Posts by Viviane

67

Exactly what is the HISTORIC view of the DIVINE or of what being GOD meant long ago?

by TerryWalstrom in

the 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

Your reference does not say they were distinct, it says they were the same and that it was Abrahams God.

Ah, I see. The problem is that you are seeing what you want to see. No, it doesn't. It specifically says that Yahweh evolved from EL. Remember, Evolved from and change into with a different name and divorced from his wife by the time of the Israelites isn't at all "the same as". It's quite plain to see, from yours and other reputable references, that the Israelites worshipped Yahweh as we as other gods, Yahweh have evolved over centuries from a local minor God to have taken on the properties of EL, with writers eventually merging the two.

In the rest of the Semitic peoples religions, however, El and Yahweh remained distinct. That merging and evolution was a later event that only happened within the Hebrew culture (Abraham wasn't Hebrew, BTW).

Actually I did it for you, this quote is confirmed by literally everything. Spend as much time as you want with Google, by as many books as you want - if they are credible sites and sources they will agree:

OK, let's see what it says...Modern scholarship increasingly sees the phrase not as one genuinely used by Jesus but as a one put in his mouth by the early Church.

So, by your own source that you cite as reputable, to the point that any reputable source would agree, it's a phrase used by Jesus but a lie later added by the Church. I would absolutely agree, that does make it unique and different from other OT uses.

69

Science still doesn't have the answers on how life first appeared

by EndofMysteries in

since 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

Viviane: Very ample, much panties, such wow, why so anger? Everything = misrepresentation, plz no, your knowledge such science, very good, forum great benefit, such honestly, intellectual, super geniusly, rewarding talk, wow.

Goodbye dear. I've really no more time for your .... whatever issue it is you have that's causing you to chase me around and act like a fool.

69

Science still doesn't have the answers on how life first appeared

by EndofMysteries in

since 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

Viv: next time you want to point out something dishonest i wrote i suggest you do so with an actual quote then lol.
why are you so hostile?

Ample quote have been provided of your misrepresentation of my words. With regard to your question, put on your big girl panties if you want to have an honest, adult conversation. I'm not here to coddle you when you lie.

67

Exactly what is the HISTORIC view of the DIVINE or of what being GOD meant long ago?

by TerryWalstrom in

the 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

There are reasons the Greek ohrase was unique to Christ.

Such as?

Also your reference you quoted said the exact same thing I said. So I'm glad we agree now, but it was a very long journey getting here.

So you're now saying that Yahweh and El were distinct except for later Hebrew religions where El was transformed into Yahweh?

69

Science still doesn't have the answers on how life first appeared

by EndofMysteries in

since 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

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.

67

Exactly what is the HISTORIC view of the DIVINE or of what being GOD meant long ago?

by TerryWalstrom in

the 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 in

the 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 in

the 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 in

i'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 in

since 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!!!