. What did David kill? a GIANT!!! The scriptures even give the physical dimensions of Goliath. Almost 10 feet tall, and over 400 pounds. I suppose you're just going to argue about the "actual" length of a cubit though. So its really pointless to interact with you, because you just explain everything away based on your own fantastic mind... I do not boast about having a fantastic mind. I make no such claim. I take that as cynical remark, instead of a compliment. If we reason from the Bible, how do you know the 'sons of God' are non-human? Let is just take this a step at a time. When you have answered that question, I will reply to your answer.


apparently, the picture is ONLY clear to you. Pride was the fall of satan too. Oh no, sorry, he isn't real. That was just a play... Almost right. Satan is not just in the Book of Job, written in the style of a play. Every time Satan is mentioned, you will find a human connection. Jesus was tempted in his own mind to use God's power for his own glory and not for God's glory. It is very simple to understand once you dispense with the myth and inventions of man which complicate matters. Personification is way of presenting us with simple picture stories, so we get the principle behind the teaching. Explaining the complexities of the mind is not what the Bible sets out to do. Differentiating between the different applications of the word "satan" is something we have to learn. An absurd conclusion is to say the when Jesus callled Peter, "Satan", this is the same Satan as mentioned in the Book of Job. How do you reconcile the different applications of the word/title of Satan?


thanx for your thoughtsThank you, That is what this forum is about; expressing our thoughts. I hope you answer my questions.


David

[Rose]

Hello Rose
You have to say that, because you have to justify your position though you have not proven what you say. I agree with others that there are only a few difficult passages in the Bible to understand. You cannot prove that any word of God was said by him in error. All the errors come later from what is written down, copied, translated, and speculated about.

The laws are equitable. The 10 commandments are equitable. The reward of eternal life is equitable, and so I can go on.
If I say I have 10 or 20 errors in the Bible (not errors in God's original word) which I am still trying to find an explanation for, then even that number is far less than the 700 errors claimed by other people. You will not accept my explanations which eliminate and correct those errors, and therefore, the errors remain to you. They do not remain to me.

Hello David

Like I said, it's not just errors, but also contradictions, falsehoods, inequalities and biases. The laws are most certainly NOT equitable, men are always favored over women. If a god given law is biased that means god is biased, and if god is biased he is not just or fair, consequently he is unrighteous!


Now you are changing the subject and we can take this up in another thread. The present discussion is on the fact that you said; "be born in a state of sin". I have reasoned against that. What is wrong with my reasoning? You are following your agenda and not staying on topic. Keep reasoning against the words I replied, or else accept you are in error for saying in effect; children are born in a state of already being full of sin (sinful).

Please answer me this. If a child is born and commits no wrongs in his life and dies at the age of 18 without a belief in Jesus, what is the condition of his soul according to your Christian belief?


This is still off the topic of our discussion, but I will answer you anyway in the hope that if you do not accept what I say, someone will appreciate my explanation.
God fathered Jesus by creating effectively the male sperm essential for fertilizing the egg in Mary. There is no change in the physical process of procreation. Jesus was not born of the substance of God, which we know is Spirit and is therefore not of flesh and blood. (1 Cor 15:20) flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; Given that we have to accept that statement as true, then God or Jesus cannot now be flesh and blood. God has never been flesh and blood and cannot be, for flesh and blood is less than the Spirit, which God is. Jesus was flesh and blood to begin with, but since he has been raised from the dead, and given a body that is incorruptible, not made of corruptible flesh and blood, that is why Jesus can be in Heaven and in the Kingdom of God. We are told that at the resurrection the saints are given an incorruptible body like that of Jesus has now. All those in the Kingdom of God, living eternal lives, will have bodies not referred to as; "flesh and blood". More than that, I cannot say. I do not know what the new "spirit" body will consist of, though I do not mind having a speculative discussion on the subject.

What was the need of god creating a sperm, instead of Jesus being fathered by a human?


I would hope Rose that some of what I have been saying to you in this and other replies to you, you are no totally ignoring and that you can see where you have not understood God's word correctly. When all the things I have been saying are put together, the whole purpose of God becomes clearer and is not the picture or story which mainstream Christendom teaches. You were brought up in that culture and it is good you have turned away from that culture, but in turning away, you have failed to know what the Truth is. That is the real pity about your situation from my point of view. You say you have an open mind, but are you closing it to what I say when I am backing it up with the word of God and sound reasoning? I will reason with you, but please stay on track and finish off one subject at a time. The subject is; are children born sinful? I have answered; no. I have given you my reasons for saying; no. What are your reasons for saying; yes?

All the best.

David

Just to clarify ... I don't personally believe children are born sinful, but I do believe that is what the Bible teaches.

You say I have failed to know what the truth is ... could you please clarify exactly what "Truth" I have failed to know?

Backing something up by using reasoning from what you call the word of god means nothing, because the Bible is not the word of god, it is a collection of writings authored by primitive men who were totally biased toward the male.

Take care
Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hello Rose

I always seem to have a different understanding of these things and whereas you never bought into the idea ..., that shows you were thinking differently and something was wrong with what you were being taught. You were right to think like that, but unfortunately, you have swung too far in the wrong direction. I do not have the problem you have got. The Bible makes sense to me, I have overcome most of the difficulties that people like to present and make every excuse for not believing God's word. There are by no means the hundreds or errors or contradictions people like to say they are, and they will happily be ignorant and not attempt to resolve the problems they see. Of the few problems that do remain, they are not sufficient to make me reject the whole which is totally consistent and coherent in its message.


Hey there David,

I know you don't want me to mention "cults" but I can't avoid it because you constantly say things that sound like the teachings of a cult. Specifically, you constantly assert that anyone who disagrees with your personal beliefs do so because it is "what they were taught." I find this outrageously ironic because that is the central dogma that is taught by all cults! They all teach that their teachings are "what the Bible teaches" whereas all the "false beliefs" (i.e. beliefs not taught by the cult) are the "traditions of men." You have been repeating this assertion for nearly two years now, and I have brought it to your attention many times. How is it that you continue in it?

The Christadelphians provide a most pronounced example of this absurdity, as seen in this snippet from the wiki article (which is supported by links to Christadelphian sources):
[Christadelphian] Bereans doubt that the Bible alone is sufficient to teach the gospel, believing that the writings of either John Thomas or Robert Roberts are not only necessary but vital for a correct understanding of the Scriptures (considering the writings of John Thomas and Robert Roberts authoritative expositions of the Bible), and it is taught that neglect of the regular reading of these writings is 'to put our own salvation at risk!'.[31] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berean_Christadelphians#cite_note-Search_Me.2C_O_God-31)[31] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berean_Christadelphians#cite_note-Search_Me.2C_O_God-31)[40] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berean_Christadelphians#cite_note-40)[41] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berean_Christadelphians#cite_note-41)[42] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berean_Christadelphians#cite_note-42)[43] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berean_Christadelphians#cite_note-43) Bereans are typically suspicious of interpreting the Bible without the aid of the writings of John Thomas and Robert Roberts.[44] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berean_Christadelphians#cite_note-44)[45] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berean_Christadelphians#cite_note-45) The writings of John Thomas and Robert Roberts are considered authoritative expositions in the Berean fellowship, and Bereans will often quote them in discussion of Biblical issues instead of quoting the Bible.[46] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berean_Christadelphians#cite_note-46)[47] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berean_Christadelphians#cite_note-47)
This is the ultimate irony that reveals the utter absurdity and deep delusion that overtakes the minds of cult members. They are guilty of the very error that they constantly charge against all others. Amazing. Let this be a warning to all concerning the dangers of cultic thinking.

Now as for your assertion that there are not "hundreds or errors or contradictions" but rather only a "few", all I can do is hang my head in despair to see how you have chosen to delude yourself. Christians have written thousands of large books trying to solve those problems and have failed. Many, if not most, of your "solutions" are utterly irrational and unbelievable absurdities forced upon the text to save it from what it actually says. The proof is permanently engraved in the more than 1700 hundred posts you have contributed to this forum. The vast majority have been utterly refuted and shown to be totally erroneous, and how did you respond? But simply ignoring the proof and repeating your errors! It's all recorded for folks to see. Take a look at the latest example in this post (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3410-Can-God-s-Angels-in-Heaven-be-trusted&p=59351#post59351), which also is the most damning, where I show that you have refuted yourself by using the words "and yet" 277 times in this forum in direct contradiction of your ridiculous assertion that they are "poor grammar" and so should be rejected.

Now don't get me wrong David. I am not your enemy. On the contrary, you should think of me as you best friend and strongest advocate since I have "gone the distance" with you and done everything in my power to help you see the delusions that have trapped your mind and blinded you to the wondrous glory of reality. And with this in mind, I trust you can perceive my sincerity when I say ...

All the best,

Richard

[David M]

Hello Richard

Hey there David, I know you don't want me to mention "cults" but I can't avoid it You are right about this; the only thing I will agree with you. I am not going to discuss cults with you or mention cults. I will reason from the word of God (as best we have it). You can avoid mentioning cults; you just do not want to do that. Cults have nothing to do with reasoning from the Bible. If you insist on labelling me, I am going to stop responding. It has to be one of the rules in any future discussion as with the other rules I have given you in another post recently.


Take a look at the latest example in this post (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3410-Can-God-s-Angels-in-Heaven-be-trusted&p=59351#post59351), which also is the most damning, where I show that you have refuted yourself by using the words "and yet" 277 times in this forum in direct contradiction of your ridiculous assertion that they are "poor grammar" and so should be rejected. Good for you, you have access to the database in a way that members of this forum do not.

I am not an expert on English grammar and never claim to be. I caught myself using "and yet" the other day in a post to you and it was superfluous, so I edited it out. When I use the words "and yet", it is most times incorrect unless I have used it idiomatically.

I shall respond to your other posts soon and continue to expose your error, since you are the one claiming to be a word-smith and formulating the paradox so succinctly that you refused to change the wording in any way.


David

[David M]

Hello Rose

Hello David
Like I said, it's not just errors, but also contradictions, falsehoods, inequalities and biases. The laws are most certainly NOT equitable, men are always favored over women. If a god given law is biased that means god is biased, and if god is biased he is not just or fair, consequently he is unrighteous!We shall have to look at a specific examples, otherwise it is unsubstantiated opinion.


Please answer me this. If a child is born and commits no wrongs in his life and dies at the age of 18 without a belief in Jesus, what is the condition of his soul according to your Christian belief?

What was the need of god creating a sperm, instead of Jesus being fathered by a human? Up to this point you have not answered my questions, so I will answer your questions when you have answered mine.


Just to clarify ... I don't personally believe children are born sinful, but I do believe that is what the Bible teaches. The Bible does not teach that. You might have convinced yourself that it does. You have to show me where the Bible teaches what you say.


You say I have failed to know what the truth is ... could you please clarify exactly what "Truth" I have failed to know? The Truth is God's word as it was originally written down as instructed or under inspiration. The law which Moses had been given by God was also to be written on the 12 stones taken from the river Jordan when they crossed over. They were instructed to write the words plainly so there was no misreading or misunderstanding. God is the supreme word-smith and only God can say something and it is guaranteed to happen. (Isa 55:11) So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please,You fail to recognise prophecy fufilled and being fulfiiled, so I know why you cannot see God's word as truth.


Backing something up by using reasoning from what you call the word of god means nothing, because the Bible is not the word of god, it is a collection of writings authored by primitive men who were totally biased toward the male. OK Rose, you have given me the reason again not to reason with you from the Bible or have any future discussion with you on the Bible. All I can do from now on is point out what I think your error is and leave it at that. The same goes for anyone wanting to engage in discussion with me. It is fruitless so long as they have a complete rejection of God in their mind. If you will not let in any light, you remain in the dark. (John 12:46)I (Jesus) am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.

Any any further conversation with you on the Bible is pointless. We can only continue this conversation if you answer my first question in the last post and admit your error, or else continue to pursue reasoning that one point until all reasoning has been exhausted. Then it should be possible to reach a conclusion we both agree with.

All the best,

David

[Rose]

http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Rose http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=59347#post59347)
Hello David
Like I said, it's not just errors, but also contradictions, falsehoods, inequalities and biases. The laws are most certainly NOT equitable, men are always favored over women. If a god given law is biased that means god is biased, and if god is biased he is not just or fair, consequently he is unrighteous!

Hello Rose
We shall have to look at a specific examples, otherwise it is unsubstantiated opinion.

Here is a good place to start David: The Male Bias of the Bible (http://godandbutterfly.net/the-male-bias-of-the-bible/the-biblical-male-mindset/) ... all the examples I give in my booklet come directly from the Bible.




http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Rose http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=59347#post59347)
You say I have failed to know what the truth is ... could you please clarify exactly what "Truth" I have failed to know?

The Truth is God's word as it was originally written down as instructed or under inspiration. The law which Moses had been given by God was also to be written on the 12 stones taken from the river Jordan when they crossed over. They were instructed to write the words plainly so there was no misreading or misunderstanding. God is the supreme word-smith and only God can say something and it is guaranteed to happen. (Isa 55:11) So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please,You fail to recognise prophecy fufilled and being fulfiiled, so I know why you cannot see God's word as truth.

And how exactly do you know what was originally written down?


