The Real Mening of the Bible

Author: RaymondSheen
Jesus
God
Bible
Satan
Jehovah

Posts

Total: 176
Topic's author
#91
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
The old testament is essentially BS.
Correct. The term old testament is a Latin mistranslation (testamentum; Vulgate, i.e. KJV) of the Greek diathekes (covenant) at 2  corinthians 3:14. There is no Old or New testament, there is only the holy scripture. 

In so much as it is a mythical hypothesis based upon a common fantasy GOD theme.

Unpacking . . . 

Mythical = a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events. Hypothesis = a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. Fantasy = the faculty or activity of imagining things, especially things that are impossible or improbable. God = 1. In Christianity and other monotheistic religions, the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. 2. In certain other religions, a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity; an image, idol, animal, or other object worshiped as divine or symbolizing a god; used as a conventional personification of fate. 3. An adored, admired, or influential person; a thing accorded the supreme importance appropriate to a god. 4. Informal: the gallery in a theater.




#92
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,280
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
-->
@RaymondSheen
( I'd finish off your above post with.   
Or a cob of corn. 


A God might ummmm inspire another holy book one day hey Ray?
Ya cant just answer that question with .  NO .

Buttttttt, Imagine Russell rocking up somewhere with few a4 bits of paper with god messages on it. 
Thats a inst trip to the NUT WARD for old Russell right here . 
Russ needs to be evaluated. 

The meaning of the bible.  
Its more like , the meaning of that one scripture plus amd maybe into that one scripture,   oh and also that one. 

Hey Ray. 
I wanted to invent ( the top response version  ) of the bible. 
Thats where we ask 10,000 people,  ( high ranked and of bib sch 
We ask them 
HEY. 
We go hey,
What does this scripture verse here mean. ?
And this one ? . 
And in achieving this survey. 
We can white out the scripture and replace it with , ummmmm , like the most replied common response / meaning. 
Thus creating  a ( Tell it like it is version. )    we could sell that little beauty for like $30 bux.  ( with all proceeds going to jesus ) of course.  

Ruble Ruble Ruble. 
I cant Imagine a kid these days "turning " to a bible for ummmm,  answers. 
Google tumps bible. 

Its almost like the bible was created without the important things that happen in the year 3283. 

Its out of date is what im saying.



Topic's author
#93
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
( I'd finish off your above post with.   
Or a cob of corn. 
Well, that's interesting. I'm not familiar with the term. A local colloquialism based upon personal experience?

A God might ummmm inspire another holy book one day hey Ray?
Ya cant just answer that question with .  NO .
I could answer that question with no, but I wouldn't. A God will likely inspire another holy book, but that isn't terribly relevant since they've been doing it for thousands of years. The problem with ignorance in theism and atheism is that they both confine the intellect and reasoning within narrow parameters. Think, Deb.

Think outside the box.


Buttttttt, Imagine Russell rocking up somewhere with few a4 bits of paper with god messages on it. 
Thats a inst trip to the NUT WARD for old Russell right here . 
Russ needs to be evaluated. 
Uh . . . what Brand of metaphore is this? Is there context I should revert back to? Rocket. Rusty. Ward. Bill. Russell Edward. 

The meaning of the bible.  
Its more like , the meaning of that one scripture plus amd maybe into that one scripture,   oh and also that one. 
Slartibartfast, I think, said it best. Your mode of speach isn't easy to follow, earthling man. It varies from place to place. 

Hey Ray. 
Hello? Yes, Deb? 

I wanted to invent ( the top response version  ) of the bible. 
Thats where we ask 10,000 people,  ( high ranked and of bib sch 
We ask them 
HEY. 
Yes? I'm with you so far. Somehow. 

We go hey,
What does this scripture verse here mean. ?
And this one ? . 
Got it . . . 

And in achieving this survey. 
We can white out the scripture and replace it with , ummmmm , like the most replied common response / meaning. 
Well, fuck, dude, let's give it a shot! That's easy enough. I think I brought this up earlier, but we could kick it around some more. 

