Complexity

[Funky1096]

"How can any man lay claim to any supernatural transformation without a supernatural existence thereafter?"

Lets start with some simple doctrine.

Genesis 1:26
Genesis 5:1-2

What do you think the image of God is?

[Timmy]

"How can any man lay claim to any supernatural transformation without a supernatural existence thereafter?"

Lets start with some simple doctrine.

Genesis 1:26
Genesis 5:1-2

What do you think the image of God is?

Do not try to pace me into the way you misunderstand things. It will not work.

You have no idea who. Timmy is, so first gain perspective of my POV.

Start here (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?243-David-Friedman-s-quot-They-Loved-the-Torah-quot&p=52412#post52412).

What makes you think that by checking how a human acts, without knowing how G_d is, that you know what the image of G_d in man is.

I am not trying to be adverse toward anyone, you particularly. I just would like that we learn about each others perspective before either of us starts trying to say things tje othernhas experienced to the contrary.

93
93


AGAPEO,

Timmy

[Funky1096]

"I am not trying to be adverse toward anyone, you particularly. I just would like that we learn about each others perspective before either of us starts trying to say things tje othernhas experienced to the contrary."

Ah thank you for the perspective even if rather vague.
Any other perspectives on that verse?
[EDIT]

No I read all of it and like I said before thanks for the vague yet useful perspective.

[Timmy]

"I am not trying to be adverse toward anyone, you particularly. I just would like that we learn about each others perspective before either of us starts trying to say things tje othernhas experienced to the contrary."


AND Ah thank you for the perspective even if rather vague.
Any other perspectives on that verse?

Ah, you do not look further than what you are pointed toward?

If you read back and forth between Charisma and Timmy proceeding from that initial post pointed toward, you will see it is not "rather vague" at all.

You will do yourself a world of good as you look further than the obvious, or something pointed toward as merely a starting point...since when is a place to start the end?


Timmy

You know Richard pegged you and that other doofuss right i am beginning to believe. Prove it wrong. Quit thinking the start is the end.

[Funky1096]

Fairly blunt explanation of Biblical imegia demio/image of God created he him;

Genesis 1:26 KJV
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth"

Lets analyze this
"And God said, Let us(plural) make man(Adam) in our(plural) image, after our(plural) likeness: and let them(Adam and eve) have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth"

Genesis 1:27 KJV
"So God created man(Adam) in his own image, in the image of God created he him(Adam); male and female created he them(Adam and eve)"

For more explanation turn to Genesis 5:1-2 KJV
"This is the book of the generations of Adam(singular?). In the day that God created man(Adam), in the likeness of God made he him(Adam); 2 Male and female created he them(Adam and eve); and blessed them(Adam and eve), and called their name Adam(defuq?), in the day when they(Adam and eve) were created. "

So in the day Adam was created he had eve inside of him. God declares eve to be part of Adam even in words so from the top.

Genesis 1:27 KJV
"So God created man(Adam and eve) in his own image, in the image of God created he him(Adam and eve); male and female created he them(Adam and eve)"
So before seperation of eve they where plural just like God is plural in genesis 1:26.

That plural ness is a sign of wholeness Adam was complete with eve inside him. As is God he is complete (he) not half or incomplete (she).
First of all that's why God can't be a she that implies he is incomplete.

Second Genesis 1:28 KJV
"And God blessed them(Adam and eve), and God said unto them(Adam and eve), Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth"

Wait a second God told Adam or Adam with eve inside to be fruitful and multiply isint that impossible??

Nope just like God is complete so was Adam with eve inside. Adam with eve inside was the image of God (completeness) therefore the only possibility since eve was still inside was.
Adam being complete like God could reproduce. No wife needed he was complete like God at that time he could reproduce on his own.

That's why a man and wife unite their flesh becomes twain and complete.

Matthew 19:5-6 KJV
"And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder"

That fits exactly this passage.
So the Christian tradition bound denominationlist fornificators. Will tell you (without evidence) that it means various other stupid vague things like Timothy.

Explains why man + man = no completeness same for women + women.

[Funky1096]

Btw I want the "scientific" answers as to how this is not possible. Simply for a laugh that is. Although I will give considerable thought to other passages that clarify image of God(completeness).

[Timmy]

No pseudo-scientific explanation from Timmy, however, you missed somethings you will not find in the KJV.

There is a whole lot more about all this, but let's stick with the simplest things right now.

First, to clarify "adam" means "red clay/dirt," and as you are hinting, this is one of the first Hebrew play on words having more than two meanings. Adam means humans, too.

Second, the originating mss. say "lives" where after man was formed out of red clay, it say that G_d breathed into the man "the breath of lifeS.

Life is not LIVES.


Timmy

[Funky1096]

"First, to clarify "adam" means "red clay/dirt," and as you are hinting, this is one of the first Hebrew play on words having more than two meanings. Adam means humans, too.