Take care,
Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hello Richard

Hey there David, I know you don't want me to mention "cults" but I can't avoid it because you constantly say things that sound like the teachings of a cult. Specifically, you constantly assert that anyone who disagrees with your personal beliefs do so because it is "what they were taught." I find this outrageously ironic because that is the central dogma that is taught by all cults! They all teach that their teachings are "what the Bible teaches" whereas all the "false beliefs" (i.e. beliefs not taught by the cult) are the "traditions of men." You have been repeating this assertion for nearly two years now, and I have brought it to your attention many times. How is it that you continue in it?
You are right about this; the only thing I will agree with you. I am not going to discuss cults with you or mention cults. I will reason from the word of God (as best we have it). You can avoid mentioning cults; you just do not want to do that. Cults have nothing to do with reasoning from the Bible. If you insist on labelling me, I am going to stop responding. It has to be one of the rules in any future discussion as with the other rules I have given you in another post recently.

Hey there David,

I think you need to start reading more carefully and "make it a rule" to answer what I say rather than clipping it out of your response and ignoring it (as you did with the text that I highlighted red). I am not interested in "labeling you." I explained my reason for bringing up the cult of the Christadelphians. It was because you habitually make claims that cult members make, as I explained above. If you want me to stop mentioning cults, all you need to do is stop writing like a cult member. Stop accusing others of "following the traditions of men" merely because they came to conclusions that are different than yours. You are the one labeling others as "followers of the traditions of men" so you are doing the very thing you are complaining about. It's pretty simple stuff.




Take a look at the latest example in this post (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3410-Can-God-s-Angels-in-Heaven-be-trusted&p=59351#post59351), which also is the most damning, where I show that you have refuted yourself by using the words "and yet" 277 times in this forum in direct contradiction of your ridiculous assertion that they are "poor grammar" and so should be rejected.
Good for you, you have access to the database in a way that members of this forum do not.

Yes, I have access to the database in ways that you do not. But as I said before, I am willing to find any posts that you cannot find using the public search tool. Just ask, and I will do it for you.



I am not an expert on English grammar and never claim to be. I caught myself using "and yet" the other day in a post to you and it was superfluous, so I edited it out. When I use the words "and yet", it is most times incorrect unless I have used it idiomatically.

You don't claim to be an "expert on English grammar" yet you freely assert that the Merriam Webster dictionary used "bad grammar" in their definition of "paradox"? Get real David. You also are accusing the translators of the KJV of using bad grammar because they used the words "and yet" in thirty five verses. And you rejected the examples of the subjunctive mood published by Philip B. Corbett of the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/29/business/media/29asktheeditors.html?pagewanted=all) who is in charge of revisions of their grammar book called "The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage: The Official Style Guide Used by the Writers and Editors of the World's Most Authoritative Newspaper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times_Manual_of_Style_and_Usage)." And you have rejected the examples of the subjunctive mood given by the most prominent authority on the English language on the planet, the Oxford English Dictionary! And now you say that you don't claim to be an "expert in English grammar"? Get real, dude! You have set yourself up as the ONLY AUTHORITY on the planet! And the really absurd thing is that you have not cited a single authoritative source backing up your claims.

And now you freely admit that many of the 277 times you used the words "and yet" may have been incorrect? Wow. Just wow. You are willing to say that your use of those words was wrong merely to avoid admitting that I am right? Amazing. And the really pathetic thing is that your use of those words was not wrong at all. I reviewed them and your use of them was in perfect accordance with everything I have ever said on this subject. Therefore, you have confirmed my words whether you like it or not. There's nothing you can do about this because you are fighting not against me, but against the truth itself.

And there is yet more irony in the tactic you have chosen in your vain effort to avoid the truth. By admitting that you have been using these words erroneously for two solid years, why should anyone think that you suddenly got it right? You have admitted that you have been repeating an error concerning those very words even as you claim that your judgment concerning their "correct use" supersedes that of the primary authorities of the planet! Wow. Just wow. Did you suddenly become a world class grammatical expert after two full years of using those two simple words (which everyone else understands with no problem), incorrectly?



I shall respond to your other posts soon and continue to expose your error, since you are the one claiming to be a word-smith and formulating the paradox so succinctly that you refused to change the wording in any way.

Now you are talking like a crazy man. You have never "exposed" a single error relating to my use of the words "and yet." I have proven my point by citing primary authorities on the English language like Merriam Websters, Oxford English Dictionary, and Philip B. Corbett of the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/29/business/media/29asktheeditors.html?pagewanted=all) who is in charge of revisions of their grammar book called "The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage: The Official Style Guide Used by the Writers and Editors of the World's Most Authoritative Newspaper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times_Manual_of_Style_and_Usage)." I quoted published papers written by professional professors of the Philosophy of Language who repeatedly used the phrase "and yet" in their published works (proof (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3410-Can-God-s-Angels-in-Heaven-be-trusted&p=59348#post59348)). And what evidence have you countered with? A random comment written by an anonymous blog use which was contradicted by the majority of the other comments! I know you don't like me using words like "absurd, ludicrous, and insane" but what choice do you give me when you make such claims?

And I have never claimed to be a "word smith". I merely stated the fact that my formulation of your paradox was perfect and precise, and you have never presented any evidence that contradicts that fact. My formulation follows the definition 2a given in the Merriam Webster dictionary:
Paradox
2a : a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true
You set yourself up as the ultimate planetary authority on English grammar when you reject the body of evidence I have presented.

And finally, I have NOT refused to change the wording. On the contrary, I dropped the word "yet" with the hope that you would stop using that as an excuse to reject my formulation of your paradox. It changed nothing of substance - I dropped it merely because you are too stubborn and/or confused to admit your error. And how did you respond? By TOTALLY IGNORING the question I asked and then REFUSING to agree that my new formulation without the "yet" was correct. I had presented a simple logical sequence of five questions that any sane person would have had no problem answering. Here they are (from post #272 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3410-Can-God-s-Angels-in-Heaven-be-trusted&p=59131#post59131) of the other thread):
If you really want to "have a conversation" and "drill down" to the real issue, then you need to begin by actually responding to the explanations I give.

Start here:

1) By definition, there would be a contradiction if P and Not P were both true.

2) By your own premise, Angels sinning in heaven would imply that God's will was not being done.

3) Therefore, if P = "God's will is done in heaven" and Q = "God's angels in heaven sin" then Q implies NOT P. (This is just another way of saying that Q contradicts P).

4) Therefore, there would be a contradiction IF P AND Q.

5) Therefore, there would be a contradiction IF God's will is done in heaven AND God's angels in heaven could sin.

DO YOU AGREE WITH THIS LOGIC? DO YOU AGREE IT IS PERFECT AND PRECISE? IF NOT, WHY NOT?

And how did you respond? By ignoring my question and complaining that I had "changed" the words by dropping the "yet".

When I changed the words you complained, and now you accuse me of refusing to change them? What kind of madness is this? :doh:

Richard

[David M]

Hello Rose



And how exactly do you know what was originally written down?To answer your last question first. What was written down is the ancient Hebrew scriptures before they were copied. We do not have the original manuscripts; we only have handed down copies. The Hebrews were meticulous in copying the manuscripts, but small errors of transcription crept in. As the errors crept in so those errors have been compounded. Those with an agenda to criticize the Bible their own make excuses for rejecting the Bibles authenticity.


Here is a good place to start David: The Male Bias of the Bible (http://godandbutterfly.net/the-male-bias-of-the-bible/the-biblical-male-mindset/) ... all the examples I give in my booklet come directly from the Bible. That is a long post and so that will have to form the basis of separate threads in which each example can be considered. I think we might have covered some already in the many discussions we have had.

For now I will past the following list from the book:

1. Women are considered the property of the man.
2. Women are ruled over by men solely based on their gender.
3. Women do not share equal rights with men.
4. Women are considered of less value than men.
5. Progeny is claimed to be carried through the loins of the male.
6. The Biblegod is exclusively portrayed with “male� attributes.

The Bible does reflect the culture of the time and I have agreed that the Bible does show bias, but not too the extent that you make out or that God is biased against women. God is portrayed as male though in reality, God is ONE and has no genda. God is not male or female. God has no reproductive organs like humans have. It is almost a nonsense to have to talk in such terms. God is Spirit and not flesh and blood.

Women do appear to be the property of men, but in God's eyes women are to be looked after by men, whether women are wives or daughters. In that respect, women are property to be loved and provided for. Not property in the sense of something to be bought and sold and swapped whenever the father has a whim to. Wives and daughters are to be respected and treated as women should be treated the same as any "neighbour" must be treated. There are roles for men and women and those roles make the differences which you see as bias.

Take #5 in the list. Why is it that in general that most women want to have a son as their first-born? Is it just to please their husband or is it because the son is recognized as continuing the family name? Are women willing supporting this tradition?

Is not God given any female attributes?

The fact is; God made male and female and that applies to the animals as well. Is there bias in the animal kingdom. Do not the male and female of the species (kinds) of animals have different roles? Examples can be found of where this is the case. In some cases, we see the male doing what might be considered to be the role of the female. Today, we have house-husbands which are doing the work traditionally done by women. That is tradition and where does tradition come from? That you can attribute to man and not God.

The male and female partnership is essential, but the one difference at procreation is that the male sperm passes to the female who has the egg. The egg when fertilized in the woman stays in the woman. The woman has the role of giving birth. That is a joy (though painful) of producing offspring. The main point from this is that the male is the giver. Sperm passes from male to female. The egg does not pass from the woman to the man. We can take that difference and apply that to God, who is the giver. That is why we can attribute and regard God as the Father. God was the father of Jesus. God could not be the mother of Jesus, Mary was the mother of Jesus. From this point, we can work backwards as well as forward, we would have to determine that God is playing a male role. We cannot get away from this idea of God appearing as male. Jesus is also the giver in that Jesus brought "light" into the world, and that "light" we can receive (though you now reject it). This analogy of the giver or provider being the female does not follow. The female is the receptor. There is no getting away from that. That does not make the woman redundant or of lesser importance and is essential for the unity of marriage. It is in the light of marriage and unity that there is no bias against women. Women are equally important and in the Bible, though women are fewer in number who get a mention, women are shown to have had some of the greatest roles exceeding that of many many. Without a woman, the provision of Jesus would never have happened. Women are indispensable and that makes them every bit as equal as the man.

God is the provider. God sustains the universe. In that sense from the male has the role as the provider for the family. That is a bias, but not a bias whereby a woman is not treated to be treated as a neighbour in compliance with the second great commandment. God gave the man the role and responsibility of being the spiritual leader as head of the household and that is why males were made the priests. Did women in those days, when God gave his law at Mount Sinai campaign for women's equal rights to be priests, or were they accepting of the way their God had determined these things?

All the best
David

[David M]

Hello Richard
I intended to answer your other posts in the thread where this reply belongs, but you insist on carrying this conversation on in any thread where you get the opportunity and so I will answer you here and this is answering your other posts just in case you start accusing me of not answering those posts. I am surprised you continue this after you agreed that I could submit your formulation to an English language expert for their analysis and comment on the grammar. I will again expose the error of your ways.


Hey there David,

I think you need to start reading more carefully and "make it a rule" to answer what I say rather than clipping it out of your response and ignoring it (as you did with the text that I highlighted red). I am not interested in "labeling you." I explained my reason for bringing up the cult of the Christadelphians. It was because you habitually make claims that cult members make, as I explained above. If you want me to stop mentioning cults, all you need to do is stop writing like a cult member. Stop accusing others of "following the traditions of men" merely because they came to conclusions that are different than yours. You are the one labeling others as "followers of the traditions of men" so you are doing the very thing you are complaining about. It's pretty simple stuff. I am writing from personal perspective and if you think that is writing like a cult, then you have made your point and so you can stop from now on. If you want me to stop writing and contributing to this forum all together then just block me and that will be the end of this matter. The rule you suggest is based on your own perception and therefore is not a valid rule we can both keep. You speak rubbish saying "followers of the traditions of men" is a label. That is a comment. You want to label me a Christadelphian or a Jehovah's Witness or a follower of Michael Rood or any othe cult leader you can think of. That is the label I am referring to. I am not entertaining any such discussion with you where you keep on doing this instead of reasoning from what is God's word (errors in the Bible accepted).


Yes, I have access to the database in ways that you do not. But as I said before, I am willing to find any posts that you cannot find using the public search tool. Just ask, and I will do it for you. Unless I can find the post in the first place, it is difficult to ask you to look up the precise words you have used, when I am trying to recall from memory the precise words you have used. Word searches are good when a selection of words can be searched for and the search process can be narrowed down as you are able to do by filtering out members' posts. I accept you have that advantage.


You don't claim to be an "expert on English grammar" yet you freely assert that the Merriam Webster dictionary used "bad grammar" in their definition of "paradox"? Get real David. You also are accusing the translators of the KJV of using bad grammar because they used the words "and yet" in thirty five verses. And you rejected the examples of the subjunctive mood published by Philip B. Corbett of the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/29/business/media/29asktheeditors.html?pagewanted=all) who is in charge of revisions of their grammar book called "The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage: The Official Style Guide Used by the Writers and Editors of the World's Most Authoritative Newspaper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times_Manual_of_Style_and_Usage)." And you have rejected the examples of the subjunctive mood given by the most prominent authority on the English language on the planet, the Oxford English Dictionary! And now you say that you don't claim to be an "expert in English grammar"? Get real, dude! You have set yourself up as the ONLY AUTHORITY on the planet! And the really absurd thing is that you have not cited a single authoritative source backing up your claims. I gave you the explanation of why the phrase "and yet" is not acceptable in good writing. Why do you not comment on that evidence instead of making out that it is me saying this. I have also given you the evidence of the fact that the words "and yet" can be taken to mean; "that may be so, but...". I have explained how with your reasoning and your resolving of the apparent paradox supports that meaning. You totally ignore my comments and dismiss them. I shall continually have to keep repeating them so as not to lose sight of them until you acknowledge them. I have given you the benefit of the doubt by saying that is not what you intended to mean, and therefore, that is easily corrected by changing the words in your formulation. The fact that you would not do that until recently on goes to show your stubbornness and pride. Alas, your pride becomes before your fall.
You have already fell from your high perch, for whereas you said you did not need to change the words and you had stated the paradox succinctly, by agreeing to drop the word "yet", you have proven to have used a superfluous word. Therefore, your original formulation was not as succinct as you claimed it to be.

