Argue with you? Sheesh, why would you think I would bother with that? I'm just pointing out how you either ignorantly or dishonestly attempted to misrepresent what I wrote.
If you don't like that, you're free to stop posting incorrect things.
Viviane
JoinedPosts by Viviane
-
69
Science still doesn't have the answers on how life first appeared
by EndofMysteries insince so many athiests in this thread, and since i'm going to college, i was curious if what i would learn in biology would change my thoughts and show that life clearly and easily spontaneously happened.
just looking up the origins of dna or rna there is nothing conclusive.
for example, scientists today are able to manipulate life.
-
-
Viviane
-
67
Exactly what is the HISTORIC view of the DIVINE or of what being GOD meant long ago?
by TerryWalstrom inthe purpose of this topic is twofold.. first, any who are endlessly fascinated by scholarship, practised by genuine bible scholars, are urged by me to do what i did, subscribe to bart ehrman's blog.
the subscription money (as little as $3.95) goes entirely to charity.. secondarily, by broadening our view of the new testament era on up through two millennia to the present day, our knowledge of all things 'christian' is deepened to include actual knowledge (as opposed to watchtower fabrication.
by this i don't mean to imply you'll fall to your knees and get saved, but rather, you'll simply have facts to inform your present transitional mindset toward whatever end you finally choose.. now .
-
-
Viviane
The religion of the hebrews sprang from encounters with God. In their efforts to conceptualize for themselves Who this God they encountered was, what He did, what He would do etc. they drew on local mythologies to express themselves.
That's a theological argument, NOT a historical argument.
The God they encountered is creator of earth, God of the earth and He chose the hebrews. Some of these actions in time resemble actions attributed to a local god named Yahweh...that NAME and what it means is a perfect expression of who their one God is. That's how Yahweh can pre-date the semetic religion from which he sprang.
No, what that means is that actions attributed to El were LATER attributed to Yahweh, not that Yahweh exists before he existed.
one reason I think that the commandment to worship no other God before Me means in my presence or in front of me (instead of your interpretation, worship Me as the highest God of many gods you can worship) is in the israelite sacrificial system itself.
Not worshiping other gods in Yahweh's presence also allows for worship of other gods. Either interpretation admits and allows for worship of other gods.
-
67
Exactly what is the HISTORIC view of the DIVINE or of what being GOD meant long ago?
by TerryWalstrom inthe purpose of this topic is twofold.. first, any who are endlessly fascinated by scholarship, practised by genuine bible scholars, are urged by me to do what i did, subscribe to bart ehrman's blog.
the subscription money (as little as $3.95) goes entirely to charity.. secondarily, by broadening our view of the new testament era on up through two millennia to the present day, our knowledge of all things 'christian' is deepened to include actual knowledge (as opposed to watchtower fabrication.
by this i don't mean to imply you'll fall to your knees and get saved, but rather, you'll simply have facts to inform your present transitional mindset toward whatever end you finally choose.. now .
-
-
Viviane
doesn't the fact that religious authorities made prohibitions against worshiping angels show that they saw a distinction between deity and divinity they sought to correct?
No.
-
67
Exactly what is the HISTORIC view of the DIVINE or of what being GOD meant long ago?
by TerryWalstrom inthe purpose of this topic is twofold.. first, any who are endlessly fascinated by scholarship, practised by genuine bible scholars, are urged by me to do what i did, subscribe to bart ehrman's blog.
the subscription money (as little as $3.95) goes entirely to charity.. secondarily, by broadening our view of the new testament era on up through two millennia to the present day, our knowledge of all things 'christian' is deepened to include actual knowledge (as opposed to watchtower fabrication.
by this i don't mean to imply you'll fall to your knees and get saved, but rather, you'll simply have facts to inform your present transitional mindset toward whatever end you finally choose.. now .
-
-
Viviane
Let's leave it at this, it's evident that you and I have an issue communicating.
I grasp what you are saying, it's just wrong. The phrase "son of man" appeared prior to the NT and was not unique to Jesus. In the OT it was written in Hebrew because that's the language they wrote in. In the NT, Greek for the same reason. We are writing in English because, well, self evident reasons. The phrase itself, though, regardless of language, absolutely pre-dates both Jesus and the NT.
Therefore it is best we go our separate ways. You seem convinced you are right rather than interested in a discussion, and I'm not going to talk up to you.