Second, the originating mss. say "lives" where after man was formed out of red clay, it say that G_d breathed into the man "the breath of lifeS. Life is not LIVES."

Well when "life" is complete apperently it doesent matter. Life must be plural/singular just like Adam and God here where plural/singular.

Btw chapter and verse for this "red clay" stuff?
If your using the "GREEK N HEBREW" you will have a better chance saying it meant shit.
You using Greek and Hebrew allows YOU to put words into the word of God. Don't use it as I have shown KJV will suit all your faith based needs.

[Timmy]

"First, to clarify "adam" means "red clay/dirt," and as you are hinting, this is one of the first Hebrew play on words having more than two meanings. Adam means humans, too.

Second, the originating mss. say "lives" where after man was formed out of red clay, it say that G_d breathed into the man "the breath of lifeS. Life is not LIVES."

Well when "life" is complete apperently it doesent matter. Life must be plural/singular just like Adam and God here where plural/singular.

Btw chapter and verse for this "red clay" stuff?
If your using the "GREEK N HEBREW" you will have a better chance saying it meant shit.
You using Greek and Hebrew allows YOU to put words into the word of God. Don't use it as I have shown KJV will suit all your faith based needs.

First off, it is not faith(fulness) of my own making
Galatians 2.20

So, since you are sure that the KJV is absolute, explain to me 1 John 5...for starters, where it talks about the 3 witnesses in heaven and earth.

i guess the languages the KJV was copied from are wrong and the "gents" who did not speak or live the languages knew more than the carcasses G_d breathed out His Word through, hunh?

The goys who copied from the greek copy of the TR certainly understood it much better than the ones who wrote it according to you.

Prove it.

Timmy

If you are not even willing to look for yourself to see what the original mss. actually say, your choice to abide in ignorance is irreparable.

[Funky1096]

Galations 2:20 KJV
"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me"

The reference to spirit life versus physical life here has nothing to do with image of God XD.

"i guess the languages the KJV was copied from are wrong and the "gents" who did not speak or live the languages knew more than the carcasses G_d breathed out His Word through, hunh?"

What are you even talking about? I already covered why KJV is inerrant and others are not. No God inspiration is direct from the source God that is.


"The goys who copied from the greek copy of the TR certainly understood it much better than the ones who wrote it according to you."

Did I say that? I don't have a Greek to English copy of THAT specific version of the Torah to check for errors.

I do however have a inerrant KJV word of God. The Greek and Hebrew texts are rotting and degrading. If God wanted them to still be the official languages of the Bible wouldent He preserve His word like He said He would?

Btw are you referencing Jesus by "Word"?


"If you are not even willing to look for yourself to see what the original mss. actually say, your choice to abide in ignorance is irreparable."

Not willing? I beleive the KJV to be inspired by God himself. That's as close as you can get. Your telling me the copies of copies of copies of error filled decaying texts are the source? Your full of rottenness thinking rotten copies that disagree in so many places could be the living word of God.


"So, since you are sure that the KJV is absolute, explain to me 1 John 5...for starters, where it talks about the 3 witnesses in heaven and earth."


I'm not sure that the full trinity is Biblical. I do know God is the Father, Jesus the son/servant in a form below being server but still equal and fully God.

I'm stuck on what the Holy Spirit/Ghost is.
After I present what the Bible says on salvation you will understand why.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Second, the originating mss. say "lives" where after man was formed out of red clay, it say that G_d breathed into the man "the breath of lifeS.

Life is not LIVES.

That translation is not accurate. It does not mean lifeS (plural). The plural form is used in Hebrew to create abstract nouns that extend, intensify, or amplify the meaning. Gesenius explains here (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesenius'_Hebrew_Grammar/124._The_Various_Uses_of_the_Plural-form). The basic idea is that the abstract concept of "life" is denoted with the plural form. That's all that's going on.

This exemplifies the kinds of errors that come from trying to INTERPRET deep spiritual and/or secret meanings from a translated book without actually knowing the original language. It has led to endless religious delusions because people can make up whatever they want and then interpret their imagination as a direct revelation from the Holy Spirit.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Well when "life" is complete apperently it doesent matter. Life must be plural/singular just like Adam and God here where plural/singular.

This exemplifies the kind of erroneous inference that comes from interpreting a Hebrew text without actually understanding Hebrew.

The fact that abstract nouns are written in the plural form has nothing to do with life being "plural/singular."

[Richard Amiel McGough]

If your using the "GREEK N HEBREW" you will have a better chance saying it meant shit.
You using Greek and Hebrew allows YOU to put words into the word of God. Don't use it as I have shown KJV will suit all your faith based needs.
I cannot imagine a great delusion than to think you could have a proper understanding of any ancient text by reading only a translation.

How do you justify such a patently absurd assertion? Have you never heard of things getting "lost in translation"?