Quoting from the New York Times is not the same as quoting from the Concise Oxford English Dictionary. The BBC were at one time expected to speak the Queen's English, but I doubt the Queen speaks the words as they are said on the BBC now.

Your examples you gave me of the subjunctive mood are the same examples that I found. I have compared the structure of the sentences in which the word "could" is used and none of those examples match your construction. It is not possible to plug your words in those examples using the same structure of the sentence. I have yet to find an another example of your construction. Just because you say you are using the word "could" in the subjunctive mood, does not mean to say you have correctly constructed your sentence.


And now you freely admit that many of the 277 times you used the words "and yet" may have been incorrect? Wow. Just wow. You are willing to say that your use of those words was wrong merely to avoid admitting that I am right? Amazing. And the really pathetic thing is that your use of those words was not wrong at all. I reviewed them and your use of them was in perfect accordance with everything I have ever said on this subject. Therefore, you have confirmed my words whether you like it or not. There's nothing you can do about this because you are fighting not against me, but against the truth itself. I see you lower the conversation and cannot help yourself attack the person instead of dealing with the evidence. You are showing me and everyone else your method of arguing on this forum. My admission of my misuse of the words "and yet", unless used in idiomatic style, has nothing to do with the fact that you have misused them. You are directing the the discussion away from you and your mistake. I have nothing to defend. You already agree I stated the paradox clearly and for some reason you felt you had to improve on it and formulate it using your words. In this, I am showing you, your error and you refuse to accept the evidence I have put before you. You dismiss the evidence as though it was not there. Your only get-out, which I accept is that the meaning of those words which I can legitimately apply, you did not intend those meanings to apply. There is ambiguity of meaning, which you refuse to accept.


And there is yet more irony in the tactic you have chosen in your vain effort to avoid the truth. By admitting that you have been using these words erroneously for two solid years, why should anyone think that you suddenly got it right? You have admitted that you have been repeating an error concerning those very words even as you claim that your judgment concerning their "correct use" supersedes that of the primary authorities of the planet! Wow. Just wow. Did you suddenly become a world class grammatical expert after two full years of using those two simple words (which everyone else understands with no problem), incorrectly? It is amusing to watch a high intellect like yours make such foolish accusations. I am not the one claiming to have formulated a paradox succinctly. The way you twist the conversation away from the fact that you wered not succinct, I find amusing. I could repeat your words, but refrain from doing so.
I have give you two pieces of evidence showing the different meanings of the words; "and yet". You have had one piece of evidence saying that it is grammatically incorrect, but is OK to use idiomatically. You do not argue with these facts. Go to those websites from which I have obtained the evidence and argue that they are wrong.

While on the subject of idioms, let see what it is said of idoms and you can choose the definition that best suits you and allow me to do the same;




http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/idiom?s=t

idiom
noun
1. an expression whose meaning is not predictable from the usual meanings of its constituent elements, as kick the bucket or hang one's head, or from the general grammatical rules of a language, as the table round for the round table, and that is not a constituent of a larger expression of like characteristics.
2. a language, dialect, or style of speaking peculiar to a people.
3. a construction or expression of one language whose parts correspond to elements in another language but whose total structure or meaning is not matched in the same way in the second language.
4. the peculiar character or genius of a language.
5. a distinct style or character, in music, art, etc.: the idiom of Bach.




Now you are talking like a crazy man. You have never "exposed" a single error relating to my use of the words "and yet." I have proven my point by citing primary authorities on the English language like Merriam Websters, Oxford English Dictionary, and Philip B. Corbett of the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/29/business/media/29asktheeditors.html?pagewanted=all) who is in charge of revisions of their grammar book called "The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage: The Official Style Guide Used by the Writers and Editors of the World's Most Authoritative Newspaper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times_Manual_of_Style_and_Usage)." I quoted published papers written by professional professors of the Philosophy of Language who repeatedly used the phrase "and yet" in their published works (proof (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3410-Can-God-s-Angels-in-Heaven-be-trusted&p=59348#post59348)). And what evidence have you countered with? A random comment written by an anonymous blog use which was contradicted by the majority of the other comments! I know you don't like me using words like "absurd, ludicrous, and insane" but what choice do you give me when you make such claims? Should I have to post the pieces of evidence again for you to comment on and dismiss again as if not presented? You appear to be the crazy man driving me crazy by not addressing the evidence presented. You can only revert to these diversionary tactics to take the spotlight of you. Until you comment by agreeing or disagreeing and giving reasons why to the pieces of evidence I have presented are wrong, then we shall not be moving forward and hopefully drawing a conclusion to this. As I said, you should have stopped when you could and I might never get around to having your sentence analysed by a leading English Language scholar.


And I have never claimed to be a "word smith". I merely stated the fact that my formulation of your paradox was perfect and precise, and you have never presented any evidence that contradicts that fact. My formulation follows the definition 2a given in the Merriam Webster dictionary:
Paradox
2a : a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true
You set yourself up as the ultimate planetary authority on English grammar when you reject the body of evidence I have presented. Please look up all your posts in which you have used the word "word smith" or the variants; "wordsmith" or "word-smith". Let me see of I am mistaken. I do remember you saying you are very precise with your words. That might be so using the definitions you choose. In this case, the words you have chosen can be understood differently and that is leading to ambiguity if that is not what you intend. Therefore, you should define your words upfront like agreeing the terms. Since you have not, and I can explain why your form of words fit in with your idea that God's Angels have sinned. You are blind to your words because you will not admit to that.


And finally, I have NOT refused to change the wording. On the contrary, I dropped the word "yet" with the hope that you would stop using that as an excuse to reject my formulation of your paradox. It changed nothing of substance - I dropped it merely because you are too stubborn and/or confused to admit your error. And how did you respond? By TOTALLY IGNORING the question I asked and then REFUSING to agree that my new formulation without the "yet" was correct. I had presented a simple logical sequence of five questions that any sane person would have had no problem answering. Here they are (from post #272 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3410-Can-God-s-Angels-in-Heaven-be-trusted&p=59131#post59131) of the other thread):
If you really want to "have a conversation" and "drill down" to the real issue, then you need to begin by actually responding to the explanations I give. I have already commented on this and you dropping the word "yet" as a superfluous word proves my point that you formulation was not the most succinct it could be; not that is succinct after you drop the word. Now you drop the word, you conveniently think you do not have to address the evidence I presented for when you kept in the words. You even kept the words when you said; "if P and yet Q" what happened to "If P then Q"? You are making a fool of yourself the more you try to disagree with my arguments and evidence.


Start here:

1) By definition, there would be a contradiction if P and Not P were both true.

2) By your own premise, Angels sinning in heaven would imply that God's will was not being done.

3) Therefore, if P = "God's will is done in heaven" and Q = "God's angels in heaven sin" then Q implies NOT P. (This is just another way of saying that Q contradicts P).

4) Therefore, there would be a contradiction IF P AND Q.

5) Therefore, there would be a contradiction IF God's will is done in heaven AND God's angels in heaven could sin.

DO YOU AGREE WITH THIS LOGIC? DO YOU AGREE IT IS PERFECT AND PRECISE? IF NOT, WHY NOT? Go and find my reply where I have answered those points. You will see that I agreed up to the point #5. See that!!! You are still claiming in to be "perfect and precise", even though you have dropped the word "yet" and kept the word "and". It is not as I see it, the use of the subjunctive mood, I have already explained how your construction does not match the examples we have both referred to from the same website.


And how did you respond? By ignoring my question and complaining that I had "changed" the words by dropping the "yet".

When I changed the words you complained, and now you accuse me of refusing to change them? What kind of madness is this? :doh:
Address the evidence presented or continue to go around the same circle. I shall not be moving forward until you comment on the evidence presented and you can take up your disagreement with the owners of the website for presenting material you do not agree with.

All the best
David

[L67]

Hello Rose


To answer your last question first. What was written down is the ancient Hebrew scriptures before they were copied. We do not have the original manuscripts; we only have handed down copies. The Hebrews were meticulous in copying the manuscripts, but small errors of transcription crept in. As the errors crept in so those errors have been compounded. Those with an agenda to criticize the Bible their own make excuses for rejecting the Bibles authenticity.

:yo: David,

Why didn't God preserve the originals? Why would he allow so many errors to creep into his word?





The Bible does reflect the culture of the time and I have agreed that the Bible does show bias, but not too the extent that you make out or that God is biased against women. God is portrayed as male though in reality, God is ONE and has no genda. God is not male or female. God has no reproductive organs like humans have. It is almost a nonsense to have to talk in such terms. God is Spirit and not flesh and blood.

You have turned a blind eye to the atrocities committed against women in the Bible. Those six problems you listed are the tip of the iceberg.

I could post a ton of verses that show Yahwehs gross immorality against women. But I will post probably one of the sickest ones.

Davids punishment for sin? His innocent wives are raped in broad daylight and his newborn must be killed. That is great. Punish the innocent for Davids wrong doing. This is neither just or moral. I could literally sit here and post verse after verses that shows Yahwehs bias against women.


2 Samuel 12:11-14 11 “This is what the Lord says: ‘Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity on you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’�

13 Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.�

Nathan replied, “The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. 14 But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for[a] the Lord, the son born to you will die.�


The Bible also portrays Yahweh as very human. Not some spirit like you claim.

Exodus 15:3 tells us Yahweh is a man. The Lord is a man of war: the Lord is his name.

Jeremiah 16:17 says Yahweh has a face and eyes. 17 For mine eyes are upon all their ways: they are not hid from my face, neither is their iniquity hid from mine eyes.

Psalm 18:8 describes a nose and mouth. 8 There went up a smoke out of his nostrils, and fire out of his mouth devoured: coals were kindled by it.

Isaiah 30:27 Lips and tongue. 27 Behold, the name of the Lord cometh from far, burning with his anger, and the burden thereof is heavy: his lips are full of indignation, and his tongue as a devouring fire:

Ezekiel 1:27 tell us of Yahwehs "loins". 27 And I saw as the colour of amber, as the appearance of fire round about within it, from the appearance of his loins even upward, and from the appearance of his loins even downward, I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and it had brightness round about.

Exodus 33:23 tells us of Yawehs back parts. 23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.


Now we can see Yahwehs human characteristics.

He shows regret for creating mankind. It's rather silly for a being with his power to regret making mankind, when he could have made it right the first time.

Genesis 6:6 6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

He wrestles with Jacob. Genesis 32:24 24 And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day.

He's pretty forgetful. He calls Jacob Jacob after naming him to Israel. Genesis 35:10 0 And God said unto him, Thy name is Jacob: thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name: and he called his name Israel.

Genesis 46:2 2 And God spake unto Israel in the visions of the night, and said, Jacob, Jacob. And he said, Here am I.

He doesn't know everything. Hosea 8:4 4 They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not: of their silver and their gold have they made them idols, that they may be cut off.

He's not all powerful. Judges 1:19 19 And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.


These are NOT the attributes of the creator of the universe. This is nothing more than a description of a MAN just like the Bible said he is.



Women do appear to be the property of men, but in God's eyes women are to be looked after by men, whether women are wives or daughters. In that respect, women are property to be loved and provided for. Not property in the sense of something to be bought and sold and swapped whenever the father has a whim to. Wives and daughters are to be respected and treated as women should be treated the same as any "neighbour" must be treated. There are roles for men and women and those roles make the differences which you see as bias.

You're rationalizing David. The Bible is littered with stories of men owning women as property.

[Rose]

:yo: David,


You have turned a blind eye to the atrocities committed against women in the Bible. Those six problems you listed are the tip of the iceberg.

I could post a ton of verses that show Yahwehs gross immorality against women. But I will post probably one of the sickest ones.

Davids punishment for sin? His innocent wives are raped in broad daylight and his newborn must be killed. That is great. Punish the innocent for Davids wrong doing. This is neither just or moral. I could literally sit here and post verse after verses that shows Yahwehs bias against women.


2 Samuel 12:11-14 11 “This is what the Lord says: ‘Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity on you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’�

13 Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.�

Nathan replied, “The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. 14 But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for[a] the Lord, the son born to you will die.�




You are so right L67! Here is an excerpt from my booklet on that very subject.

In the Bible women were considered property, which gave the man the right to buy and sell them at will. This once again confirms the fact that the “God-given� hierarchical order of the Bible is one of inequality, and bias creating a system that favors one gender over the other, thus establishing an imbalance found nowhere else in the natural animal-kingdom. The only place in all of the animal-kingdom that male suppression and oppression of the female is found is in the human species where the male dominates and subjugates the female, keeping her from realizing her full potential. The Bible actually establishes this domination of women as a “god-given� rule of the hierarchical order of the Hebrew society, proving the innate inequality, imbalance, and bias of that system.

The Bible says that its god anointed David to be king over Israel by delivering King Saul into his hands, in doing so he also gave unto David, Saul’s house and his wives. Apparently, David was not satisfied with the Lords gifts and desired the beautiful wife of Uriah who was a captain in David’s army. David sent Uriah out into the front lines assuring his death, and then took his wife Bathsheba and committed adultery with her. Well, this did not set well with Yahweh, so as punishment the Lord told David he was going to take the wives of Saul that he had given him and give them to his neighbor to rape.