At Genesis 1:3 just about all translations read "and or then God said let there be light." I translate it to "And then God commanded that light should come to be and it began to appear."  Why is that? Right there on the page I linked to it has the Hebrew. 

said,
וַיֹּ֥אמֶר (way·yō·mer)
Conjunctive waw | Verb - Qal - Consecutive imperfect - third person masculine singular
Strong's 559: To utter, say Here.

Thoughts? 


Thus creating  a ( Tell it like it is version. )    we could sell that little beauty for like $30 bux.  ( with all proceeds going to jesus ) of course.  
Jesus is dead. He doesn't need the $30 bux. And we don't need the $30 bux to do what you're suggesting and perhaps you don't see the irony in such an inqury into personal interpretation and conversely translation etc. Why?

Why oh why Deb?! In ignorance do they always protest even the semblance of confidence in accurate knowledge or the striving therin. 

Which I'm. 

We! Bull! We are not like they! We are men of science and integrity. Verbosity and abiguity as well, but never the less two birds baked in a pie in a bush or words to some effect, I can tell you. See if I don't!

Now. 

 Ruble Ruble Ruble. 
Hear! Here!

I cant Imagine a kid these days "turning " to a bible for ummmm,  answers.
Inundate it with even more magic and violence, some tits, fart jokes in a video game format and they'll barf it up like candy, but who wouldn't. Most of the shit they play is already that anyway so it wouldn't be too much of a departure. I don't see the point, though. Who cares, I think, is the operable question.

Google tumps bible. 
Google is an illegitimate child from the incestuous union of its father Darpa Oligarchy and mother "Big" Tech Corporatocracy. Along with its siblings, Facebook, Amazon, Apple and Netflix, they are known as Faang. Google is not particularly consentaneous with either the concept of Semmelweis Reflex. And that's cool. Perfectly acceptable given that Oligarchy and Corporatocracy are granted power, in a spiritual sense, through God (Colossians 1:15-16; 2:8-10; 1 Corinthians 15:24; Ephesians 3:10; 6:12) and in a more practical sense, the Masses. [1]

By the early 2020's Google and its siblings had become a great deal more commercialized and socio-politically influential, which resulted in, among other things, the "Cancel Culture." An unprecedented increase in practices such as blacklisting and shadow banning, for example, were naturally experienced. None of this is anything new. It has been happening since the founding of the world and, in earnest since the late 1880s and is really a common human behavior, whether practiced by the elementary schoolyard bully or governments and corporations.

Google, in my opinion, has every right to decide what they do and do not wish to make available to the public. I am no part of the world, apolitical; the political and social difficulties which may or may not result in subjects of interest to Semmelweis Reflex being rejected are of little concern to me. They are only observed as inevitable in the self-destruction of the world.


[1] In a basic sense what this means is that Jehovah God temporarily allows governments, or as most translations call them, kingdoms, dominions, thrones, rulers, powers, authorities and principalities, to exist. Satan is the God of the world as is evident by his tempting of Christ with all of the kingdoms of all time. (Matthew 4:8-10; John 6:15; 17:16; 18:36; James 1:27; 4:4; John 14:30; 1 John 5:19)

Christ's early followers thought of themselves as no part of the world. They had no choice but to live in the world but were not active participants in political and social struggles of their time. Following the example of Jesus, they respected the position of authority Satan and political forces had been granted. (Jude 1:9; John 19:11; Matthew 22:21; Romans 13:1-7; Titus 3:1; 2 Corinthians 13:1-7; 2 Corinthians 4:4) They obeyed the laws of the countries in which they lived unless those laws conflicted with the will of God. Jesus and his disciples referred to the world as having been founded upon the blood of Abel. (Luke 11:50, 51; Matthew 13:35; 25:34; Revelation 13:8; 17:8; Hebrews 9:26)