[Timmy]

That translation is not accurate. It does not mean lifeS (plural). The plural form is used in Hebrew to create abstract nouns that extend, intensify, or amplify the meaning. Gesenius explains here (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesenius'_Hebrew_Grammar/124._The_Various_Uses_of_the_Plural-form). The basic idea is that the abstract concept of "life" is denoted with the plural form. That's all that's going on.

This exemplifies the kinds of errors that come from trying to INTERPRET deep spiritual and/or secret meanings from a translated book without actually knowing the original language. It has led to endless religious delusions because people can make up whatever they want and then interpret their imagination as a direct revelation from the Holy Spirit.Yes, what you say is followed; but, how does one express abstract nouns in understandable terms to one who thinks man is three parts, when spirit is not entity. Just because we close a lid on a container does not mean that the air within it is no longer made of, and thus part of the air outside the container.

Here i go again. Just because we anthropomorphize any spiritual property does not mean every other property of spirit is nonexistent.

Yes, i too think that just because man makes a god out of what he can physically perceive does not make that anthropomorphic representation a god...and in fact lessens the dynamism possibly realised therein.

Many times we get just what we focus on, but that is no reason to invest belief in whatever results from foci.


Divestively Octavian,

Timmy

[Funky1096]

"Yes, i too think that just because man makes a god out of what he can physically perceive does not make that anthropomorphic representation a god...and in fact lessens the dynamism possibly realised therein.

Many times we get just what we focus on, but that is no reason to invest belief in whatever results from foci."

Well two things.

One again idk what this has to do with the Bible(I don't like physiological terms applied to the living God).

And two you Didint back your statements up nor answered them.

"Yes, what you say is followed; but, how does one express abstract nouns in understandable terms to one who thinks man is three parts, when spirit is not entity"

man can be three parts or two. spirit, soul, flesh. Or soul, spirit.
dog is two but only flesh and soul.

And spirit is not entity? Our spirit is distinct from our physical body we just cannot tell which one we are in. This once more requires a long road to explanation.

[Funky1096]

"I cannot imagine a great delusion than to think you could have a proper understanding of any ancient text by reading only a translation.

How do you justify such a patently absurd assertion? Have you never heard of things getting "lost in translation"?"

Like I have said before I beleive the KJV to be inerrant. I also have a Biblical method of determining what makes the word of God inerrant.

My single most hated issue on using the Greek and Hebrew dead texts is 1 Samuel 17:51, 2 Samuel 21:19, and 1 chronicles 20:5.

You can "know" they say David killed Goliath, Elhaan killed Goliath, or Elhaan killed the brother of Goliath in the same battle.

Look it up in the Greek and Hebrew dead-language lexicons you use.
It will contradict in various lexicons.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Like I have said before I beleive the KJV to be inerrant. I also have a Biblical method of determining what makes the word of God inerrant.

Yes, you've said that many times. But you've never given any reason anyone should believe it. Do you understand why it appears to be absurd?



My single most hated issue on using the Greek and Hebrew dead texts is 1 Samuel 17:51, 2 Samuel 21:19, and 1 chronicles 20:5.

You can "know" they say David killed Goliath, Elhaan killed Goliath, or Elhaan killed the brother of Goliath in the same battle.

Look it up in the Greek and Hebrew dead-language lexicons you use.
It will contradict in various lexicons.
Who are you to judge supposed "contradictions" when you can't even read the languages? That's sounds insane, like a hillbilly who can't add 1 + 2 thinking to prove calculus is wrong.

Don't you realize that your attitude is one of self-exaltation and gross pride? You set yourself up over all scholarship as if you were the ultimate authority when in fact you are utterly ignorant of the language, history, and interpretation of the Bible. Doesn't this bother you? Cant' you see why this looks like a delusion?

[Funky1096]

"Don't you realize that your attitude is one of self-exaltation and gross pride? You set yourself up over all scholarship as if you were the ultimate authority when in fact you are utterly ignorant of the language, history, and interpretation of the Bible. Doesn't this bother you? Cant' you see why this looks like a delusion?"

XD God is the ultimate authority. Why do I know this his word is why.

2 Timothy 3:15-17
"And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works"


1 Thessalonians 2:13
"For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe"

Matthew 7:17
"Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit"

Ok so 2 Timothy describes the word of God.
1 Thessalonians says it is of God not men.

Matthew says good trees bring forth good fruit.

If I find a contradiction that leaves a version errant. The version is not of God and is fail able making it bad fruit.

The only version on earth that fits the word of God's description of itself is the KJV of 1611.

I am not the authority you hypocrite God is.

"You set yourself up over all scholarship"

No matter how well intentioned scholarship is apperently every version from it is accurately preserving the failableness of the age of the scraps it uses.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

"Don't you realize that your attitude is one of self-exaltation and gross pride? You set yourself up over all scholarship as if you were the ultimate authority when in fact you are utterly ignorant of the language, history, and interpretation of the Bible. Doesn't this bother you? Cant' you see why this looks like a delusion?"

