Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Here's an interesting article on homosexuality and biblical scholarship


  • Please log in to reply
202 replies to this topic

#181 PhillyB

PhillyB

    hug it chug it football

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,757 posts
  • LocationGreensboro

Posted 23 January 2013 - 01:12 AM

So many of these babies were half human.


now you are making up bullshit answers to fill the gaps between logical parameters that you can not circumvent without compromising your contortionist cosmogonies. i'm done with this conversation until you master some fundamental methodologies of critical analysis and logical principles

#182 lightsout

lightsout

    Doin' stuff...thaaaangs

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,617 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 01:14 AM

Yeah, and you probably see where I'm coming from with this. Yet to your mention of cherry picking, how many people were stone to death in the Bible, before the Ten Commandments came? In fact, before man fell, where in the book of Genesis was Adam's slave? Where did man rule over the woman before man fell? How many died before man fell? So if you ask me why I don't do all those things, it's because Jesus came to restore us to how God originally created us. There is no commandment of stoning heathens in the beginning.



Jesus literally never said that, that is how you interpreted it. Jesus actually said in the sermon on the mount that the old laws were to be upheld. He specifically altered a few (eye for an eye, for instance, being changed to turning the other cheek). Jesus' crucifixion was solely about the blood sacrifice that was mandatory in the OT. No more sacrificing animals or virgins. The blood sacrifice was paid in Jesus. That is the story (as reported by MANY biblical scholars). The ten commandments came AFTER the fall...so obviously those laws didn't apply at the time.



Adding doesn't mean altering. How many new facts can we find out about this universe, that would change the universe as a whole? God's love is much more vast than this universe. You can find out something new everyday for the rest of eternity, and that new fact doesn't change the meaning of God's love. The whole Bible has one central theme, and it's about Jesus.


No, adding IS a form of altering. But the additions are not my point. The subtractions, the taking books OUT of the bible is the point. The rest you put here doesn't really make sense to that first sentence, but the very last sentence isn't NECESSARILY true.


It's too early to say science disagrees with Genesis. I've mentioned in this topic already that Genesis is talking on the very beginning of time. Science is based on our observation of today. Things that were once observable, are no longer observable. So if Genesis mentions many things that are no longer observable, at face value science will reject many things that are written in it. Look at Big Bang theory. We don't have physical evidence for cosmic inflation, but we believe it happened. There are a few things surrounding Big Bang theory, that we have no evidence for. We don't even know the universe began as a single point, that suddenly expanded. We only say it happened from our observation of the universe expanding. That because we see it expanding, all we got to do is run that tape in reverse, and essentially everything collapses into a single point of energy. Yet my question is, how do we know the tape rolls back that far?

This is the limit of science, and why it doesn't prove Genesis didn't happen. Not yet. (as I said I have falsefiability concerning the Genesis account)


No, it's not. We KNOW, through science, the NECESSARY order of events. We know at one point the earth was entirely molten. We know that over time, it cooled, water formed, crust formed, and eventually, Pangea formed (or, the earth BEFORE it became how it is as far as continental placement). Science is based on observation and experimentation. "Of today" isn't necessarily true. We can study the remains of things from billions of years ago and learn things about them when they were actually alive back then. We never observed Pangea, but we know Pangea was a real thing before tectonic shifts occurred. And actually, we DO have evidence of cosmic inflation...and we KNOW it's still happening. The Higgs Boson sort of helps with the Big Bang theory as well. That is why it's a big deal that it got discovered. We don't know what existed prior to the Big Bang, and that is OK. Not knowing is OK. Not searching or accepting an assertion that does not have evidence to support it is not OK.

Your last two sentences make no sense. We don't know everything about the entirety of the existence of the universe....but we DO know about things that existed and happened BILLIONS of years ago here on earth...yet we don't know about what occurred roughly 6000 years ago? Come on, now. That is patently absurd.


That's an excellent question. It would be ignorance to just believe something without evidence. This have been pretty much most of the history of mankind when it comes to all the religions in the world. That's how superstition got started. However, I have reason to believe the Bible is true.