Me being right isn't the issue. It's that you say something demonstrably false and later change your argument while insisting it stayed the same all along.
References won't matter really
Reference matter a great deal. You said you had proof and would show it and now won't.
I would assume you have your own and believe them to be fact
You shouldn't ignorantly assume what you can't possibly know.
rather than theory since there is no way to be sure absolutely 100% what was going on that far back.
No one ever said it was. Straw man red herring.
According to the bible, aside from the cultures, the God previousky known as El Shaddai was not known by name until he revealed it, giving him a distinction that didn't preciously exist because el is not a name it's a title.
El is both a name and a title, depending upon context (see pages 53 and 54 of the Oxford History of the Biblical World).
So from what I've read of the God El, it fits fully with the ancient manuscripts depictions of the God who was yahweh.
El was well known throughout the Semitic lands (with Yahweh being known but not as much.). They were distinct and separate in every other source than Hebrew writings. El was ONLY associated with Yahweh in the Hebrew outgrowth of Semitic religions. From the Oxford Companion to World Mythology: It seems almost certain that the God of the Jews evolved gradually from the Canaanite El, who was in all likelihood the 'God of Abraham'... If El was the high God of Abraham—Elohim, the prototype of Yahveh—Asherah was his wife, and there are archaeological indications that she was perceived as such before she was in effect 'divorced' in the context of emerging Judaism of the 7th century BCE.
-
30
How is Genesis scientifically incorrect?
by EndofMysteries ini'll add many things in the bible i don't agree with, but the bible is a collection of books.
now to make sure i'm reading as closely to what is written in genesis, i look at this hebrew interlinear, because english translating and rearranging of words can change it.
http://www.scripture4all.org/onlineinterlinear/otpdf/gen1.pdf.
-
-
Viviane
Let the LAND produce seed bearing plants. It's done through seeds, but that is confirmed in Genesis 2:5 which you didn't read I guess
It says to produce plants that produce not, not to produce seeds that grown into plants. That something later says something different only shows a contradiction in the Bible.
-
69
Science still doesn't have the answers on how life first appeared
by EndofMysteries insince so many athiests in this thread, and since i'm going to college, i was curious if what i would learn in biology would change my thoughts and show that life clearly and easily spontaneously happened.
just looking up the origins of dna or rna there is nothing conclusive.
for example, scientists today are able to manipulate life.
-
-
Viviane
Lol, how woefully lacking of me! You ought to consider humpty dumpty as your avatar.
Yes, it is woefully lacking of you. Or dishonest. Let's break it down like a fraction for you.
EOM: To be scientific, one my look at ALL possibilities.
V: Not how science works.
Bohm: One MAY look at all possibilities, therefore Viv is wrong.
Viv: Not what I said.
Bohm: So you're saying some other ridiculous thing you didn't say Viv?
V: No.
Bohm: Insults! Wharrggrrble derp pudding!!!
-
53
What exactly was going on after Jesus was put to death and no longer around?
by Terry inthe jesus believers were meeting in people's homes.
members of that community would take turns using private homes to gather.
thus, they went house to house.. these footstep tracers of jesus (they called themselves akolouthontes "followers" or some called themselves mathetai or "learners.
-
-
Viviane
What was going on was that dozens of Christologies developed, many tales were traded orally, some written down, some claiming Jesus was a man, was never a man, a god, an angel, a god become man, the Son of Man, the Son of God, and and two different spirits, that he was raised, never raised, never died, etc.
It was a madhouse of ideas and stories.
-
30
How is Genesis scientifically incorrect?
by EndofMysteries ini'll add many things in the bible i don't agree with, but the bible is a collection of books.
now to make sure i'm reading as closely to what is written in genesis, i look at this hebrew interlinear, because english translating and rearranging of words can change it.
http://www.scripture4all.org/onlineinterlinear/otpdf/gen1.pdf.
-
-
Viviane
Genesis 1:1 states how the earth was vacany and chaos and is generally translated to being without form and void. The wording of it to me describes the birth of a planet, a cloud of dust.
That's you interpreting it that way. That's not what it says. A cloud of dust that would eventually form the earth and other planets is not the earth. Besides which, Genesis also says God's spirit was hovering over the water ON the earth, which didn't exist or have water.
Now the next part many claim proves it's all crap because it says light and darkness came and he made day and night BEFORE the sun and moon. That is because you aren't reading what it says. It doesn't claim the light is from the sun and that day and night are the result of the sun
Not knowing that the Sun is what lights the earth proves Genesis is scientifically accurate? I don't think so.