XD God is the ultimate authority. Why do I know this his word is why.

That is the essence of your delusion. You are confusing your own private fallible INTERPRETATION with "God." So you are making yourself your own god. Think about that.



Ok so 2 Timothy describes the word of God.

That's your mistake. 2 Timothy is obviously not talking about the Bible.



Matthew says good trees bring forth good fruit.

If I find a contradiction that leaves a version errant. The version is not of God and is fail able making it bad fruit.

There you go. That's your error. It's all centered on that massive I that you hold so high. You set YOURSELF up as the ultimate authority. YOU are the one who determines what the Bible means. You have set yourself up as the final judge so when you say it is God you are really setting yourself up as God. That is the ultimate sin. It is the ultimate satanic pride.



The only version on earth that fits the word of God's description of itself is the KJV of 1611.

That's the most ridiculous thing that any human could utter. It is demonstrably false on a hundred counts.



I am not the authority you hypocrite God is.

According to you, YOUR interpretation of the Bible is the ultimate authority. YOU are the one who asserts that the KJV is inspired. The Bible does not say that. Therefore, you have set yourself up as the Ultimate Authority. You have set yourself up as God himself who declares all truth.

[Funky1096]

What are we five year olds continuing in this conversation that not only is off topic but is also not even glorifieing the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob.

"According to you, YOUR interpretation of the Bible is the ultimate authority. YOU are the one who asserts that the KJV is inspired. The Bible does not say that. Therefore, you have set yourself up as the Ultimate Authority. You have set yourself up as God himself who declares all truth."

No I'm open to literal interpretation based off other verses in the Bible, that are in context of the whole bible.

Didint I just say God is the ultimate authority?

"The Bible does not say that"

Nope it gives us strict guidelines as to what His word is. Many versions of today fail to meet that guideline.

When I say "KJV only" I should start saying. "The Bible as defined by the Bible"

Me saying KJV only isint glorifieing God nor pointing you back to him apperently.


"There you go. That's your error. It's all centered on that massive I that you hold so high. You set YOURSELF up as the ultimate authority. YOU are the one who determines what the Bible means. You have set yourself up as the final judge so when you say it is God you are really setting yourself up as God. That is the ultimate sin. It is the ultimate satanic pride. "

First of all I said "I" in that sentence since you still are ignoring the Bible and therefore God. I am not, I hope and pray that the "I" could be a "we". Second like I said before God is the ultimate authority. The sin you speak of is witchcraft or blashphemy and if you want to get technical the Bible says the only sin God can disown us for is fornification.


"

[Funky1096]

By the way did you know there is supposed to be one universal faith for Christians? Not multiply denominations no but one faith.

Ephesians 4:3-6 KJV
"Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all"

[Richard Amiel McGough]

No I'm open to literal interpretation based off other verses in the Bible, that are in context of the whole bible.

That's your error. Who says that God intended you to interpret everything in the Bible literally? We know that is an error because the Bible speaks frequently of non-literal interpretations.

It looks like you start with a premise that is directly contrary to the teaching of the Bible.



Didint I just say God is the ultimate authority?

Yes, that's what you said. But then you contradicted yourself by implying that YOU are the ultimate authority.



"The Bible does not say that"

Nope it gives us strict guidelines as to what His word is. Many versions of today fail to meet that guideline.

When I say "KJV only" I should start saying. "The Bible as defined by the Bible"

You have not shown that it gives anyone any "strict guidelines." You have not even DEFINED THE BIBLE as yet. I've brought this to your attention many times and you continue to ignore it. This is very strange, since without a definition of the Bible all your assertions are meaningless.

The KJV cannot define the Bible because the KJV did not exist until the 17th century. I've brought this to your attention many times and you have not answered it.



Me saying KJV only isint glorifieing God nor pointing you back to him apperently.

Glad you recognize that. The KJV Only position is radically irrational. How is it possible that you could believe it? I've asked many times and you have not answered.



First of all I said "I" in that sentence since you still are ignoring the Bible and therefore God. I am not, I hope and pray that the "I" could be a "we". Second like I said before God is the ultimate authority. The sin you speak of is witchcraft or blashphemy and if you want to get technical the Bible says the only sin God can disown us for is fornification.

First, you have not defined the Bible. Second, you are now equating the Bible with God. That's absurd. There was a time when the Bible did not exist, so it cannot be God. And worse, there are many different Bibles and you have not given any explanation about why one is true except your own subjective opinion that only the KJV has no contradictions. But that's blatantly absurd because everyone can see that you have a DOUBLE STANDARD where you explain away the KJV contradictions but not the others. That's the definition of unrighteousness. According to the Bible, God hates double standards and all forms of unrighteous judgment.