We're good so far. Let's continue.

Firstly, you can see from the very beginning, the Bible has Jesus written all over it. All these different authors over many years, somehow maintained the central theme of Jesus redeeming mankind. Not just a man, but God Himself coming down to restore man. Also when you hear the Bible is inspired by God, it's actually the original language that is inspired by God. You can vividly see within the Hebrew and Greek words, the central theme of Christ. All of this was maintained by different men over a thousand+ year period of writings.


OK, first, no it doesn't. The OT has a messiah written all over it. It never mentions or alludes to Jesus. Just a messiah. The reason all these authors SEEMED to have the same central theme is because the NT authors wrote it WITH the knowledge of the OT. It's easy to fill in the gaps when you have the primary source material. This is why Jews still exist. They do not believe Jesus was the messiah the OT speaks of. They do not think he was divine in any way. Just a man. As far as inspired...again...every biblical author will tell you the idea is that the Christian god inspired men to write what he wanted in his book. So, the men who wrote it were supposedly writing what god was telling them to write. Again, it wasn't maintained. It was edited many, many, many, many times and it was translated many times over as well. It wasn't maintained. The NT authors, again, wrote the NT WITH the knowledge of everything in the OT. It's easy to keep the story flow with that knowledge.

Secondly, Israel's existence. How they came back into their land after almost 2,000 years of exile. Say what you want about how they came back in, yet we know for certain God played a role in their preservation if only by the Bible itself. (American Christians helping Israel be established in 1948 or what have you) Not too mention when it comes to science and scientific study, Israel is one of the top nations in the world in that field. They rule in Nobel Peace prizes mostly because of their scientific achievement. I plan to go to Israel one day to do some scientific work there. Ultimately, when it comes to Israel, God said He would bring them back into the land, and they are back in the land. I'm sure many gods have promised their people things, and they have their writings just like the Bible is present. Yet those gods didn't follow through. The God of the Bible has followed through on His promise, or at least what is written happened just as it said.


Um....men went in and re-established Israel. We do NOT know for certain (and have no reason to believe) that any god had any role in that. God also said Tyre would never be rebuilt. That was prophecy...and uh......Tyre is rebuilt. It's not hard for authors back then to say "Israel will EVENTUALLY be rebuilt". If I proclaim that the Panthers, someday, will win a Super Bowl...am I a prophet when they DO win one?

Finally, we know Jesus existed. We know He preached a message. I haven't done research on this subject, but the difficulty of Jesus message continuing (considering He was no king or prophet, no one special in the eyes the world) on after His death, was extremely high. That if Jesus wasn't who He said He was, there's no way in the world His message would have spread pass Jerusalem much less foreign countries. Some would say once Constatine made Christianity an official religion, Christianity was bound to spread, ie. by force. Yet Christianity was spreading pretty good before that time. Judaism didn't spread, yet Christianity did? (Prior to Constatine) That is an evidence within itself that Jesus is who He is. I plan to do a study concerning the difficulty of the spread of Christianity, and how the message wouldn't have made it out of Jerusalem for no other reason than it being true.



We do not know for certain that Jesus, as portrayed in the bible existed. We don't even know a man named Jesus who was a Jewish carpenter existed. There isn't a single thing written about any crucifixion that can be paralleled to the biblical account of Jesus. The ONLY place we hear about Jesus is in the bible. That isn't good evidence, sorry. Might a man have existed who preached a message that differed from the typical Jewish/pagan traditions? Sure, that isn't too hard to concede. However, there is NO account of this outside of the bible. There are NO writings of Jesus, yet there are writings from others in the same time period and earlier and later. The 4 gospels were written DECADES (4, actually) after Jesus supposedly died. That doesn't help with the validity of the accounts. I can write about my roommates in 40 years, and write whatever I want, but it doesn't make it true. Even if I have a LOT of people in a LOT of different places in the world believe it.