2Sam.12:7-11 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things. Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon. Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.


Talk about women being used as property, this passage takes the cake. Not only did Yahweh consider Saul’s wives as “war booty� to be given to David, but then the same wives were used a second time by giving them to David’s neighbor to rape as punishment for his sins…yikes!
If that is not bad enough the revelation of just who David’s neighbor was will stun you…it was none other than his very own son Absalom!

2 Sam.16:21-22 And Ahithophel said unto Absalom, Go in unto thy father’s concubines, which he hath left to keep the house; and all Israel shall hear that thou art abhorred of thy father: then shall the hands of all that are with thee be strong. So they spread Absalom a tent upon the top of the house; and Absalom went in unto his father’s concubines in the sight of all Israel.


So, not only does Yahweh cause Absalom to break the seventh commandment by committing adultery, but he also causes him to break the law of sleeping with your fathers wife, not to mention rape…triple yikes!

Lev.18:8 The nakedness of thy father’s wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father’s nakedness.


Not only does this story exemplify the use of women as property and pawns to be used at will, but it also reiterates the extreme male-bias of the Bible and the fact that its god is indeed a respecter of persons. Not only was David exonerated from receiving the death penalty for causing the death of Uriah, but his first born son by Bathsheba bore the punishment in his place by being stricken with a sickness and dying after seven days of suffering. This truly reveals the vengeful and immoral nature of god which only exemplifies his human qualities.

2Sam.12:13-17 And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die. Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. And Nathan departed unto his house. And the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David, and it was very sick. David therefore besought God for the child; and David fasted, and went in, and lay all night upon the earth. And the elders of his house arose, and went to him, to raise him up from the earth: but he would not, neither did he eat bread with them. And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died…

[Rose]

Hello Rose


To answer your last question first. What was written down is the ancient Hebrew scriptures before they were copied. We do not have the original manuscripts; we only have handed down copies. The Hebrews were meticulous in copying the manuscripts, but small errors of transcription crept in. As the errors crept in so those errors have been compounded. Those with an agenda to criticize the Bible their own make excuses for rejecting the Bibles authenticity.

Hello David

That still does not answer the question as to how you know what was written in the original manuscripts if we no longer have them? It just becomes a guessing game.




For now I will past the following list from the book:

1. Women are considered the property of the man.
2. Women are ruled over by men solely based on their gender.
3. Women do not share equal rights with men.
4. Women are considered of less value than men.
5. Progeny is claimed to be carried through the loins of the male.
6. The Biblegod is exclusively portrayed with “male� attributes.

The Bible does reflect the culture of the time and I have agreed that the Bible does show bias, but not too the extent that you make out or that God is biased against women. God is portrayed as male though in reality, God is ONE and has no genda. God is not male or female. God has no reproductive organs like humans have. It is almost a nonsense to have to talk in such terms. God is Spirit and not flesh and blood.

I am glad you agree to the fact that the Bible shows bias. :thumb: The problem is that no matter how small you think the bias is, it is still there, which means that the Biblegod is UNJUST!


Women do appear to be the property of men, but in God's eyes women are to be looked after by men, whether women are wives or daughters. In that respect, women are property to be loved and provided for. Not property in the sense of something to be bought and sold and swapped whenever the father has a whim to. Wives and daughters are to be respected and treated as women should be treated the same as any "neighbour" must be treated. There are roles for men and women and those roles make the differences which you see as bias.

Yes, women in the Bible are the property of men and they are bought and sold at the whims of their fathers and husbands, all done with the explicit approval of the Biblegod. When you own someone as property and they are not given equal human rights you are not respecting them and it is WRONG! Women want the respect of making their own choices, just like men do, they do not want to be the slaves of men.

The roles for women are made up by men, they are biased and arbitrary. I am not talking about the role of being a mother if that's what a woman chooses, I am talking about what women want to do with their own lives. Not all women want to get married and have children, but according to the biblical laws they have no choice because the men make that choice for them. Women don't need to be looked after by men any more than men need to be looked after by women. In the animal kingdom each adult looks after itself, nowhere do you find males taking care of females.


Take #5 in the list. Why is it that in general that most women want to have a son as their first-born? Is it just to please their husband or is it because the son is recognized as continuing the family name? Are women willing supporting this tradition?

Is not God given any female attributes?

The fact is; God made male and female and that applies to the animals as well. Is there bias in the animal kingdom. Do not the male and female of the species (kinds) of animals have different roles? Examples can be found of where this is the case. In some cases, we see the male doing what might be considered to be the role of the female. Today, we have house-husbands which are doing the work traditionally done by women. That is tradition and where does tradition come from? That you can attribute to man and not God.

Except for mating and bearing offspring, the male and females of species take care of themselves ... just look how vicious a female gets when she is defending her young, she will take on anything even a male of her own species.


The male and female partnership is essential, but the one difference at procreation is that the male sperm passes to the female who has the egg. The egg when fertilized in the woman stays in the woman. The woman has the role of giving birth. That is a joy (though painful) of producing offspring. The main point from this is that the male is the giver. Sperm passes from male to female. The egg does not pass from the woman to the man. We can take that difference and apply that to God, who is the giver. That is why we can attribute and regard God as the Father. God was the father of Jesus. God could not be the mother of Jesus, Mary was the mother of Jesus. From this point, we can work backwards as well as forward, we would have to determine that God is playing a male role. We cannot get away from this idea of God appearing as male. Jesus is also the giver in that Jesus brought "light" into the world, and that "light" we can receive (though you now reject it). This analogy of the giver or provider being the female does not follow. The female is the receptor. There is no getting away from that. That does not make the woman redundant or of lesser importance and is essential for the unity of marriage. It is in the light of marriage and unity that there is no bias against women. Women are equally important and in the Bible, though women are fewer in number who get a mention, women are shown to have had some of the greatest roles exceeding that of many many. Without a woman, the provision of Jesus would never have happened. Women are indispensable and that makes them every bit as equal as the man.

The giving and receiving of sperm has nothing to do with the fact that women are denied equal human rights. Bottom line; woman are human just like men and are entitled to be treated equally under the law, which the Bible does not afford. Yes, women are equally important and indispensable, but how can you say there is no bias against them in marriage? Women who were captured or sold by their fathers had no choice whatsoever in marriage, all they were used for was to appease a man's lust and bear offspring.


God is the provider. God sustains the universe. In that sense from the male has the role as the provider for the family. That is a bias, but not a bias whereby a woman is not treated to be treated as a neighbour in compliance with the second great commandment. God gave the man the role and responsibility of being the spiritual leader as head of the household and that is why males were made the priests. Did women in those days, when God gave his law at Mount Sinai campaign for women's equal rights to be priests, or were they accepting of the way their God had determined these things?

All the best
David

You seem to be just fine with admitting that the Biblegod is biased ... maybe that's because you are a man and the bias is always in favor of the male. Doesn't it bother you to know that when someone is biased that means they are unjust? How can you possibly justify the fact that both men and women are equally human, yet the god you believe in chooses to denied one gender equal human rights?

Whether or not women accepted their enslavement to men does not justify the fact that they treated in a manner that was disrespectful and unjust. If a woman was your neighbor, she would not be treated in the same manner as a man who was your neighbor would be, and on and on the story goes throughout the Bible. The Biblegod is biased because the men who wrote the Bible were biased

Take care
Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Please look up all your posts in which you have used the word "word smith" or the variants; "wordsmith" or "word-smith". Let me see of I am mistaken. I do remember you saying you are very precise with your words.

There's an old saying David. "Be careful what you ask for." And there is good reason for that saying, as you now shall see. I have never called myself a "word smith" on this forum, but you have falsely accused me of that six times. And now the evidence is gathered together for all to see as long as the internet lasts.

Here are all my posts which contain any variation of "word smith" (word smith, word-smith, word smithing, etc.). Note that most occurrences were in quotes of other people (the last four were quotes of your false accusations), and I never once referred to myself as a "word smith".

Post by Richard (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=22100) I quoted a blog that spoke of God as "the best wordsmith the world has ever known."

Post by Richard (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=51714) "And no amount of wordsmithing can fix this." (I was referring to attempts by JCE to defend the scientific errors in the Bible.)

Post by Richard (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=53627) "Nice word smithing" (A compliment to some creative writing by Duxrow)

Post by Richard (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=53709) I quoted David's post in which he said "Don't try to be clever and as a self-proclaimed word-smith".

Post by Richard (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=55557) I quoted David's post in which he said "What! the great word-smith cannot find the words."

Post by Richard (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=59348) I quoted David's post in which he said "I am not claiming to be a word-smith like Richard claims he is"

Post by Richard (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=59394) I quoted David's post in which he said "since you are the one claiming to be a word-smith"


And here are all the posts where David M used any variation of "word smith". Six of those posts contained the FALSE ACCUSATION that I have proclaimed myself a word smith:

Post by David M (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=53704) "Don't try to be clever and as a self-proclaimed word-smith knowing all possible meanings of the word "angels" as I know you do."
(False accusation #1)

Post by David M (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=55544) "What! the great word-smith cannot find the words."
(In response to my use of the idiom "I have no words to express".)

Post by David M (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=56609) "I do not claim to be the wordsmith as you do."
(False accusation #2)

Post by David M (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=58150) "I am not taking Richard's say so blindly. I am checking everything and Richard can claim himself to be a word-smith, but that does not mean he is always correct."
(False accusation #3)

Post by David M (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=58352) "Richard can deny setting himself up as an authority (and I am no authority), but it is clear that he uses his credentials as an intellectual person that is his authority. He claims to be a word-smith and yet denies the definitions I have given him from authoritative sources such as dictionaries and from other websites giving the definition and meaning of the words."
(False accusation #4)

Post by David M (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=59187) "You are also playing with words which is what you like to do as a wordsmith."
(In response to my observation that he contradicted himself when he first said "Either God is ONE or he is not" and then said that the word "one" is ambiguous.)

Post by David M (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=59339) "I am not claiming to be a word-smith like Richard claims he is"
(False accusation #5)

Post by David M (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=59392) "I shall respond to your other posts soon and continue to expose your error, since you are the one claiming to be a word-smith"
(False accusation #6)

Post by David M (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=59388) "God is the supreme word-smith"
(The sudden flip from making false accusations to praising God makes me think of James 3:12 "no fountain both yield salt water and fresh.")

Post by David M (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=59404) "Please look up all your posts in which you have used the word "word smith" or the variants; "wordsmith" or "word-smith". Let me see of I am mistaken. I do remember you saying you are very precise with your words."

And this brings us full-circle.

2 Timothy 3:2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

[David M]

Hello Rose


Hello David

That still does not answer the question as to how you know what was written in the original manuscripts if we no longer have them? It just becomes a guessing game. Because of the manuscripts in existence and given the introduced errors, we could conclude a percentage to be agreed is correct. The proof of its prophecies coming true also confirms the divine authorship. The coherency and consistency of the message is also evidence of the divine authorship.


I am glad you agree to the fact that the Bible shows bias. :thumb: The problem is that no matter how small you think the bias is, it is still there, which means that the Biblegod is UNJUST! Disagree! Bias does not mean unjust. Assigning separate roles to men and women is not unjust. You can think it is unjust you were born a woman, but no one-else would see it that way.


Yes, women in the Bible are the property of men and they are bought and sold at the whims of their fathers and husbands, all done with the explicit approval of the Biblegod. When you own someone as property and they are not given equal human rights you are not respecting them and it is WRONG! Women want the respect of making their own choices, just like men do, they do not want to be the slaves of men. How do you know God approved. How do you know God was not tolerating it and letting man have his way? The whole of the last 6,000 years is about man having his rule. That is why the collective consciousness of the world is "Satan" and "Satan" is the prince of this world. You should blame man, or satan and not God.


The roles for women are made up by men, they are biased and arbitrary. I am not talking about the role of being a mother if that's what a woman chooses, I am talking about what women want to do with their own lives. Not all women want to get married and have children, but according to the biblical laws they have no choice because the men make that choice for them. Women don't need to be looked after by men any more than men need to be looked after by women. In the animal kingdom each adult looks after itself, nowhere do you find males taking care of females. There was nothing to stop and independent woman going off and making her own way? We know what the problems would be for a woman who did that and the problems would come from man; not God.


Except for mating and bearing offspring, the male and females of species take care of themselves ... just look how vicious a female gets when she is defending her young, she will take on anything even a male of her own species. so why could not a woman have made her own way in the world? Even the Egyptians had their queens. That shows a woman could get to the top of the social ladder.


The giving and receiving of sperm has nothing to do with the fact that women are denied equal human rights. Bottom line; woman are human just like men and are entitled to be treated equally under the law, which the Bible does not afford. Yes, women are equally important and indispensable, but how can you say there is no bias against them in marriage? Women who were captured or sold by their fathers had no choice whatsoever in marriage, all they were used for was to appease a man's lust and bear offspring.Giving of sperm has nothing to do with human rights, I see how you get the phrase into your comment. The majority of women want to have children. Were all your children undesired before you had them? Women who wanted to have children and nurture children would expect the husband to provide for the family. If not the woman would have to do both and in those days that might have been more impractical than these days.