Do you understand what I am saying? Do you understand why it appears that you have a DOUBLE STANDARD and why your position appears to be delusional?

[Timmy]

"Yes, i too think that just because man makes a god out of what he can physically perceive does not make that anthropomorphic representation a god...and in fact lessens the dynamism possibly realised therein.

Many times we get just what we focus on, but that is no reason to invest belief in whatever results from foci."

Well two things.

One again idk what this has to do with the Bible(I don't like physiological terms applied to the living God).

And two you Didint back your statements up nor answered them.Well, if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black could anything be more obvious?

How do you talk about Jesus without using physiological terms?

You come off as somebody who is going to teach what you think the Bible says, but if your flawed 1611KJV contradicts the text it was translated from, you scamper off on some tangent, to find verses to suit your own falsehoods. The verses are out of context, and from one sorry ass equivalent that does not deserve the word dynamic adjectived before it...and you will not compare with more accurate dynamic equivalents that have been much more successfully translated toward this very purpose.

Your own false doctrines are derived from an out of context cut and paste of verses through your "assistance" toward understanding with off base simplistic delusional commentary, and you think shouting "chapter and verse, please" is going to somehow even help you get a grip on the root of any matter?

You persist in wallowing in the quagmires of intellectual inanity simply because you bow down to King James?

Your bibliolatry is your own stumbling block, choosing to not hear, you stumble blindly!


"Yes, what you say is followed; but, how does one express abstract nouns in understandable terms to one who thinks man is three parts, when spirit is not entity"


man can be three parts or two. spirit, soul, flesh. Or soul, spirit.
dog is two but only flesh and soul.

And spirit is not entity? Our spirit is distinct from our physical body we just cannot tell which one we are in. This once more requires a long road to explanation.
Soul is expression through the body and not a part. Soul is expression and not a possession.

My dog "is" spirit and body...just like all beasts: humans included.
I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.

For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them:as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast:for all is vanity.

All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.

Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?

So, above, in Kohelet 3, from your holey KJV DIe-version, you have your answer to what i said, and the lies you think others should believe as you, are proven false.


BTW, huMANs, thinking in your terms, are four basic components, not three.

"...and thinking themselves teachers, they need be taught themselves..."

LISTEN FUNKY. YOU ARE ONLY SHOWING YOU HAVE NO ROUNDED KNOWLEDGE OF EVEN THE KJV BASTARDISATION OF THE ORIGINAL BIBLE TEXTS. JESUS DID NOT BEGIN MINISTRY TIL AFTER THIRTY YEARS OF LEARNING AND LIVING. IF HE IS YOUR MASTER, WHAT MAKES YOU GREATER THAN HIM, WITH ONLY TWO YEARS UNDER YOUR BELT?

Might it be suggested you read through the Bible at least once before you think you know what you obviously do not. Start with James 3, understanding from this chapter sever judgement awaits you continuing to do what you are doing.


Seriously,

Timmy

We do not understand your false prophecy.
We overstand you, greenhorn.
Listen and learn before you spout off any more lies.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

By the way did you know there is supposed to be one universal faith for Christians? Not multiply denominations no but one faith.

Ephesians 4:3-6 KJV
"Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all"
Note the word "endeavouring." Unity is something that believers are supposed to strive for. This has been the CENTRAL PROBLEM of Christianity from the beginning and such unity has never been found.

I think that's because the Bible does not really make sense. It is full of contradictions so everyone has to make up their own interpretations and so can never come to unity.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

You persist in wallowing in the quagmires of intellectual inanity simply because you bow down to King James?

Your bibliolatry is your own stumbling block, choosing to not hear, you stumble blindly!

Yeah, bibliolatry can blind you if you take your own private interpretation as "God's interpretation" and so set yourself upon the thrown above the stars of God.


Soul is expression through the body and not a part. Soul is expression and not a possession.

My dog "is" spirit and body...just like all beasts: humans included.
I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.

For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them:as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast:for all is vanity.

All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.

Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?

So, above, in Kohelet 3, from your holey KJV DIe-version, you have your answer to what i said, and the lies you think others should believe as you are shown false.

An even better proof of the biblical view of animals (including humans) being a body/breath unity called a "living soul" is found in Gen 2:7:
KJV Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
The word translated as "living soul" is nephesh chayah which is exactly the same phrase used to describe the fish in the sea and the land animals.

It's very strange how many Christians fail to understand this. The Bible uses exactly the same words to describe all animal life, including humans.

[Funky1096]

"The word translated as "living soul" is nephesh chayah which is exactly the same phrase used to describe the fish in the sea and the land animals.

It's very strange how many Christians fail to understand this. The Bible uses exactly the same words to describe all animal life, including humans."

First of all I haven't even gotten to salvation and yes it involves how that is true (Biblically) not Greek text.

"I think that's because the Bible does not really make sense. It is full of contradictions so everyone has to make up their own interpretations and so can never come to unity."