The word spread as you said. It got big, it became "law of the land", and it was installed by force everywhere. The mere fact that it spread quickly doesn't prove it true, though. Spiderman is popular the world over. Is it true? The fact that many believe something doesn't make it true. 99.99% of the world's population in that time believed the world to be flat and the sun to be only a few miles away. Can we really trust THEIR judgement? The answer is no, we cannot.

#183 lightsout

lightsout

    Doin' stuff...thaaaangs

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,617 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 01:21 AM

The Hebrew doesn't say "and create evil". It says calamity. There is a difference. Back during the days of Noah, everyone was evil. It was to the point where Noah was the only one who still trusted God. Literally. You mentioned babies during the time of the flood, yet if you remember, man's line was being tainted by fallen angels who manifested themselves and had relations with women. So many of these babies were half human. All in all, everyone was corrupt during that time, and no one was listening to God except Noah. Noah preached to them about the coming flood, as the NT lets us know that Noah was a preacher of righteousness. Yet no one believed Noah obviously. So the people didn't find God's grace, but His judgment. (His calamity)


Uh....really? Really, man? This is what you're going with? Half-human babies? Fall angels who manifested as women? That. Is. Not. Reality. I'm not even going to entertain this, because this is just plain dumb. Everything up to now has been reasonable Christian response...but this is just absurd. Also, incest was apparently bad during this time...and Noah and his family are ALL that is left...and incest causes genetic mutation that causes harm to the offspring...and usually infertility is one of the big ones when it comes to children born of incest sex. So, they couldn't procreate further, which means all man dies. That's just another in a nice list of issues with the flood story.

No, God didn't harden Pharaoh's heart until Pharaoh essentially harden his own heart by not letting the people go. God told Moses that Pharaoh would not let the people go, and as a result, He would hardened Pharaoh's heart. This was done so the Pharaoh would see God's power, and it would humble him as a result.




The point is, once Pharaoh's heart was hardened, he could not let them go. He was doomed. And Plenty of children died as a result. Are they evil, half-human babies too?

#184 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,387 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 01:29 AM

The Hebrew doesn't say "and create evil". It says calamity. There is a difference.


ahh Matthias, here's the problem. the word actually has multiple meanings. means it's open to interpretation - quite a bit.

the original hebrew word is ra`, which has multiple meanings, ranging from evil, bad, dysfunctional, etc, and has multiple meanings in different places. so whose interpretation do we use to know which is right? see http://lexiconcordan...ebrew/7451.html

let's look at this line ->
Etz haDaat tov V'ra

do you know what tov V'ra here is? you yourself refer to it in your posts...

#185 TANTRIC-NINJA

TANTRIC-NINJA

    The holy ghost of Mr. Miyagi

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,574 posts
  • LocationColumbia, South Kacky

Posted 23 January 2013 - 09:44 AM

Talking snakes and a 600 year old man doesn't make the account allegory.


By the way, we know there are bird species that can speak words they hear (even remember phrases and mimic head motions with those phrases). Yet all in all, Genesis was written as a historical account. That is the bottom line. If it is true or not is a different story. Even if it's not true, it's still not written as an allegory.



Talking snakes and a 600 year old man doesn't make the account allegory.

Your right, It makes it Folklore.

By the way, we know there are bird species that can speak words they hear (even remember phrases and mimic head motions with those phrases).

That is a Parrot.

Satan was not addressed as a Parrot...unless this is how you explain talking angels.

Posted Image

Voldomort..I mean Louis Cifer, was a snake....so you say to "take the book literal"...except for the whole talking snakes..bc we know "there are birds that speak." and talking snakes is just CRAZY!

I know Mosaic Cosmogonies...and you are no Mosaic Cosmogony..uh ... talking persons...bible man

#186 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,000 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 09:54 AM

so, i have a question about the tower of babel... was god actually afraid that man was going to literally build a tower to heaven?


also, can I build one?