You seem to be just fine with admitting that the Biblegod is biased ... maybe that's because you are a man and the bias is always in favor of the male. Doesn't it bother you to know that when someone is biased that means they are unjust? How can you possibly justify the fact that both men and women are equally human, yet the god you believe in chooses to denied one gender equal human rights?As I have said above; bias according to the dictionary definition does not mean unjust. Look at this;
http://thesaurus.com/browse/bias?
Synonyms for bias
noun
belief
in one way; partiality

bigotry
favoritism
inclination
intolerance
leaning
preference
prejudice

tendency
tilt
unfairness
bent
chauvinism
disposition


illiberality
mind-set
penchant
preconception
predilection
predisposition
prepossession

proclivity
proneness
propensity
spin
standpoint
turn
viewpoint

head-set
mind trip
narrowmindedness
one-sidedness

See all the synonyms. There is not the word;"unjust" among them.


Whether or not women accepted their enslavement to men does not justify the fact that they treated in a manner that was disrespectful and unjust. If a woman was your neighbor, she would not be treated in the same manner as a man who was your neighbor would be, and on and on the story goes throughout the Bible. The Biblegod is biased because the men who wrote the Bible were biasedHad I not known of God's way when I was young, who can say, whether I would have turned out to have a bias against women or a racial prejudice. What might have been; is scary. So often, people submit to peer pressure. That is why standing up for the things Jesus taught and expects us to do, is standing up against peer pressure from the world. If you remain in the world in your thinking, you are subscribing to men's ways. You have to blame man and not God.

All the best
David

[David M]

Hello Richard
Thank you for doing the exercise.


There's an old saying David. "Be careful what you ask for." And there is good reason for that saying, as you now shall see. I have never called myself a "word smith" on this forum, but you have falsely accused me of that six times. And now the evidence is gathered together for all to see as long as the internet lasts. OK, so you have not called yourself a word-smith and I have come to that conclusion from what you have said elsewhere and not necessarily in the same threads as I have used the word of you. I do not need to list all the quotes, they are accepted so I will jump to the end



And this brings us full-circle.

2 Timothy 3:2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. Gosh Richard. How many of those traits belong to you?

Obviously, without me being able to produce a reference whereby you used the exact word, I have been influenced by what you say to have made that incorrect assumption. That is why I have accepted you were not the word-smith I thought you were saying you were. What could have made me think that?
Just for reference, so I am clear;


word·smith

noun
1. an expert in the use of words.
2. a person, as a journalist or novelist, whose vocation is writing.

Perhaps I was confusing your perfect use of words with that of an expert. Whilst it is impossible for me to find the specific quotes that first led me to believe you were a wordsmith, I will just cite several references where you have mentioned your preciseness with words;


How is it possible that you could fail to understand words written with perfect clarity and precision?




Originally Posted by David M
I agree and your formulation of the paradox was not as clear to me as you thought it was to yourself. Terms were not defined and that is part way to resolving an apparent paradox. So let's be clear on the terms in future.

Every word was defined with perfect precision.


I have proven my point with utter precision, perfection, and clarity.

It is obvious now, from the ambiguity of the words you have used in your formulation of the paradox, I was mistaken. I shall avoid referring to you as a self-proclaimed wordsmith and I shall stop thinking of you as a wordsmith. You are just someone who has written a lot and not always as precise as you claim to have done.

All the best
David

PS. Please continue to answer all the points in my replies before this one which you have avoided.

[Rose]

Hello Rose


Disagree! Bias does not mean unjust. Assigning separate roles to men and women is not unjust. You can think it is unjust you were born a woman, but no one-else would see it that way.

Hello David

bi·as

noun
noun: bias; plural noun: biases
1.
prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.

"there was evidence of bias against foreign applicants" prejudice, partiality, favoritism, unfairness, one-sidedness, bigotry, intolerance, discrimination, ...




Being prejudice in favor of, or treating someone unfairly is the foundational meaning of UNJUST!

Assigning separate roles to men and women is not in and of itself unjust, BUT that is not what I am speaking of. What I am speaking of, and what I have said over and over again is that the Biblegod favors men by denying women EQUAL HUMAN RIGHTS! A good portion of all the god given laws contained in the Bible, unjustly discriminate against women in favor of men. That is biased and unfair!




http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Rose http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=59424#post59424)
Yes, women in the Bible are the property of men and they are bought and sold at the whims of their fathers and husbands, all done with the explicit approval of the Biblegod. When you own someone as property and they are not given equal human rights you are not respecting them and it is WRONG! Women want the respect of making their own choices, just like men do, they do not want to be the slaves of men.

How do you know God approved. How do you know God was not tolerating it and letting man have his way? The whole of the last 6,000 years is about man having his rule. That is why the collective consciousness of the world is "Satan" and "Satan" is the prince of this world. You should blame man, or satan and not God.

There was nothing to stop and independent woman going off and making her own way? We know what the problems would be for a woman who did that and the problems would come from man; not God.

so why could not a woman have made her own way in the world? Even the Egyptians had their queens. That shows a woman could get to the top of the social ladder.

The way that I know god approved is that the authors of the Bible said he was the one who decreed the laws. Of all the laws that god supposedly gave to Moses a good portion of them deny women equal human rights and favor the male.

Of course women can make their own way in the world and get to the top of the social ladder, but what does that have to do with the Biblegod being biased, unjust and unfair in the treatment of women? My argument is that the Biblegod is biased (prejudiced) in favor of men, unjust and unfair in the treatment of women, and immoral and I have proved my case over and over again ... using the Bible as my evidence.


Giving of sperm has nothing to do with human rights, I see how you get the phrase into your comment. The majority of women want to have children. Were all your children undesired before you had them? Women who wanted to have children and nurture children would expect the husband to provide for the family. If not the woman would have to do both and in those days that might have been more impractical than these days.

It doesn't matter if the majority of women want to have children, it should always be her choice whether to have children or not, and whether to marry or not! This is not the case in the Bible, and it is WRONG!

If men and women choose to form a relationship and have children, they are each expected to contribute to the well-being and prosperity of the whole family unit. Aside from bearing the children, men and women each provide for the family in many different ways, there are no specific rules or roles that must be followed. That is equality and it is just and fair, unlike what the Bible decrees.

Take care
Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Matthew 12:37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.


As I have said above; bias according to the dictionary definition does not mean unjust. Look at this;
http://thesaurus.com/browse/bias?
Synonyms for bias
noun
belief
in one way; partiality

bigotry
favoritism
inclination
intolerance
leaning
preference
prejudice

tendency
tilt
unfairness
bent
chauvinism
disposition

See all the synonyms. There is not the word;"unjust" among them.

Hey there David,

I really think you should do yourself a favor and try to think a little more before posting. It's really embarrassing for you and tedious for me to constantly correct such elementary errors. The same site you cited lists the following synonyms of bias, unfair, and unjust:



Synonyms of Bias
Synonyms of Unjust
Synonyms of Unfair


belief
in one way;
partiality

bigotry
favoritism
inclination
intolerance
leaning
preference
prejudice

tendency
tilt
unfairness
bent
chauvinism
disposition
biased
inequitable
one-sided
partisan
prejudiced
unfair
unjustified
wrong
wrongful
below the belt
fixed
influenced
low-down
partial
shabby
underhand
undeserved
unforgivable
unmerited
unrighteous
arbitrary
biased
cruel
discriminatory
dishonest
illegal
immoral
improper
inequitable
inexcusable
one-sided
partial
partisan
shameful
unethical
unjust
unjustifiable
unlawful
unreasonable
unwarranted
wrong



Bias is listed as a synonym of both unfair and unjust and all three lists have many related words. I can't believe I have to explain the meaning of these elementary moral terms to someone who describes himself as having "known of God's way" since he was "young". It really makes me wonder who were your teachers and what was their motivation. From our two years of conversation, I get the impression you were taught that the essence of religion is the twisting of words to force them to conform to whatever prejudice you hold, and to avoid ever admitting the truth (let lone coming to know it). You are a true wordsmith, in a perverted sort of way.

Now as for your assertion that "bias according to the dictionary definition" does not "mean" unjust, that is true in the sense that bias is only one KIND of injustice. There are other kinds of injustice, and you could even be unjust without bias in the sense that you could be unjust to everyone equally. But it is not true that you could be biased without being unjust because bias is a kind of injustice. It's like the color red. It is only one kind of color. The word red does not mean "color" because there are other kinds of color.

Bottom line: You have said that you "have agreed that the Bible does show bias". Now look at the lists above that show the immoral, unfair, and unjust nature of bias. That is why neither Rose nor I (nor any moral person I would think) could believe that the Bible is a true representation of the true God (assuming one exists, of course).

All the best,

Richard

[David M]

Hello Richard


Matthew 12:37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.here you go again calling like the kettle calling the pot black.


Hey there David,

I really think you should do yourself a favor and try to think a little more before posting. It's really embarrassing for you and tedious for me to constantly correct such elementary errors. The same site you cited lists the following synonyms of bias, unfair, and unjust:All I did was to post from the link I gave you the page specifically giving synonyms for the word "bias". What you have done, which is your style, is introduce other words and get the synonym of those words. We end up with a confused soup of words.



Bias is listed as a synonym of both unfair and unjust and all three lists have many related words. I can't believe I have to explain the meaning of these elementary moral terms to someone who describes himself as having "known of God's way" since he was "young". It really makes me wonder who were your teachers and what was their motivation. From our two years of conversation, I get the impression you were taught that the essence of religion is the twisting of words to force them to conform to whatever prejudice you hold, and to avoid ever admitting the truth (let lone coming to know it). You are a true wordsmith, in a perverted sort of way.Do not start giving me backhanded compliments which you have not accepted from me. Neither of us are wordsmiths, I accept that. You have successfully muddied the waters by introducing synonyms for words which were not in the list of words in the list specifically for the word "bias". "Unfairness" and not "unfair" was listed, but "unjust" was not listed, but in a backward way you have used the word "unjust" to get a link back to the word bias. Since some lists refer to nouns and not adverbs and vice versa, we see no consistency in presenting the information. As it, you can pick the meaning of words which best suits your side of the argument and I can do the same. It is for others to decided who is more correct.


Now as for your assertion that "bias according to the dictionary definition" does not "mean" unjust, that is true in the sense that bias is only one KIND of injustice. There are other kinds of injustice, and you could even be unjust without bias in the sense that you could be unjust to everyone equally. But it is not true that you could be biased without being unjust because bias is a kind of injustice. It's like the color red. It is only one kind of color. The word red does not mean "color" because there are other kinds of color.

Bottom line: You have said that you "have agreed that the Bible does show bias". Now look at the lists above that show the immoral, unfair, and unjust nature of bias. That is why neither Rose nor I (nor any moral person I would think) could believe that the Bible is a true representation of the true God (assuming one exists, of course).
[COLOR=#333333]Again, like picking words and definitions to suit our purpose, that match the meaning we want to present. Until we can ask the author;what did you intend to mean by that...?; we might never know.

I think you have managed to stifle any further comment from me.

All the best
David

[L67]

You are so right L67! Here is an excerpt from my booklet on that very subject.

In the Bible women were considered property, which gave the man the right to buy and sell them at will. This once again confirms the fact that the “God-given� hierarchical order of the Bible is one of inequality, and bias creating a system that favors one gender over the other, thus establishing an imbalance found nowhere else in the natural animal-kingdom. The only place in all of the animal-kingdom that male suppression and oppression of the female is found is in the human species where the male dominates and subjugates the female, keeping her from realizing her full potential. The Bible actually establishes this domination of women as a “god-given� rule of the hierarchical order of the Hebrew society, proving the innate inequality, imbalance, and bias of that system.

The Bible says that its god anointed David to be king over Israel by delivering King Saul into his hands, in doing so he also gave unto David, Saul’s house and his wives. Apparently, David was not satisfied with the Lords gifts and desired the beautiful wife of Uriah who was a captain in David’s army. David sent Uriah out into the front lines assuring his death, and then took his wife Bathsheba and committed adultery with her. Well, this did not set well with Yahweh, so as punishment the Lord told David he was going to take the wives of Saul that he had given him and give them to his neighbor to rape.

2Sam.12:7-11 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things. Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon. Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.


Talk about women being used as property, this passage takes the cake. Not only did Yahweh consider Saul’s wives as “war booty� to be given to David, but then the same wives were used a second time by giving them to David’s neighbor to rape as punishment for his sins…yikes!
If that is not bad enough the revelation of just who David’s neighbor was will stun you…it was none other than his very own son Absalom!

2 Sam.16:21-22 And Ahithophel said unto Absalom, Go in unto thy father’s concubines, which he hath left to keep the house; and all Israel shall hear that thou art abhorred of thy father: then shall the hands of all that are with thee be strong. So they spread Absalom a tent upon the top of the house; and Absalom went in unto his father’s concubines in the sight of all Israel.


So, not only does Yahweh cause Absalom to break the seventh commandment by committing adultery, but he also causes him to break the law of sleeping with your fathers wife, not to mention rape…triple yikes!

Lev.18:8 The nakedness of thy father’s wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father’s nakedness.


Not only does this story exemplify the use of women as property and pawns to be used at will, but it also reiterates the extreme male-bias of the Bible and the fact that its god is indeed a respecter of persons. Not only was David exonerated from receiving the death penalty for causing the death of Uriah, but his first born son by Bathsheba bore the punishment in his place by being stricken with a sickness and dying after seven days of suffering. This truly reveals the vengeful and immoral nature of god which only exemplifies his human qualities.

2Sam.12:13-17 And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die. Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. And Nathan departed unto his house. And the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David, and it was very sick. David therefore besought God for the child; and David fasted, and went in, and lay all night upon the earth. And the elders of his house arose, and went to him, to raise him up from the earth: but he would not, neither did he eat bread with them. And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died…



Hello Rose,


Great post! I didn't realize the insanity extended beyond the verses I quoted. It's actually much worse than I originally thought.:eek:

I read your whole book. Very powerful stuff. I would consider that top shelf material.:thumb: I have a lot of friends that should read this. Is it ok if I pass your site along?