Well you have just been informed the KJV of 1611 has no such contradictions.

"Well, if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black could anything be more obvious?

How do you talk about Jesus without using physiological terms?"

Meh wrong qoute good point. Use language it's descriptive I'm full of bs for saying otherwise.


"You come off as somebody who is going to teach what you think the Bible says, but if your flawed 1611KJV contradicts the text it was translated from, you scamper off on some tangent, to find verses to suit your own falsehoods. The verses are out of context, and from one sorry ass equivalent that does not deserve the word dynamic adjectived before it...and you will not compare with more accurate dynamic equivalents that have been much more successfully translated toward this very purpose."


"more accurate dynamic equivalents that have been much more successfully translated toward this very purpose"

XD there are readings in the KJV that are not found on any other document on earth. I say God inspiration you say bad fruit.

I point out true biblical inconsistencies in the "more accurate dynamic equivalents that have been much more successfully translated toward this very purpose"

Well idgaf that their more "accurate" their accuracy preserves errors KJV is different it contains readings not found anywhere on earth and has no contradictions as defined by the word of God or Scripture.


And to settle your confusion saying the word "Bible" is like saying Scripture or word of God.
I do not even know how the word "Bible" is Scriptural.


"Your bibliolatry is your own stumbling block, choosing to not hear, you stumble blindly!"

What are you trying to tell me?

I'm using the word of God to make a stance on what it says itself is.

Your telling me not to do that (or in Richards case ignoring the verses) and study the Greek and Hebrew with you and deny any modern inerrancy.

[Timmy]

An even better proof of the biblical view of animals (including humans) being a body/breath unity called a "living soul" is found in Gen 2:7:
KJV Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
The word translated as "living soul" is nephesh chayah which is exactly the same phrase used to describe the fish in the sea and the land animals.

It's very strange how many Christians fail to understand this. The Bible uses exactly the same words to describe all animal life, including humans.Strange indeed.

So i did some historic researching, and bored with it after not being able to clearly identify the exact source.

This is just educated guessing but it might help. It's been over 20 years since this quest was completed, so maybe somebody here might help me get my foot out of my mouth, or possibly elaborate further:

Pontifax Maximus Constantine employed two or three theologians to integrate paganism and Western philsophy (particularly Platonic thought) to the HRCC during his quest toward Pax Romana...only one: Origen comes to mind at present, though. Of main import with Constantine, a worshipper of Mithras (even expressed through his funeral proceedings), that sun worship become a center piece of Romanism. It was the first step in attempting to make xianity the religion of the empire.

Other theologians and Emporers continued in this.

Most noted when studying the historic span of this phenomena--the procession and influence of religions/philosophy, was the influence of Marcus Aurelius and his own methods of integrating Aristotlean thinking into the culture, and attempts toward making the empire of the people in this...but that gets off topic from this thread.

Anyway, this mistake of thinking we are spirit appears more prevalent in writings after 400 A.D., and has perpetually grown more prominent through the passage of time.

What i do not understand is why, since the foundation of the Berith Hadash is the Tanakh, why do people assume they are in contradiction, rather than understanding the limitations of Koiné compared with Hebrew/Aramaic?


Timmy

[Timmy]

.and you will not compare with more accurate dynamic equivalents that have been much more successfully translated toward this very purpose."


"more accurate dynamic equivalents that have been much more successfully translated toward this very purpose"

XD there are readings in the KJV that are not found on any other document on earth. I say God inspiration you say bad fruit.

I point out true biblical inconsistencies in the "more accurate dynamic equivalents that have been much more successfully translated toward this very purpose"

Well idgaf that their more "accurate" their accuracy preserves errors KJV is different it contains readings not found anywhere on earth and has no contradictions as defined by the word of God or Scripture.Please explain what you are meaning by,"readings in the KJV that are not found on any other document on earth. I say God inspiration..."

FYI, specifically Hebrew, secondary Greek, all translations are inconsistent. The best of these inconsistent renderings toward accuracy, to date, is the HCSB.



And to settle your confusion saying the word "Bible" is like saying Scripture or word of God.
I do not even know how the word "Bible" is Scriptural.



"Your bibliolatry is your own stumbling block, choosing to not hear, you stumble blindly!"

What are you trying to tell me?

I'm using the word of God to make a stance on what it says itself is.

Your telling me not to do that (or in Richards case ignoring the verses) and study the Greek and Hebrew with you and deny any modern inerrancy.Explain idolatry to me.


BIBLIO=book
Bibliolatry=Exalting and serving a certain book or books above all else.

There is the original brandname manufacturer, and there are spin-offs. If you choose a replica or some less costly black market copy over the spitting image, don't go crying about how you were ripped off when the similitude never works like the real McCoy.

Do as thou wilt, glasshoppah.


Timmy

[L67]

"
Well you have just been informed the KJV of 1611 has no such contradictions.