#187 Matthias

Matthias

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,235 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 12:37 PM

now you are making up bullshit answers to fill the gaps between logical parameters that you can not circumvent without compromising your contortionist cosmogonies. i'm done with this conversation until you master some fundamental methodologies of critical analysis and logical principles


No I was addressing a situation that was brought up. Making stuff up? Is it not true that is what is written in the Bible? That situation I was addressing. Plain and simple, or in Cam's words, simple and plain.


Jesus literally never said that, that is how you interpreted it. Jesus actually said in the sermon on the mount that the old laws were to be upheld. He specifically altered a few (eye for an eye, for instance, being changed to turning the other cheek). Jesus' crucifixion was solely about the blood sacrifice that was mandatory in the OT. No more sacrificing animals or virgins. The blood sacrifice was paid in Jesus. That is the story (as reported by MANY biblical scholars). The ten commandments came AFTER the fall...so obviously those laws didn't apply at the time.


What Jesus said was that He came to fulfill the Law. He also said that not one jot or tittle would pass away until everything was fulfilled. Jesus brought out the full intent of the Ten Commandments to us. That if you lust after a person, you committed adultery. That if you hated a person, you committed murder in the heart. You must keep the Law fully, both outwardly and inwardly. Inwardly is actually the key to keeping it outwardly, and there in lies the problem with us. So Jesus taught us another way. All that turning the other cheek stuff, is simply grace. That if we have grace on others who trepass against us, God would have grace on us for breaking His laws. He wasn't teaching a new thing contrary to the Law (as you say altering), He was teaching humility because the people couldn't keep the Law. Pardoning others.

Yet that is not the main reason why Jesus came. (Just teaching pardoning) Jesus came to fulfill the Law. Fulfill it for who, Himself? No, for us obviously. Ultimately God gave us grace and showed His love for us, and as a result we have grace on others. Jesus said Himself that He didn't come for the righteous, but sinners. He take on the sins of the world. This is clearly spoken on throughout the NT Gospels. Now think, was Adam without sin in the beginning? If Jesus want to take away our sin, and now we are sinless because of Him, if He fulfilled the Law for us, does that not restore things back to where they were in the beginning?


No, adding IS a form of altering. But the additions are not my point. The subtractions, the taking books OUT of the bible is the point. The rest you put here doesn't really make sense to that first sentence, but the very last sentence isn't NECESSARILY true.


When I said adding, what I mean is finding out something new concerning what is already there. Yet to your point about subtractions, no, that doesn't alter God's word either. If all I had were the first five books of the Bible, if all I had was the story of Genesis, that alone shows us what God intends to do. (The Seed of the woman crushing the serpents head, ie. Jesus. We know the man carries the seed of producing children, yet right there it's written the seed of the woman, indicating the man wasn't involved in this guy's birth. At the very least it's a special birth that would crush the serpent's authority.)


No, it's not. We KNOW, through science, the NECESSARY order of events. We know at one point the earth was entirely molten. We know that over time, it cooled, water formed, crust formed, and eventually, Pangea formed (or, the earth BEFORE it became how it is as far as continental placement). Science is based on observation and experimentation. "Of today" isn't necessarily true. We can study the remains of things from billions of years ago and learn things about them when they were actually alive back then. We never observed Pangea, but we know Pangea was a real thing before tectonic shifts occurred. And actually, we DO have evidence of cosmic inflation...and we KNOW it's still happening. The Higgs Boson sort of helps with the Big Bang theory as well. That is why it's a big deal that it got discovered. We don't know what existed prior to the Big Bang, and that is OK. Not knowing is OK. Not searching or accepting an assertion that does not have evidence to support it is not OK.


Certainly the original theorized cosmic inflation is not happening today. If it continued to happen since near the beginning, we wouldn't be here. No, there is no evidence to the original cosmic inflation, but for Big Bang theory to happen, cosmic inflation is necessary. Today, we say a type of inflation is happening with the growth of dark energy. My point however stands, how do we know the universe came from a point of energy? All we see is the universe expanding. It's all mathematical projection. It's like if I made a steady paycheck, I could project I will make a certain amount of money 2 years from now. I can also project that I had a certain amount of money less, 2 years ago in the past. I can come up with that information based upon my steady paycheck.