Have a good one.

[David M]

Hello L67

:yo: David,

Why didn't God preserve the originals? Why would he allow so many errors to creep into his word?I could give the answer given to me by Mystykal; "Dunno, ask God". Do you want me to try and give you a reason. Can you not think of a reason for yourself and stop presenting it as some obstacle for not accepting God's word.
As I read the other day, pages have been stolen out of Hebrew manuscripts. They exist, but are in the hands of men who are hiding them away and depriving us of their contents. You want to blame God, when the guilt is upon man. The guilt is always on man and that is why God is just in dealing with that guilt. We should be thankful for his mercy.


You have turned a blind eye to the atrocities committed against women in the Bible. Those six problems you listed are the tip of the iceberg.

I could post a ton of verses that show Yahwehs gross immorality against women. But I will post probably one of the sickest ones.

Davids punishment for sin? His innocent wives are raped in broad daylight and his newborn must be killed. That is great. Punish the innocent for Davids wrong doing. This is neither just or moral. I could literally sit here and post verse after verses that shows Yahwehs bias against women.God could have stopped it like God could have stopped anything he so chose to. What you have to also consider it that God does not stop things. This is not God doing these things. It is man (David's son) doing this. God allowed David's son to do it and David was punished. God allowed it to happen. The words; "I am going to bring calamity on you" can be thought of as; "I am going to let calamity come upon you". The instruments in this case were David's son. It was already know to God what was in the mind of David's son and knowing his intention and character, knew how he would seize the opportunity to take David's wives. What he did, was not an acceptable thing to do. He will get his reward.

You do not know according to God's judgement whether David's wives will be judged acceptable to be in God's kingdom, whether they were raped or not. The injustice came from man, and the justice will come from God. Reprobates are already cast off. Those who God will save, are known to him. As I heard it said; "the safest place to be is in the will of God". It was in the will of God that Jesus should suffer. The prophets of God suffered cruel deaths. The apostles suffered cruel deaths. Jesus and his Heavenly Father knew the apostles would suffer. Jesus told them they would suffer. It was in the purpose of God they should suffer. They will be glorified for their suffering when God is glorified in the day they are resurrected from the dead. Where is the injustice in that?

To those you have proved themselves faithful and been prepared to suffer and who are raised from the dead, they will not be accusing God of injustice. Jesus knew he could not put off the suffering he would experience. It all comes down to following God's way, and is best for mankind. Hence, Jesus resigned himself to doing God's will and laying his own will to one side. Jesus did that for you and by your denial of him, you are kicking him in the face. What he did was for those who believe in him and his Heavenly Father; not for anyone else; not for reprobates you want to defend. Where you end up, is up to you.

That is my reply in response to all the verses you have quoted.


You're rationalizing David. The Bible is littered with stories of men owning women as property.Of course I rationalize. The only way to support what you say, is not to rationalize or reason these things out. I have done so in the paragraphs above.

Regards
David

[Rose]

Hello Rose,


Great post! I didn't realize the insanity extended beyond the verses I quoted. It's actually much worse than I originally thought.:eek:

I read your whole book. Very powerful stuff. I would consider that top shelf material.:thumb: I have a lot of friends that should read this. Is it ok if I pass your site along?

Have a good one.

Hell L67

Yeah, it's pretty shocking when you realize just how bad some parts of the Bible really are! :eek: Most Christians are totally unaware of the extent of the Biblegod immorality, I know I was.

Thanks for the encouraging words on my book. :signthankspin: I would be delighted for you to share this important information far and wide ... people need to be aware of what the Bible really contains, there has been a massive cover up for far too long!

I typed "Biblical bias" into Google and my site comes up first, which tells me how few sites there are exposing the male centered content of the Bible. Thanks for jumping on-board. :thumb:

Take care
Rose

[Rose]

Hello L67
I could give the answer given to me by Mystykal; "Dunno, ask God". Do you want me to try and give you a reason. Can you not think of a reason for yourself and stop presenting it as some obstacle for not accepting God's word.
As I read the other day, pages have been stolen out of Hebrew manuscripts. They exist, but are in the hands of men who are hiding them away and depriving us of their contents. You want to blame God, when the guilt is upon man. The guilt is always on man and that is why God is just in dealing with that guilt. We should be thankful for his mercy.

Hi David

Of course it's man fault! It's always man's fault, because it is men who authored the Bible and created its god. They are guilty as charged!


God could have stopped it like God could have stopped anything he so chose to. What you have to also consider it that God does not stop things. This is not God doing these things. It is man (David's son) doing this. God allowed David's son to do it and David was punished. God allowed it to happen. The words; "I am going to bring calamity on you" can be thought of as; "I am going to let calamity come upon you". The instruments in this case were David's son. It was already know to God what was in the mind of David's son and knowing his intention and character, knew how he would seize the opportunity to take David's wives. What he did, was not an acceptable thing to do. He will get his reward.

You do not know according to God's judgement whether David's wives will be judged acceptable to be in God's kingdom, whether they were raped or not. The injustice came from man, and the justice will come from God. Reprobates are already cast off. Those who God will save, are known to him. As I heard it said; "the safest place to be is in the will of God". It was in the will of God that Jesus should suffer. The prophets of God suffered cruel deaths. The apostles suffered cruel deaths. Jesus and his Heavenly Father knew the apostles would suffer. Jesus told them they would suffer. It was in the purpose of God they should suffer. They will be glorified for their suffering when God is glorified in the day they are resurrected from the dead. Where is the injustice in that?

The Biblegod revels in suffering, because primitive men created him that way. The whole Bible is filled with suffering and injustice, thanks to its male authors.

Take care
Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Matthew 12:37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
here you go again calling like the kettle calling the pot black.

I didn't call you anything David. I just quoted the Bible. Those words apply to me as well as you. The only difference is that I feel uplifted and encouraged when I read them.



All I did was to post from the link I gave you the page specifically giving synonyms for the word "bias". What you have done, which is your style, is introduce other words and get the synonym of those words. We end up with a confused soup of words.

That is not "all you did".

The soup is all in your head. Your every post is filled with confusion the like of which I've rarely seen.



Do not start giving me backhanded compliments which you have not accepted from me.

Man, you are totally confused about words! You never gave me any "compliment" (backhanded or not) about being a wordsmith. You LIED repeatedly, saying that I claimed to be a wordsmith! And you have admitted your error, but not repented as far as i can tell. You spewed those lies at me as deliberate INSULTS. But you, a fine Christian man who has "known the ways of God since his youth", don't really care much about things like that, do you? Nothing could be more revealing.



Neither of us are wordsmiths, I accept that.

Speak for yourself. You are not qualified to judge anyone on the use of language. I've never seen anyone as confused as you about the most basic meanings of words.



You have successfully muddied the waters by introducing synonyms for words which were not in the list of words in the list specifically for the word "bias". "Unfairness" and not "unfair" was listed, but "unjust" was not listed, but in a backward way you have used the word "unjust" to get a link back to the word bias. Since some lists refer to nouns and not adverbs and vice versa, we see no consistency in presenting the information. As it, you can pick the meaning of words which best suits your side of the argument and I can do the same. It is for others to decided who is more correct.

There you go! First, you were the one "muddying the water" by trying to prove your case with a blatant fallacy. The fact that a web page failed to list "unjust" as a synonym of bias does not mean that bias is not unjust. Second, there is no confusion of any kind introduced by proving to you that "biased" is listed as a synonym of both "unfair" and "unjust". You are the one trying to muddy the waters like a startled squid squirting ink. I have proven my case. You can deny it if you want. That would be nothing new. But don't expect anyone to agree with you.



Again, like picking words and definitions to suit our purpose, that match the meaning we want to present. Until we can ask the author;what did you intend to mean by that...?; we might never know.

Ha! That's what you do! Indeed, that is the sin qua non of David M as far as i can tell. You will twist words to suit your purpose, no matter how plain and obvious the true meaning is. Case in point: BIASED IS A SYNONYM OF UNFAIR AND UNJUST (according to the site that you cited). Hung by your own petard yet again. Chafes in the groin, doesn't it?

I didn't try to make anything "fit" - anyone with half a brain knows that "bias" is unjust.

[Timmy]

Offering up credit where credence is long overdue, this brief commemoration is in deference to post #144 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2081-Greek-Mythology-in-the-Bible&p=59500#post59500) directly above this one.



As usually the case concerning olde English, whenever a word is noted unsure of full implication, we surf to one website that has been fighting ignorance since 1973--
(as though the Watermelon World War III had even been a dream of a few professors at Golden Gopher University back then)
--to get the straight dope (http://www.straightdope.com) and see just what more can fill in blank spaces. Never yet disappointed by what is revealed there, the literary basis for executed privileges is profoundly displayed through the continual wit of our bon ami and Kemosabi, the Big Kahuna.:anim_32:


:signthankspin:
...Richard, your awesome word pictures at those most unexpected moments always makes reading your posts the most savory delight:


:applause:WORDSMITH PAR EXCELLANCE:applause:
(We envisioned this gargantuan squid blasting with extreme ink jet velocity, like a rocket from the murky depths spiraling into the heavens. So much ink spraying from it's carcass in fact, that this kraken was extremely petarded as frayed tentacles fragged splattering and scattering in every direction heading to the moon.

Is it needless to say, you got this imagination carried away?)



The commentator covering this word though, is one of our favorite contributors @ straightdope.com, a certain "— Cecil Adams". Although the Timmy has taken liberty editing his commentary, the manner of his commentary remains intact for all to enjoy:

“. . .The word "petard," we note with a grin, comes from the Middle French peter, which derives in turn from the Latin peditum — the sense of which is "to break wind." Which must mean either that the French had a serious gas problem in those days, or that the petard was of something less than nuclear impact.
:hysterical:
...The line comes from Shakespeare, specifically Hamlet, act III, scene 4, lines 206 and 207: "For 'tis sport to have the engineer/ Hoist with his own petar …"

...He continues: "But I will delve one yard below their mines/ And blow them at the moon." The key word is "mines," as in "land mines," for that's what a petard is (or "petar," as Shakespeare puts it — people couldn't spell any better then than now). A small explosive device designed to blow open barricaded doors and gates, the petard was a favorite weapon in Elizabethan times...

...The Melancholy Dane is chuckling over the fate he has in store for his childhood comrades, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, who are plotting to have him killed. Deferring his existential crisis for a moment, Hamlet turns the plot on the plotters, substituting their names for his in the death warrant they carry from King Claudius...

...Hamlet was saying, figuratively, that he would bury his bomb beneath Rosencrantz and Guildenstern's and "hoist" them, i.e., "blow them at the moon." Dirty Harry couldn't have put it any better...�

Þ.Œ.:sBo_reflection2:
:rofl:
(aka: Toronto Nuwanda)

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Offering up credit where credence is long overdue, this brief commemoration is in deference to post #144 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2081-Greek-Mythology-in-the-Bible&p=59500#post59500) directly above this one.



As usually the case concerning olde English, whenever a word is noted unsure of full implication, we surf to one website that has been fighting ignorance since 1973--
(as though the Watermelon World War III had even been a dream of a few professors at Golden Gopher University back then)
--to get the straight dope (http://www.straightdope.com) and see just what more can fill in blank spaces. Never yet disappointed by what is revealed there, the literary basis for executed privileges is profoundly displayed through the continual wit of our bon ami and Kemosabi, the Big Kahuna.:anim_32:


:signthankspin:
...Richard, your awesome word pictures at those most unexpected moments always makes reading your posts the most savory delight:


:applause:WORDSMITH PAR EXCELLANCE:applause:
(We envisioned this gargantuan squid blasting with extreme ink jet velocity, like a rocket from the murky depths spiraling into the heavens. So much ink spraying from it's carcass in fact, that this kraken was extremely petarded as frayed tentacles fragged splattering and scattering in every direction heading to the moon.

Is it needless to say, you got this imagination carried away?)

Thank you for your testimony Sir Timotheos! I'm sure it will be ignored by the one who has set himself up as the Great and Grand Semantical Squid and Inquisitor General of Wordsmithiness (which seems rather odd since he has declared himself to no Wordsmith). So how does the Master Wordsmith judge the wordsmithiness of others if he has judged himself to be no wordsmith? That is a tricky one! Eh? I know it sounds like an impossible conundrum, but we mustn't forget that resources David has at his disposal. His teachers of Dorg have taught hims well the "ways of the Dorg" from his youth. He knows that all truth is Dorg's truth, so if any words do not conform to the Dogmas of Dorg then they are very naughty words, and must be chastened! Put in chains until they repent and conform to the Dogmas of Dorg! Tortured and twisted in the Dungeons of Dorg until they confess the Dogmas of Dorg! And so Truthiness is achieved by the Great and Grand Wizard of Wordsmithiness! All praise Dorg and his faithful snervants!



The commentator covering this word though, is one of our favorite contributors @ straightdope.com, a certain "— Cecil Adams". Although the Timmy has taken liberty editing his commentary, the manner of his commentary remains intact for all to enjoy:
“. . .The word "petard," we note with a grin, comes from the Middle French peter, which derives in turn from the Latin peditum — the sense of which is "to break wind." Which must mean either that the French had a serious gas problem in those days, or that the petard was of something less than nuclear impact.
:hysterical:
...The line comes from Shakespeare, specifically Hamlet, act III, scene 4, lines 206 and 207: "For 'tis sport to have the engineer/ Hoist with his own petar …"

...He continues: "But I will delve one yard below their mines/ And blow them at the moon." The key word is "mines," as in "land mines," for that's what a petard is (or "petar," as Shakespeare puts it — people couldn't spell any better then than now). A small explosive device designed to blow open barricaded doors and gates, the petard was a favorite weapon in Elizabethan times...