What light is can be debated, if it's light from the other stars then speed of light can mean by this point the light has reached earth.
What light is isn't debated. What you are doing is attempting to inject something into Genesis that it never says rather than just read what it says.
Next is says the seeds for plants are created, not full grown plants out of nowhere but seeds.
Wrong again: Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.”
So, plants, trees, etc., are possible but not water life without the Sun? All from starlight? I don't think so.Back to Genesis, after the seeds are made, then the sun comes. (no animals or water life yet because it would have been impossible.
It's also interesting that recent studies have shown that some water on the Earth is OLDER than the sun.
It's interesting how? Is it your expectation that the newly born sun would have burned long enough to fuse oxygen? Even if it had, how does that relate to Genesis?
Now if you ignore that a creator is responsible for everything in Genesis, with the description and order of things, what is wrong about it?
Everything.
-
67
Exactly what is the HISTORIC view of the DIVINE or of what being GOD meant long ago?
by TerryWalstrom inthe purpose of this topic is twofold.. first, any who are endlessly fascinated by scholarship, practised by genuine bible scholars, are urged by me to do what i did, subscribe to bart ehrman's blog.
the subscription money (as little as $3.95) goes entirely to charity.. secondarily, by broadening our view of the new testament era on up through two millennia to the present day, our knowledge of all things 'christian' is deepened to include actual knowledge (as opposed to watchtower fabrication.
by this i don't mean to imply you'll fall to your knees and get saved, but rather, you'll simply have facts to inform your present transitional mindset toward whatever end you finally choose.. now .
-
-
Viviane
My argument was not that yahweh predates the semetical region.
I know. I said religion, not region. You said you have evidence. Do you?
You re like an expert on the "straw man", you've done it fantastically. Were you in a pioneer school at some point? Because that would explain it.
Ah, look at you, trying to change the subject and insult me at the same time. Dear, that's not gonna work. You can't insult me and I'll stay on topic (if you don't run away, you've already posted after you said you were done).
-
67
Exactly what is the HISTORIC view of the DIVINE or of what being GOD meant long ago?
by TerryWalstrom inthe purpose of this topic is twofold.. first, any who are endlessly fascinated by scholarship, practised by genuine bible scholars, are urged by me to do what i did, subscribe to bart ehrman's blog.
the subscription money (as little as $3.95) goes entirely to charity.. secondarily, by broadening our view of the new testament era on up through two millennia to the present day, our knowledge of all things 'christian' is deepened to include actual knowledge (as opposed to watchtower fabrication.
by this i don't mean to imply you'll fall to your knees and get saved, but rather, you'll simply have facts to inform your present transitional mindset toward whatever end you finally choose.. now .
-
-
Viviane
well as of your last post I'm not going to continue responding. You've demonstrsted your ignorance with astounding loyalty to it, and I think you're really only interested in arguing, which I am not
Well, bye. I find it interesting that, right after you claim to have evidence of your position, you run away when asked for it.
Unlike you, I have read the bible many times, which is why I was able to show you where you are incorrect and reference scriotures that are showing a far earlier monotheistic stance.
Except that you've not done that even once. Also, you've no idea how many times I've read the Bible. Don't make ignorant claims.
I also know, for sure, that the Greek phrase, "ho huios tou anthropou" is only found in the gospels. Okay?
Yes, it would be truly amazing if a Greek phrase were found in something written in not-Greek. That was never the point. You claimed the phrase "son of man" was unique to Jesus and only appeared in the NT. That is demonstrably untrue. Changing your argument after the fact is a weasel move.
The bible wasn't written in English and your insistence otherwise is showing your ignorance
I never said it was. Only an idiot would claim that or attempt to claim I said it.
That Greek phrase, and it's expressed meaning in Greek, IS ONLY FOUND IN THE GOSPELS.
Yes, I would expect the Greek form of a phrase to be written in Greek. In the Hebrew form, it would be written in Hebrew, exactly as it was in the OT, predating Jesus and not unique to the NT.
now I'm done posting on the topic. If you still ensist otherwise please feel free to contact any New Testament scholar of your choosing to inform them they are wrong and you are right.
Why would I contact a New Testament scholar to "ensist" (sic) that you are not done posting on this topic and they are wrong about that? How would I even know what their opinion on you posting on this topic is?