My projections however doesn't take into account that management is considering letting me go two weeks from now. So now I'm without a job two weeks from now and have no money coming in, yet does that make my projection wrong concerning the amount of money I would have 2 years in the future? No it doesn't make the projection wrong, it just means that didn't happen. It didn't take into account the fact I'm getting layed off. It was based on what was happening in the present. So it's that same principal with the Big Bang. We don't know what happened in the past, we just project based on what we see today. Many scientists believe there will be a day, as the universe continue to speed up in it's expansion, any lifeform alive within a galaxy, will no longer see the structure of the universe. All they will have is their island galaxy. So their science will not include the Big Bang. This is a proven projection based on our science, and can't be argued. This is what I'm saying on the limitations of science.

Now, I don't expect you guys to understand what I'm talking about when I refer to studying Genesis. Firstly, you all see it as a fairytale bedtime story. So you don't even read or take in what the account actually says. Secondly, it's talking about things that will be no longer observable. Just like scientists "KNOW" there are things that are no longer observable. (Example the original cosmic inflation) We really don't even know how old the universe is, because our age determination is based on the furthest galaxies we see. There could be more galaxies still further out, yet even in Big Bang theory, it's speculated that galaxies formed after hundreds of millions of years after the initial expansion. That is a lot of grey area. However all this stuff about plate tectonics, evolution, Pangea, etc, I have you know all that is involved in the book of Genesis.

Your last two sentences make no sense. We don't know everything about the entirety of the existence of the universe....but we DO know about things that existed and happened BILLIONS of years ago here on earth...yet we don't know about what occurred roughly 6000 years ago? Come on, now. That is patently absurd.



Actually, no scientist will tell you they know what happened billions of years ago. Infomation about the distant past is always accompanied by phrases like "It is believed" or "Scientists believe such and such happened". All of it is based on our observation and projections of today.


OK, first, no it doesn't. The OT has a messiah written all over it. It never mentions or alludes to Jesus. Just a messiah. The reason all these authors SEEMED to have the same central theme is because the NT authors wrote it WITH the knowledge of the OT. It's easy to fill in the gaps when you have the primary source material. This is why Jews still exist. They do not believe Jesus was the messiah the OT speaks of. They do not think he was divine in any way. Just a man. As far as inspired...again...every biblical author will tell you the idea is that the Christian god inspired men to write what he wanted in his book. So, the men who wrote it were supposedly writing what god was telling them to write. Again, it wasn't maintained. It was edited many, many, many, many times and it was translated many times over as well. It wasn't maintained. The NT authors, again, wrote the NT WITH the knowledge of everything in the OT. It's easy to keep the story flow with that knowledge.


Well I mentioned before about the Seed of the woman. Also look up the Passover lamb. Look at the story of Moses striking the rock, and water coming out of it. God Himself said He would stand before the rock, and told Moses to strike the rock with the rod Moses used to pronounce God's judgements on Egypt. Connect the dots, God standing before the rock, judgement striking the rock, and water comes out for the people to drink. What is that a picture of? Look at Moses interceding for the people because of their sin, telling God to blot his name out of His book for the sake of the people. What is that a picture of? I could go on and on with this, and you can clearly see this in the Hebrew. Yet here is one obvious piece talking about Jesus in the OT. Read Isaiah ch. 59 verses 15-16.

Um....men went in and re-established Israel. We do NOT know for certain (and have no reason to believe) that any god had any role in that. God also said Tyre would never be rebuilt. That was prophecy...and uh......Tyre is rebuilt. It's not hard for authors back then to say "Israel will EVENTUALLY be rebuilt". If I proclaim that the Panthers, someday, will win a Super Bowl...am I a prophet when they DO win one?


Men went in and re-built a nation after almost 2,000 years? Show me another example of this happening. As far as a prophecy concerning Tyre, I haven't done any research in that area. I'll look in to it.