...The Melancholy Dane is chuckling over the fate he has in store for his childhood comrades, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, who are plotting to have him killed. Deferring his existential crisis for a moment, Hamlet turns the plot on the plotters, substituting their names for his in the death warrant they carry from King Claudius...

...Hamlet was saying, figuratively, that he would bury his bomb beneath Rosencrantz and Guildenstern's and "hoist" them, i.e., "blow them at the moon." Dirty Harry couldn't have put it any better...�


Þ.Œ.:sBo_reflection2:
:rofl:
(aka: Toronto Nuwanda)
Good stuff! Thanks my friend. Now it's time for me to go disentangle some code. Day job. Well, not really a "job" in the sense it is not "work" in the sense that it is "play" since it is like solving puzzles all day. I'm like a person addicted to crossword puzzles, only I get paid for it. I do love my job! Later.

If you love your work it is like play
and never you will have to work ... a single day!

['Samuel' Garcia]

It's simple really. There is no other equivalent word of hell in the Greek language but Hades and Tarturus. That's why those were used. There's no other handy words for the apostles to use but those. It's not like they can make up new words and have their audience understand what they are talking about.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

It's simple really. There is no other equivalent word of hell in the Greek language but Hades and Tarturus. That's why those were used. There's no other handy words for the apostles to use but those. It's not like they can make up new words and have their audience understand what they are talking about.
Hey there Samuel,

Welcome to our forum!

:welcome:

Your explanation for the use of the word Tartarus is fine as far as it goes, but it's not only the use of that word that we are talking about, but also the context in which is was used. Peter used it in a way that is parallel with the Greek mythology about Zeus putting the Titans in chains and casting them into Tartarus:

Myth: The Greek god Zeus chained the rebellious Titans and cast them into Tartarus.
Bible: The Bible god Yahweh chained the rebellious angels and cast them into Tartarus.

And there are many other examples. In Revelation, the Greek gods Thanatos and Hades (Death and Hell) are personified as riding horses. And later they are thrown in the lake of fire. And the same book speaks of a seven headed dragon that is very similar to the Hydra of Greek mythology. And the entire world view of a flat earth with waters underneath and a solid dome holding up the waters above is ancient mythology. In general, the Bible teaches many things that were believed by the ignorant, superstitious people of long ago that we now know are not true. I think it would be a very big mistake to try to rationalize them. It seems better to simply accept the truth.

Richard

[malachigreenidge]

In general, the Bible teaches many things that were believed by the ignorant, superstitious people of long ago that we now know are not true. I think it would be a very big mistake to try to rationalize them. It seems better to simply accept the truth.

Richard

Hi Richard, you claim to know they are not true, but you can't prove that. THis is simply your opinion. Where is your body of evidence to prove that what the ancients wrote down was indeed fantasy? You can believe what you want, as we all can, but the evidence of these gods and their offspring suggest otherwise. Their is ample evidence all throughout history through archeology that supports the written accounts. It was just never propagated by popular media, or educational institutions. Now we have free access to all these facts though with the age of the internet. So you guys can't deny this anymore, because the evidence is overwhelming. And they are coming back soon day, posing as what people will believe to be "aliens." Just like they posed back then as "gods" to the greeks and the other cultures of that time.
I know this will probably fall on blind eyes for you, but for all the others reading this post, check out these links, and look into the work of L. A. Marzulli, fascinating discoveries!!!

BRAND NEW DISCOVERY OF ELONGATED SKULLS IN FRANCE!
://intellihub.com/archaeologists-discover-mysterious-elongated-skulls-in-france/ (http://intellihub.com/archaeologists-discover-mysterious-elongated-skulls-in-france/)




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZyb5D3ydt8

"There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."
GENESIS 6:4

[CaseyDamon]

Hi eveyone... I am new to this community and not aware of Greek Mythology in the Bible. It should be exciting and i am very interested to gain deep knowledge about it. Somebody explain in detail.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi eveyone... I am new to this community and not aware of Greek Mythology in the Bible. It should be exciting and i am very interested to gain deep knowledge about it. Somebody explain in detail.
Hey there Casey,

Welcome to our forum!

:welcome:

A good place to start would be the first post in this thread. Then post your questions and you will get answers. Don't be shy!

All the best,

Richard

[Rubí Zev]

It is ironic that the doctrine of Hell, adamantly held to by many Christians as a truth being taught by the one and only God, is actually not new to the Bible at all….it is in fact a myth that originated with the ancient Greeks. Tartarus, and Hades are both Greek gods that pre-date the New Testament by at least 700 years.

Tartarus is used only one time in the Bible as the place where the Angels who sinned are chained until judgment. The Greek philosopher, Plato wrote that souls were judged after death and those who received punishments were sent to Tartarus.
2Pet.2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell (Tartarus), and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
Tartarus in Greek mythology, is both a deity and a place in the underworld even lower than Hades. In ancient Orphic sources, Tartarus is also the unbounded first-existing entity from which the Light and the cosmos are born.

In Hesiod's Theogony c. 700 BC, the deity Tartarus was the third force to manifest in the yawning void of Chaos. In The Iliad (c. 700), Zeus asserts that Tartarus is "as far beneath Hades as heaven is high above the earth." It is one of the primordial objects that sprung from Chaos, along with Gaia (Earth) and Eros (Desire).

Now doesn’t it seem a bit odd that the Bible states that God is sending the angels who sinned to a mythological place called Tartarus?

The word Hades refers both to the ancient Greek underworld, the abode of Hades, and to the god of the underworld. The term hades in Christian theology (and in New Testament Greek) is parallel to Hebrew sheol (שאול, grave or dirt-pit), and refers to the abode of the dead.

In older Greek myths, the realm of Hades is the misty and gloomy abode of the dead where all mortals go. Later Greek philosophy introduced the idea that all mortals are judged after death and are either rewarded or cursed. Very few mortals could leave this realm once they entered. Five rivers are part of the realm of Hades, and their symbolic meanings, are Acheron (the river of sorrow, or woe), Cocytus (lamentation), Phlegethon (fire), Lethe (oblivion), and Styx (hate).

Also, what I find extremely interesting is that one of the five rivers of Hades is 'Fire' which is a direct parallel to Revelation where it is written that Hades is cast into the lake of fire.

So, my question is why is this mythological realm of Hades, being spoken of by Jesus as a real place of judgment?


Rev.1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore Amen; and have the keys of hell (Hades – the Grave) and of death.

Rev.6:8 And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell (Hades) followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.

Rev.20:13-14 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell (Hades) delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell (Hades) were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
Kind of makes one question where the whole doctrine of eternal damnation came from?


Rose

[Rubí Zev]

Rosa:
Por lo que he leÃ*do de tu análisis he notado una interpretación literal del Todo, a la que quisiera incluirle otras perspectivas, quizás necesarias para el caso...
En la Fe JudÃ*a NO EXISTE EL INFIERNO. Las palabras hebreas, como "Sheol", "tumba", y "Gehena", "Basurero" son ejemplos suficientes...
La Dominación Griega, anterior a la Romana, IMPUSO su lengua y sus Credos. La Necesidad del Comercio, por 3 Siglos, hizo el resto... Para que te des una idéa de lo que significó esto Googleá "Januca" (25 de Kislev) y "La guerra de los Macabeos"
El Nuevo Testamento tiene múltiples autores y Niveles de Interpretación. El Evangelio de Juan, con respecto a los otros Evangelios, es una prueba de esto...
Cristo mismo usa el mito griego del infierno en su parábola del rico y Lázaro, el pobre que recibÃ*a las migajas que CAÃ�AN desde las "alturas" de la riqueza... Pero EN NINGUNA PARTE DE NINGUN EVANGELIO, NI CARTAS, ETC, HAY MENCIÓN O ENSEÑANZA ALGUNA RESPECTO DEL "infierno", sólo la mención conceptual y "parabólica" dirigida a los gentiles, es decir, gente No JudÃ*a y Judios, o descendientes, que no practicaban la Fe judÃ*a, la habÃ*an abandonado o Nunca La Recibieron y, por sobre todo, Eran Más Conocedores y hasta "creyentes" de los credos y practicas religiosas de los griegos que de la Antigua Fe...
Con respecto al "Tartaro", se lo menciona como "lugar de densa oscuridad", es decir, Carente De Luz, o "Sin Cristo". No se lo menciona en el sentido Griego del término, y se refiere, EXCLUSIVAMENTE para los ángeles que "Abandonaron su debido lugar", que se menciona en el Génesis, como los que encarnaron, tomaron de entre las hijas de los hombres todas las que quisieron y procrearon gigantes...
No quiero extenderme más al respecto. Esperaré tu respuesta luego de que hayas indagado un poco más en, por ejemplo, el Sepher Macabin, donde narra la feroz guerra civil que se desató entre los Judios Fieles a la Fe, y los judÃ*os que habÃ*an asimilado las creencias griegas, llegando a realizar sus ritos dentro del mismo, Sagrado, Templo de la Fe JudÃ*a...



La Guerra de los Macabeos

En el siglo II antes de Cristo, un despiadado soberano griego desató contra el Pueblo Elegido la más brutal de las persecuciones. Su objetivo era doblegar su fe e instaurar cultos paganos. Pero los miembros de una familia sacerdotal, poniéndose a la cabeza de una insurrección, se sublevaron, logrando la victoria después de una guerra feroz

El Libro I de los Macabeos comienza narrando las campañas de Alejandro Magno en oriente y como el mundo sucumbió a su poder: “Sucedió que después que Alejandro, hijo de Filipo, rey de Macedonia, y el primero que reinó en Grecia, salió del paÃ*s de Cetim y derrotó a DarÃ*o, rey de los persas y de los medos; ganó muchas batallas, y se apoderó en todas partes de las ciudades fuertes, y mató a los reyes de la tierra, y penetró hasta los últimos términos del mundo, y se enriqueció con los despojos de muchas naciones; y enmudeció la tierra delante de él. Y juntó un ejército poderoso y de extraordinario valor; y se engrió e hinchó de soberbia su corazónâ€�1.

Siguen narrando las Escrituras que después de aquello, Alejandro cayó enfermo y viendo que su fin se acercaba, llamó a sus generales y dividió sus dominios dándole, una parte a cada uno.

Reino de terror

“Enseguida aquellos se hicieron reyes, cada uno en sus respectivas provincias. Y asÃ* que él murió, se coronaron todos, y después de ellos sus hijos, por espacio de muchos años; y se multiplicaron los males sobre la tierraâ€�2.

De los generales a los que el emperador entregó sus dominios, Ptolomeo recibió Egipto y Seleuco Nicator Siria y Mesopotamia.

El mundo entero era griego y sus ejércitos señoreaban sobre la Tierra, imponiendo su cultura y su tradición.

En el año 137 a.C. AntÃ*oco IV EpÃ*fanes, hijo de AntÃ*oco III Megas y usurpador de su hermano, Seleuco IV Filopator, comenzó a reinar tomando una serie de medidas que llenaron de angustia a los pueblos sojuzgados, en especial los hebreos, obedientes de la Fe y los mandamientos del Señor.

Ambicionando las tierras vecinas, volteó su rostro el soberano hacia Egipto, deseoso de las ricas comarcas del Nilo y hacia allÃ* marcharon sus huestes, conquistando el paÃ*s y capturando a su rey. Sin embargo, temeroso de ofender a Roma, donde en su adolescencia habÃ*a sido rehén, liberó a aquel y se retiró, aunque sin abandonar sus planes de expansión.

Comienzan las persecuciones

Tras un segundo ataque a Egipto en el 168 a.C., entró EpÃ*fanes en Jerusalén profanando su Santuario e imponiendo leyes que ofendÃ*an a Dios.

Fue tan terrible la persecución que desató, que una parte importante del pueblo de Israel prefirió apostatar y adoptar las costumbres de los griegos.

En aquellos tiempos, se dejaron ver unos inicuos israelitas, que persuadieron a otros muchos, diciéndoles: ‘Vamos, y hagamos alianza con las naciones circunvecinas [...] Inmediatamente construyeron en Jerusalén un gimnasio, conforme al estilo de los gentiles; y abolieron el uso de la circuncisión, y abandonaron el Testamento, y se coaligaron con las naciones, y se vendieron como esclavos a la maldad�3.



Judas Macabeo frente al ejército de Nicanor. Su triunfo fue claro ejemplo de las proezas que se logran cuando se tiene Fe


Profanación del Templo

Habiendo mandado colocar en el Templo de Salomón una estatua del dios Zeus, EpÃ*fanes impuso el culto, los ritos, la cultura y las divinidades de Grecia, obligando a hacerles sacrificios y a inclinarse ante sus imágenes.

Aquello enardeció a los fieles y eso motivó la brutal reacción de los helenos, quienes hicieron matanza de judÃ*os en sus ciudades y aldeas atacándolos los dÃ*as sábados para masacrarlos sin resistencia. La ley mosaica fue prohibida, lo mismo la circuncisión y se quemaron los libros sagrados, obligando a los habitantes a comer carne de cerdo, aún a costa de su vida.

