Joseph, Thanks for your comments on my behalf....Alan is being a wise-a**.....and he loves to condescend on other posters who disagree with him. ...He reminds me of those little old men in the Ivory Tower of Crooklyn who need anyone's bended knee OR he will hit you with a bolt of lightening .... Whata funny Guy!
The Watchtower and Creation
by AlanF 91 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
PrimateDave
Hi Mad, or is it Insane now?
I don't get why you are being locked out, if that is what is really happening. You seem to have a sense of humor, I think. I like that.
As for your question, a Tanakh is a Jewish Bible consisting of what we call the Old Testament. Mine is published by the Jewish Publication Society (JPS) and is a Hebrew-English "pocket" version. That is, it has modern Hebrew on one side of the page and a modern English translation on the other side of the page. Check it out on Amazon.com.
Dave -
metatron
To the extent that Exodus mentions creation, it is a discourse on creation.
If the Genesis account is written to encourage Sabbath observance, by encouraging the thought
that each day was 24 hours or part thereof, while actually having these days being milennia,
then, once again, we can't trust anything the Bible says as being accurate. This is similar to
the 'Moonies' and their doctrine of Divine Deception: God lies for your own good.
Here we go again: the Bible can't stand on its own but rather needs a boatload of interpretation to
make it into something sensible. The words in Exodus are clear and 'Mad' has presented nothing
to overcome that.
metatron
-
Narkissos
Lol, starts looking like "the Mod Squad againstthe Dictionary of Synonyms".
-
hillary_step
Joseph,
What nonsense. Paul made it a point that women were all equal in the faith and staunchly apposed those that disagreed. He even had overseers appointed to oppose such men and sent others like Timothy out to identify and oppose them. I know that many do not understand what he was teaching and take his comments the wrong way. But I expect more from those doing a critical analysis of the texts.
Just a little curious here.
Do you accept the OT as part of the Bible? Do you believe the OT is 'God's Word'?
If you do, in what way is the point AlanF made innacurate?
Best regards - HS
-
PrimateDave
Well, Insane (Mad, whoever!)
I appreciate your curiosity on the matter of the translation. I will make one comment and leave it at that. While it is true that the English text of the Jewish Bible that I have does not use "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" for the Divine name, one can easily identify the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) in the Hebrew text in the adjacent column. Otherwise, as you can see in my previous post, the translators have rendered the Divine name as "Lord God." May your journey for increased knowledge prove fruitful.
Dave -
metatron
Your name calling is irrelevant, as is much of your post. The text in Exodus includes heaven and
earth being created within the six creative days, and that's that. The text also commands that an
Israelite should rest one day a week because that's what God does ( or did).
metatron
-
observador
What is interesting about the account in Genesis is that in some languages, such as Portuguese, there is only one word for "sky" and "heavens". So, when one reads the account in a language that have both words, the problem becomes even more apparent.
"No principio Deus criou os ceus e a terra"
Observador.
-
JosephMalik
If you do, in what way is the point AlanF made inaccurate?
HS,
I already explained why. Then the suggestion that there was a lack of progress in the Bible and using words like property were not helpful. Much progress was made back then and especially in NT texts. Today children (women included) are responsible to their parents until they reach a certain age. Such parents are expected to deal with them as they grow up. Are they then property of such parents? Do not parents today have something to say about who such children associate with? Are things so different now? Hardly as we simply use different words to say the same things. Break the Law and you will soon find out that you are the property of the state. There are obligations imposed on all of us like them or not. It is simply a matter of how such responsibilities are stated. While things may have gone too far and dominance may have been carried to extremes in some cases this was corrected in NT times and would not be tolerated in the Faith any longer. We face similar problems today. Humanity not scripture is the real problem. Simply do a search of the word property in the AV or NIV bible. Will you find agreement with Alan's comments? No! Paul put down those that tried doing this in the Faith. But what did AlanF say about such progress? "That women are men's property is perfectly in harmony both with God's explicit laws and with the way in which he created men and women, where women are in subjection to men, both by nature and by common assent." This is inaccurate HS, just as his inability to accept other texts using the word "day" for an event or epoch of known or unknown length.
Joseph
-
AlmostAtheist
This is inaccurate HS, just as his inability to accept other texts using the word "day" for an event or epoch of known or unknown length.
I don't think there's any disagreement that "day" CAN mean something different than a 24-hour day. It clearly can. The question is "How was it meant to be understood by the one that wrote it?"
There are many clues pointing to a literal 24-hour day being the intent. I haven't seen any arguments against that from this thread. The only argument that has been repeated over and over is, "But 'DAY' doesn't always mean '24 HR DAY'!" Yes, that's true. But sometimes it does. What reason do you have to say this isn't one of those times?
Saying "The physical facts of the universe show it to be non-literal" isn't much of an argument, in light of the many other things in the Bible that are in conflict with physical facts.
Saying, "Creation wasn't being discussed -- the sabbath was!" doesn't hold water, either. You don't apply that same sort of reasoning to the "circle of the earth" and 'hanging the earth upon nothing' verses that get pointed to as proof of the scientific accuracy of the Bible. Whether creation was the central theme of the discussion or not, the statement was made.
Would you accept that sort of reasoning anywhere else? If I said to you, "Oh, I've seen that movie! I was in Fresno with some friends and we saw it," would you be comfortable when I later told you I'd never been to Fresno? And when you called me on it, if I told you "Well, we were talking about the MOVIE, not places we've been," would that assuage you? You might buy that I got my facts wrong, but would you buy that God got HIS wrong? I'm really not able to understand how you can blow this off.
Dave