We do not know for certain that Jesus, as portrayed in the bible existed. We don't even know a man named Jesus who was a Jewish carpenter existed. There isn't a single thing written about any crucifixion that can be paralleled to the biblical account of Jesus. The ONLY place we hear about Jesus is in the bible. That isn't good evidence, sorry. Might a man have existed who preached a message that differed from the typical Jewish/pagan traditions? Sure, that isn't too hard to concede. However, there is NO account of this outside of the bible. There are NO writings of Jesus, yet there are writings from others in the same time period and earlier and later. The 4 gospels were written DECADES (4, actually) after Jesus supposedly died. That doesn't help with the validity of the accounts. I can write about my roommates in 40 years, and write whatever I want, but it doesn't make it true. Even if I have a LOT of people in a LOT of different places in the world believe it.

The word spread as you said. It got big, it became "law of the land", and it was installed by force everywhere. The mere fact that it spread quickly doesn't prove it true, though. Spiderman is popular the world over. Is it true? The fact that many believe something doesn't make it true. 99.99% of the world's population in that time believed the world to be flat and the sun to be only a few miles away. Can we really trust THEIR judgement? The answer is no, we cannot.


Well let me clear some things up about this. Most of the writings of the NT likely were written 20 years after the event of the crucifixion and alledged resurrection. We know this because Luke and the Book of Acts were written before the destruction of the Jewish Temple. We know that Mark was written before Luke, and Matthew was written around the same time as Luke. Most of Paul's letters were likely written before Luke wrote his stuff down. So we are talking 50-60 AD when most of the NT was written. So those who knew Jesus, were most likely still alive. Compare that to other historical text, where our earliest accounts are written by guys who lived over a hundred years from the people who they are talking about. Other accounts are accounts, based on accounts that were lost over time. So the NT being written within 20 years of the event is pretty solid.

And again, I know Constatine forced people to become Christians, I know about the Crusades and all that stuff. (By the way, it was around this time the teachings of Christ really became muddled by man's traditions.) Yet I'm talking before that. It was spreading pretty good before that. My theory is it shouldn't have made it pass Jerusalem. We are talking about a jewish message, that was being delivered by mostly uneducated men. Men who don't have great status. There was a greater/more known Jewish message about God during that time period, which was judaism. That message didn't spread beyond Jerusalem to the kind of degree Christianity did. There were plenty of cats who claimed to be somebody during that time period, and every single one of them fell by the wayside, but not this one. So I'll continue to do research on this, studying the difficulty of the spreading Christian message prior to Constatine.

My overall point is that all these things come together, and gives me reason why there might be truth to what the Bible says, versus all the other religions out there. Of course I also want to say that looking at the world, and all the scientific theories and hypothesis about multiple universes, leads me to believe something different from natural laws had to form this place. Because every natural law seems to have a beginning. (This universe had a beginning. Many physicists are starting to believe there are multiple universes, based on mathematical estimations. At some point there had to be something that had no beginning, and as things are looking right now, all the laws we see had one)

#188 Matthias

Matthias

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,235 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 12:38 PM

Uh....really? Really, man? This is what you're going with? Half-human babies? Fall angels who manifested as women? That. Is. Not. Reality. I'm not even going to entertain this, because this is just plain dumb. Everything up to now has been reasonable Christian response...but this is just absurd. Also, incest was apparently bad during this time...and Noah and his family are ALL that is left...and incest causes genetic mutation that causes harm to the offspring...and usually infertility is one of the big ones when it comes to children born of incest sex. So, they couldn't procreate further, which means all man dies. That's just another in a nice list of issues with the flood story.


This is what makes me sad. You talk about the flood, using that as an instance that God is being evil by killing everyone. Yet when I explain that situation as it is written in the Bible, oh I'm crazy/idiot/insane. You're the one who brought up that situation, now when I talk about it, I'm insane? Come on, you can't have your cake and eat it to. Don't bring up the situation to suit your needs, then dismiss the situation to say I'm crazy. I'm not going to let you get away with that one.