Are you Kent Hovind posting from the prison computer? Because Kent Hovind just happens to have the same argument and even uses the same verses you do to prove his point. No doubt you are a follower of his or were at some point.

Here is Kent Hovind in a 3-4 part series presenting the same arguments you are regurgitating.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5eM7nou1oI

[Funky1096]

"Explain idolatry to me."

http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3620-Idolism-and-witchcraft-in-the-Bible

[Richard Amiel McGough]

First of all I haven't even gotten to salvation and yes it involves how that is true (Biblically) not Greek text.

The NT Bible IS a Greek text! :doh:



Well you have just been informed the KJV of 1611 has no such contradictions.

I've been informed of nothing but your unjustified and false opinion.

The KJV is full of contradictions from beginning to end. The birth narratives in Matthew and Luke are totally contradictory. The events of the Passion Week are totally contradictory. No Christian has ever been able to resolve the contradictions. If you think you can do it, then hop over to the thread called Dan Barker's Resurrection Challenge (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?1852-Dan-Barker-s-Resurrection-Challenge) and post your answer there.



XD there are readings in the KJV that are not found on any other document on earth. I say God inspiration you say bad fruit.

It's just the potsherds of one fallible opinion clashing with potsherds of another.

How arrogant is it for the potsherd to claim to be speaking the truth of God?



Well idgaf that their more "accurate" their accuracy preserves errors KJV is different it contains readings not found anywhere on earth and has no contradictions as defined by the word of God or Scripture.

You have failed to define the Scripture so your clever theory is based on nothing but your own proud opinion.



I do not even know how the word "Bible" is Scriptural.

It's not. Yet you constantly speak of it. This shows that you are following your own made up religion.



I'm using the word of God to make a stance on what it says itself is.

You are using the Bible to support your personal opinion as if it were God's own truth. This is the essence of religious delusion.

[Timmy]

Are you Kent Hovind posting from the prison computer? Because Kent Hovind just happens to have the same argument and even uses the same verses you do to prove his point. No doubt you are a follower of his or were at some point.

Here is Kent Hovind in a 3-4 part series presenting the same arguments you are regurgitating.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5eM7nou1oI:signthankspin: L67!!!

This is priceless and all would do well to note the authoritarianisticity some bleeters need be perpetually on guard against...then again, yyou cannot tell the indolent or confused mux of anything without being misunderstood.


CIO:icon_hello:

Timmy

[Funky1096]

". If you think you can do it, then hop over to the thread called Dan Barker's Resurrection Challenge and post your answer there. "
Easter is of heathen origin XD. Was that a trick question?

Anyways glad those people want to logicalize the Bible it's impossible simple answer for the first problem it was Jesus's physical body anointed and spiced not his spirit body :L.

[EDIT]
Never had heard of him before ima gunu go see if he has any scriptures to point out.

[EDIT2]

That deceptive guy.
He is pointing out differences XD. I look for true contradictions in every version I read as explained here
http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3612-Dissproving-Bible-versions-of-Christians

[Richard Amiel McGough]

". If you think you can do it, then hop over to the thread called Dan Barker's Resurrection Challenge and post your answer there. "
Easter is of heathen origin XD. Was that a trick question?

Anyways glad those people want to logicalize the Bible it's impossible simple answer for the first problem it was Jesus's physical body anointed and spiced not his spirit body :L.

[EDIT]
Never had heard of him before ima gunu go see if he has any scriptures to point out.
It sounds like you admit the KJV is full of contradictions. So which is it?

[Funky1096]

Did I say that? No.
"It sounds like you admit the KJV is full of contradictions. So which is it?"

I look for contradictions to make 100% sure its good fruit. Open mind if I find a irefutable error (ie unexplainable contradiction) then I go find another version.

[EDIT]
http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3623-Salvation-spirit-flesh-AND-soul

Go pick at Scriptual inconsistencies in that I seriously need it.
(ITS IMPORTANT)

[Ps 27:1]

:signthankspin: L67!!!

This is priceless and all would do well to note the authoritarianisticity some bleeters need be perpetually on guard against...then again, yyou cannot tell the indolent or confused mux of anything without being misunderstood.


CIO:icon_hello:

Timmy

Hola Timoteo :yo:,

I probably wouldn't have responded to this, but at 2:22, he said there were 151 different English translations. Of course, that got my attention because that is the ord value of "Jesus Christ" and "Holy Spirit". Now, I don't know enough about Mr Hovind to form a fair opinion and it may be just as well.

Phl 1:15 It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill.
Phl 1:17 The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains.
Phl 1:18 But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice. Yes, and I will continue to rejoice,

I use both the NIV and the KJV, but mostly I read from the NIV because of the ease. I think God can use any version or person for his glory. (BTW, when I used preach* in the Blue Letter Bible website under KJV to pull up Phl 1:18, it said there were 153 in the bible. Hmmmm, 153 fish)

Nobody is going to be able to excuse themselves before God because they didn't have the "right version".