El martirio de Israel

Sabiendo el rey que dos mujeres habÃ*an hecho circuncidar a sus hijos, las mandó prender con aquellos y tras arrastrarlas por las calles, las hizo arrojar al vacÃ*o desde lo alto de las murallas. A otros que buscaron refugio en las montañas, los mandó asfixiar en el interior de sus cavernas.

En Jerusalén, el venerable escriba Eleazar, de 90 años de edad, fue martirizado y ajusticiado por negarse a comer carne de cerdo en un banquete ofrecido por el rey. Y en las mazmorras de la ciudad, los siete hermanos Macabeos y su madre, mujer obediente de la Ley de Dios, perecieron de la manera mas brutal, atormentados y quemados vivos.

Y mientras estos hechos tenÃ*an lugar en la capital, el despiadado soberano mandó pregones por todo Israel para obligar a sus habitantes a abjurar del Creador.

MatatÃ*as y sus hijos

Habiendo sido profanado el Templo al colocarse en su interior la estatua de Zeus, el sacerdote MatatÃ*as, junto a su mujer y sus hijos, dejaron la ciudad y se retiraron a ModÃ*n, población donde tenÃ*an posesiones. Hasta allÃ* llegaron los mensajeros del rey, montando un altar pagano y obligando a los pobladores a rendir culto a los dioses y cuando un judÃ*o renegado quemó incienso en él, se desencadenó la tragedia.

MatatÃ*as tomó una espada y traspasó al apóstata mientras sus vástagos daban muerte al emisario real y destruÃ*an su altar. Y lanzando grandes voces por la ciudad, llamó a los fieles a luchar, desencadenando una rebelión que se extendió rápidamente por todo el paÃ*s.

La guerra santa

Tras jurar los judÃ*os respetar la observancia de los sábados, llegaron los griegos a Modin y masacraron a un millar de personas que no osaron siquiera defenderse.

Contando con la alianza de los asideos, hombres celosos, obedientes de Dios, MatatÃ*as recorrió la tierra destruyendo los altares paganos y circuncidando a los niños que no lo habÃ*an hecho. Pero al poco tiempo falleció, siendo sepultado junto a sus padres y sus ancestros en Modin.

Siguiendo su mandato, su hijo Judas Macabeo tomó el mando, teniendo en su hermano Simón al principal consejero y a los otros tres, Juan, Abarón y Jonatás, entre sus principales asistentes.

Sabiendo aquello, EpÃ*fanes despachó desde Samaria un poderoso ejército a las ordenes de Apolonio, a quien Judas Macabeo mató en combate y le arrebató su espada.

Tras la victoria sobre griegos y sirios, el ejército macabeo derrotó a Serón de Siria en Betorón, provocándole gran mortandad y obligándolo a emprender la retirada.

Auxilio Divino



Judas Macabeo se apresta a enfrentar a
idólatras e infieles


En vista de aquellos hechos, alistó EpÃ*fanes a todos sus generales, entre ellos Lisias, Gorgias y Nicanor y al frente de sus legiones los lanzó por toda la tierra para que exterminasen a Israel. Griegos y sirios acamparon en Emaús hasta donde llegaron mercaderes y comerciantes para lucrar4.

Después de pedir auxilio al Creador, llegó Judas hasta campo enemigo y aplastó a Gorgias que al frente de cinco mil infantes y mil jinetes, le habÃ*a salido al cruce.

Mientras los gentiles se dispersaban por los campos, Judas Macabeo reagrupó sus fuerzas y persiguió a sus enemigos hasta Geserón, Idumea y Ashod, provocándoles más de tres mil muertos.

Derrotado GorgÃ*as por segunda vez, llegó el turno de Lisias que habiendo entrando en Judea desde Betorón, arrasó las comarcas del norte, martirizando a sus habitantes. Sin embargo, una vez más, después de implorar al Señor, Judas se trabó en combate y lo puso en fuga, rechazándolo hacia Antioquia,

Y asÃ*, mientras el general greco-sirio reclutaba nuevas tropas en aquella ciudad, los Macabeos liberaron Jerusalén purificando el templo y fortificando el Monte Sion.

Muerte de AntÃ*oco EpÃ*fanes

La guerra se extendió por todo Israel, ya por Galaad y Galilea, ya por CarnaÃ*m y Efrón, con saldo favorable a los Macabeos que, como rayo exterminador, cayeron sobre idumeos y filisteos, pasando después a Samaria y Galilea.

Los comandantes de Jerusalén abandonaron su guarnición, con la idea de hacer la guerra a los griegos en Jamnia. Pero sobre ellos cayó GorgÃ*as masacrándoles a más de dos mil israelitas y obligando al resto a huir a Judea.

Por entonces marchaba EpÃ*fanes hacia oriente para saquear sus ciudades pero derrotado en Elimaida, retrocedió a Babilonia donde, al conocer el descalabro de Lisias, manifestó su tardÃ*o arrepentimiento y murió.

La ayuda del Señor

EpÃ*fanes fue sucedido por su hijo, AntÃ*oco V Eupator pero habiendo regresado su sobrino Demetrio desde Roma, reclamó el trono usurpado y comenzó a reinar. Enterados de ello los ejércitos, mataron a Euparor y a su tutor, Lisias, jurando fidelidad al nuevo rey.

Demetrio mandó a sus generales Báquides y Nicanor a recorrer la tierra y masacrar a sus enemigos. Y aunque el primero fue derrotado, el segundo venció a Macabeo y le dio muerte, forzando a su hermano Jonatás a huir al desierto para reagrupar sus fuerzas.

La guerra se prolongó años hasta que Jonatás, que comandaba la resistencia, firmó la paz con Siria, que, inmersa en asuntos internos, reconoció la independencia de Judea.

El legado de los Macabeos

Los Macabeos son un claro ejemplo de las proezas que se pueden obrar cuando se tiene Fe y de la fuerza que el Señor proporciona a los creyentes en los momentos más aciagos, cuando se acude a El. Son prueba de que el que reza y confÃ*a en su infinito poder, está exento de todo peligro, aún del de enemigos poderosos como los que arrasaron la Tierra Santa en el siglo II con el objeto de imponer cultos paganos y costumbres contrarias a las enseñanzas y la voluntad de Dios.

Su victoria trajo consigo, no sólo el reestablecimiento del culto, sino también la independencia nacional, tras años de sometimiento a los grandes imperios extranjeros como el babilónico, el egipcio, el asirio y el griego.

También ponen de relieve las tremendas pruebas que debió padecer Israel por abrazar en parte la idolatrÃ*a, destacando por sobre todo, el auxilio divino que permitió a los fieles preservar sus costumbres en una lucha desigual. Y deja en claro que, de no haber mediado la misma, habrÃ*a acabado con el pueblo elegido. Hoy, la Iglesia Católica, que ve en los Macabeos un modelo de mártires, conmemora su dÃ*a el 25 de octubre, invitando a los creyentes a seguir su ejemplo.


1- Mac. I, Prólogo, 1-5
2- �dem, 9-10
3- Idem, 1, 12-16
4- Dr. Santiago Mezzacasa s.d.b, Los Macabeos,
Colección BÃ*blica: Epopeya Divina, Editorial Don Bosco, Buenos Aires, 1957, pp. 26-27

[David M]

So, my question is why is this mythological realm of Hades, being spoken of by Jesus as a real place of judgment?

Rev.1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore Amen; and have the keys of hell (Hades – the Grave) and of death.

Rev.6:8 And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell (Hades) followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.

Rev.20:13-14 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell (Hades) delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell (Hades) were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
Kind of makes one question where the whole doctrine of eternal damnation came from?


Rose

Rose already gave the answer as to what Hades meant to Jesus; Hades is the word for grave. Jesus knows what the grave is and he was in the grave for three days and three nights.

The whole cycle of sin and death and going to the grave is going to come to an end and be done away with. Fire is a symbol of destruction and is used for purification. The wickedness of man will eventually cease as part of cleaning up the earth and restoring the Kingdom of God in which Yehovah is king over all the earth.

The last enemy to be destroyed is death (1 Cor 15:26). This is in-keeping with the quote from Revelation that Rose has cited. Death, grave, sin, are symbolically thrown into the lake of fire by which they cease to exist. The result of Christ's rule is a world in which there is no more sin and no more death. That is when there is eternal life for eternity. Who is going to die, if they do not sin? Who is going to the grave when they do not sin? Imagine a vocabulary in which human death and the grave is not part of the language and is never thought of.

[Silence]

I see you lower the conversation and cannot help yourself attack the person instead of dealing with the evidence. You are showing me and everyone else your method of arguing on this forum. My admission of my misuse of the words "and yet", unless used in idiomatic style, has nothing to do with the fact that you have misused them. You are directing the the discussion away from you and your mistake. I have nothing to defend. You already agree I stated the paradox clearly and for some reason you felt you had to improve on it and formulate it using your words. In this, I am showing you, your error and you refuse to accept the evidence I have put before you. You dismiss the evidence as though it was not there. Your only get-out, which I accept is that the meaning of those words which I can legitimately apply, you did not intend those meanings to apply. There is ambiguity of meaning, which you refuse to accept.

It is amusing to watch a high intellect like yours make such foolish accusations. I am not the one claiming to have formulated a paradox succinctly. The way you twist the conversation away from the fact that you wered not succinct, I find amusing. I could repeat your words, but refrain from doing so.
I have give you two pieces of evidence showing the different meanings of the words; "and yet". You have had one piece of evidence saying that it is grammatically incorrect, but is OK to use idiomatically. You do not argue with these facts. Go to those websites from which I have obtained the evidence and argue that they are wrong.

While on the subject of idioms, let see what it is said of idoms and you can choose the definition that best suits you and allow me to do the same;





Hello David,
Communicating through the use of words can be an exercise in futility when their "plasticity" comes into play. Questions can also arise over why a person uses certain words the way they do. The argument over the original use of the words "and yet" (and the resulting argument over the propriety of combining these two words) is easily solved by acknowledging the fact that any paradox will appear to have two opposing propositions. The Greek word we get our word "paradox" from is composed of two parts. The first part, 'para' usually means "alongside" but can also mean "beyond" or "contrary to". You need to have one proposition alongside, or contrary to another in order to have a paradox. The way I see it, the word "and" is just one way to show the distinction between the two propositions, but it doesn't emphasize their apparent conflict. The word "yet" emphasizes the apparent contradiction between the two propositions, but it also implies the existence of two separate realities being considered, so the use of the word "and" might be considered redundant (and hence improper). Just as people argue over interpreting the bible, grammarians and linguists argue over languages and how they (should) work. I read John Horne Tooke's book "The Diversions of Purley" once. It was interesting and made me realize how complex communication can be.

[David M]

Hello Silence
Thank you for your contribution


Hello David,
Communicating through the use of words can be an exercise in futility when their "plasticity" comes into play. Questions can also arise over why a person uses certain words the way they do. That more or less was said to me before and I am beginning to see why. We have so many words in the English language and each word can have many different meanings that we can almost concoct what we like.

Our difficulty is getting to the heart of what the author intended to mean at the time of writing.


The argument over the original use of the words "and yet" (and the resulting argument over the propriety of combining these two words) is easily solved by acknowledging the fact that any paradox will appear to have two opposing propositions. The Greek word we get our word "paradox" from is composed of two parts. The first part, 'para' usually means "alongside" but can also mean "beyond" or "contrary to". You need to have one proposition alongside, or contrary to another in order to have a paradox. The way I see it, the word "and" is just one way to show the distinction between the two propositions, but it doesn't emphasize their apparent conflict. The word "yet" emphasizes the apparent contradiction between the two propositions, but it also implies the existence of two separate realities being considered, so the use of the word "and" might be considered redundant (and hence improper). Just as people argue over interpreting the bible, grammarians and linguists argue over languages and how they (should) work. I read John Horne Tooke's book "The Diversions of Purley" once. It was interesting and made me realize how complex communication can be.

I get your point. The paradox in question is not about the phrase "and yet". I never regarded those words as a paradox. Only when analyzing the words Richard used in the formulation of the paradox about God's will done in Heaven and angels sinning, did I come across a website in which the use of two conjunctions together was said to be grammatical wrong and especially in the written form when one has the time to be grammatically correct. I now keep myself in check by dropping the "and" whenever I use the word "yet".

Saying "para" means opposite and also "alongside" reminds me of motorways. We have roads on opposite sides of the middle barrier (fence) running in parallel. Normally, we drive in opposite directions depending on which side of the motorway we are on. Sometimes motorways appear parallel and separated and all the traffic is heading in the same direction.

I have tried to keep this argument in the thread where it belongs so we have all the information in one place.

I have not been able to get Richard to move on and explain again the paradox he says does not exist. I know how he tried to explain it away elsewhere and that is why I know Richard's wording supports his conclusion. I did not present the paradox in the way Richard wants to formulate it.

All the best
David

[Unregistered]

What if they are both true, an account from Gods side and the devils??
After much study I believe it is so as pagan Gods are very much still worshipped today in magic and are very real, not myths at ALL and Jesus is worshipped and very very real. So although Greek mythology has myth within it ( as the devil is the father of lies) there is some truth in it and the entities it speaks of are definitely real.

[Deanna L Stecker]

Briefly. Greek mythology MAY predate the BIBLE. However, perhaps the myths you say were translated to the Bible were actually based on the truths passed on in tbe oral tradition. EVERY CULTURE has a creation myth and some version of a worldwide flood. Again, while the muthzr may predate fhe BIBLE tbey CANNOT predate Creation. Of. COURSE if you don't believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God or believe in a literal six day Creation or a young earth fhen I won't convince you. Be as openminded as you'd like us to be!