Yet again I don't expect you to understand the Genesis account as I'm taking it in. You still got the bedtime fairytale blinders on, not even beginning to consider what the account is saying. Not considering the implications at all. By the way, it is proven brother and sister can have children. Yes, their children may have problems or more likely to have problems, but there is a difference between then and now. Obviously, of course, there is a difference and that is why you don't understand where I'm coming from with this. I don't hold that against you by the way, I'm the one who have to come up with the evidence for these things or for situations within the Genesis account.



The point is, once Pharaoh's heart was hardened, he could not let them go. He was doomed. And Plenty of children died as a result. Are they evil, half-human babies too?


Yes, it was hardened after he made the choice not to let them go. Who's choice was it not to let them go? Then the Pharaoh decided to let them go, only to again decide not to. At that point God hardened his heart again. See the pattern. Pharaoh makes the choice, God hardens his heart.

ahh Matthias, here's the problem. the word actually has multiple meanings. means it's open to interpretation - quite a bit.

the original hebrew word is ra`, which has multiple meanings, ranging from evil, bad, dysfunctional, etc, and has multiple meanings in different places. so whose interpretation do we use to know which is right? see http://lexiconcordan...ebrew/7451.html

let's look at this line ->
Etz haDaat tov V'ra

do you know what tov V'ra here is? you yourself refer to it in your posts...


Yeah it seems you're right about that, having multiple meanings. So from what we can see concerning what God has done, the "evil" being talked about when it says God create it, is the judgments He pronounced over people. Think of Sodom and Gomorah, the flood judgment, and so on. God at one time was about to wipe out the people of Israel, and fulfill His promise to Abraham through Moses because of the sins of the people, yet He changed His mind (repented) of the "evil" He was going to do to them at Moses intercession. We can clearly see the "evil" He was going to do to them, were simply judging them for their transgression. That is a clear difference of God creating problems in the world. So you have to connect the dots.

so, i have a question about the tower of babel... was god actually afraid that man was going to literally build a tower to heaven?


also, can I build one?


God wasn't afraid of them building a tower. Only the people were disobeying God's command of spreading out on the earth. God gave them grace by confusing their languages, so they would spread out. By the way, they weren't trying to build a tower that reached Heaven, ie. where God dwells. They were just building a tower that figuratively touched the sky. In other words, a very large tower, something to be proud of. You know, "Look at what we did!".

#189 PhillyB

PhillyB

    hug it chug it football

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,757 posts
  • LocationGreensboro

Posted 23 January 2013 - 12:41 PM

^ you really believe that's how different languages originated?

#190 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,000 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 12:47 PM

i get so confused over which parts i'm supposed to take literally and which parts i'm not.

#191 Matthias

Matthias

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,235 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 12:57 PM

^ you really believe that's how different languages originated?


The first languages on earth yes. The proto languages.

#192 Matthias

Matthias

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,235 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 12:59 PM

i get so confused over which parts i'm supposed to take literally and which parts i'm not.


Simply allow the Bible to interpret the Bible. What needs to be true in order for Jesus to make sense? That is how it is supposed to be taken. It's easier than what theologians make it out to be. Yet all in all, you need God to help fully understand what the Bible is saying.

#193 PhillyB

PhillyB

    hug it chug it football

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,757 posts
  • LocationGreensboro

Posted 23 January 2013 - 01:02 PM

so if scientists could trace the dispersion of peoples to, say, the american continents before ~7000 ya and prove that they were linguistically adroit it would kind of blow your literalism wide open, no?

#194 PhillyB

PhillyB

    hug it chug it football

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,757 posts
  • LocationGreensboro

Posted 23 January 2013 - 01:03 PM

Simply allow the Bible to interpret the Bible.



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

what happens when two people "letting the bible interpret the bible" come up with two completely different interpretations?

#195 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,000 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 01:06 PM

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

what happens when two people "letting the bible interpret the bible" come up with two completely different interpretations?



war.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.