Rom 10:8 But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim:
Rom 10:9 If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

It's not rocket science.:lol:

Steve

[Ps 27:1]

Oh Timmy, One Other Thing (OTOOT :D)

Yeah, I'm tooting my horn again.:lol:

101 is the one who started this maze I'm in. :D There is only one verse that = 888 (Jesus)

1Ch 8:16 And Michael, and Ispah, and Joha, the sons of Beriah;

5 words (stones), 24 letters (8+8+8) First word is Michael = 107 (of course, 101 + the 6 (man) of the vav)

In the NIV preach* search it comes up 107 times.

So now we have "Michael row your boat ashore" with 153 fish. :lol:

Okay, I'm weird.

Steve

[Timmy]

Oh Timmy, One Other Thing (OTOOT :D)

Yeah, I'm tooting my horn again.:lol:

101 is the one who started this maze I'm in. :D There is only one verse that = 888 (Jesus)

1Ch 8:16 And Michael, and Ispah, and Joha, the sons of Beriah;

5 words (stones), 24 letters (8+8+8) First word is Michael = 107 (of course, 101 + the 6 (man) of the vav)

In the NIV preach* search it comes up 107 times.

So now we have "Michael row your boat ashore" with 153 fish. :lol:

Okay...
Steve

:lmbo:Howdya doin' Steve,

The curiosity about the picture of 3 stones was shocking when seen--we had the same layout on the rh side of our drive...with three stones in the same formation with one standing tall as well. After seven years, the stones were moved (last fall) to landscape about the brick chevron patterned walk to the steps leading up to our porch.

:focus:

Nobody is going to be able to excuse themselves before God because they didn't have the "right version".

Rom 10:8 But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim:
Rom 10:9 If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

It's not rocket science.

RIGHTO STEVEO

...yet leading others in the wrong direction does not draw anyone in the right direction. The scriptures are toward reproof, correction, and instruction, and should someone teach, doing comes first. DO and then teach is the only example we are given to emulate.

Many do not realise they are only thinking and not actually believing. Of those thoughts assumed, if one does not test them in daily doings, lack of discernment descends into false teachings into more and more lies upon lies...

How much of what is thought true has never been lived out to know G_d approves you as one of His laborer who doesn't need be concerned over what anyone else thinks?

When we teach the Word relative to experience, it cuts out the tongue of those who say otherwise...unless the tongue-less foolishly sutures it back again.

Except for questioning things, why we forwards any information by any means, that is not related to our own life experience is usually for the sake of appearance. We will fail to recognise we assume the seat of the hypocrite in misguided efforts toward recognition and self-aggrandisement.

This whole issue so far discussed in most every post on this thread (and some elsewhere) is about getting the facts straight before instructin. To persist with misinformation after being told sources to use before speaking, then arguing that your information given is correct because you say G_d agrees with you and has ordained one and only one replica as the only truth begs to be discounted.

My first reading through the whole Protestant Bible was a gift from mom and dad on my 12th birthday with one note by dad written right inside the front cover. After a week, i was done...and the first thought after doing that "You forgot way more than you remember."

That began a perpetual trek, now spanning well over 25 years.

What were those words dad wrote?


Other books must be learned to be loved.
This book must be loved to be learned.

If you ever think you really know anything about it
You do not really know what you should.

No, it is not rocket science. We crawl until we can walk. Then we run until we fly away. It's not rocket science at all...but where does one begin?

But how can they call on Him they have not believed in? And how can they believe without hearing about Him? And how can they hear without a preacher? 15 And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written:How beautiful are the feet of those who announce the gospel of good things! 16 But all did not obey the gospel. For Isaiah says, Lord, who has believed our message? 17 So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the message about Christ.
Romans 10.14-17, HCSB

Nobody experiences relationship with G_d in adherence to what is not right and anyone who claims ordination from G_d proclaiming such seriously needs to examine themselves to see whether they are in the faith or if they do not discern right from wrong.

Mr. Hovind many times has spoken what his mouth can't cash.

The purer the message, the less accountability one has toward G_d because of misleading others into their own words.

Best is what is proven true by the trial and errors learning to depend on Yaweh through Yeshua for life.


In my use of English translations, whether teaching or itinerant, i try to find the one that most closely resembling mss. toward emphasis being related from experience--always with the discaimer that i do not know what i should but i try to show what i'm still learning by living it out, and anyone who knows better, do not hesitate to interrupt and correct me. More often than not, in order of most used, these are: ESV, NIV, HCSB, and yes, the KJV.

Currently, during study, it is an interlinear of the Masoretic text. With the B'rit Hadasha, i compiled and bound an interlinear with 8 prominent Gk. mss. to concourse. The HCSB is now used exclusively for comparative purposes...

...and still the learner,

Timmy