The term founding of the world comes from the Greek word katabole. Katabole, somewhat ironically, has the exact meaning of the modern-day English word fuck, which is a throwing down of seed. Katabole is used 11 times in the Christian Greek scripture; 10 times it has to do with kosmos. The English words cosmos and cosmetics comes from this word, and basically means adornment. The other occurrence of katabole is at Hebrews 11:11 in reference to Sarah conceiving. The founding of the world doesn't mean the creation of Earth, it means the founding of the world upon the conception of Cain, the first offspring of Adam and Eve. The world will be destroyed but the Earth will last forever. (Psalm 37:29; Revelation 11:15)

The offspring of the first human couple, after their sin, was the beginning of the world, which is in opposition to God and will be destroyed. All of the kingdoms of men will be replaced by Jehovah God's kingdom with Jesus Christ as prince of everlasting peace, security and life. Without sin or death.

The founding of the world, the conception of Cain, was the beginning of "the end times."

Its almost like the bible was created without the important things that happen in the year 3283. 

Its out of date is what im saying.
If that were true we wouldn't be still talking about it, now, would we. 


#94
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,280
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
-->
@RaymondSheen
Very nice post Ray Ray , Again. 
Sorry about my bad literacy,  im semi illiterate,  i spell at about  grade 5 level .
I don't know much big words. 
I'll try better when communicating with you. 

Im dumb is what im trying to say. Uneducated.  

But ummm. 
The 1000 or 10,000 people we ask about what this and that scripture means.  They have to be wise in the area of the bible. 
In the ranks of "Christianity" . ( like pastors/  priests / bishops  / cardinals , so on and so on to the Pope.  

Does like a cardinal know the meaning of a scripture more then a pastor or a priest. 
Im not sure about that. 

But we need "Biblical""scholars"  of sorts. 
"Scholars" of in the scripture department.

So we ask 1000 . What does this script mean .

For example , im thinking wed have numbers like . 
179 of them said , ( this ) 
Then the second most popular response . 
68 said ( that ) 

Wed have stuff like this hey. 

We could call this "version" of the bible  . 
The most common meaning response version .
Orrrrrr
The christians as a hole need to get together and put their meanings of scriptures. 
If only , 1.8 billion  Christians put their ( meanings of every scripture )  in .
Orrrrr. 
A (pope version of the bible)  so , Take away said scripture,  and replace it with the popes mean9ng of said scripture.

People have been doing this for a thousand years. 
Butttttt. You don't get ya head choped off these days for
( taking away a scripture and replacing it with a " most common response " or , your own  meaning. )   
Or mak8ng a diff ( version.  ) 

However  ( To Be taken seriously ) these days, on this subject  is ummmm hard. 
Near Impossible. 

Becauseeeeeeeeee. 
Everyone thinks
I AM FUCKING AWSOME AT SCRIPTURE TRANSLATOR. 
AND
KNOW ONE TRANS SCIPRTS LIKE I.
AND 
I HAVE A CERTAIN QUERKY WAY OF TRANSLATING SCRIPTURES TO PERFECTION. 

No ( theists )  is just
"avrage"
Avrage at translating scriptures.   

 


 




 
Topic's author
#95
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Im dumb is what im trying to say. Uneducated.  
Nonsense. Don't you know I can see through your words? Education only means indoctrination. The primitives of which we speak were bombarded with nonsense and in that regard we modern personas do not differ. Anyway, I suck at grammar, spelling and typing as well. I make my responses here which checks that stuff and suggests althernatives. 

Not that it's that important aside from dog and pony show. See? 

Does like a cardinal know the meaning of a scripture more then a pastor or a priest. 
Im not sure about that.
They all adhere to tradition. Lincoln - I think it was him - said it's easy to get people to believe something but almost impossible to get them to change their mind once they believe something. Atheists tend to object to interpretation as if it meant something they won't allow, the same as the theists will do the same due to dogmatic adherence to tradition. We think what we think, whether based upon bias, ignorance or tradition. Might as well make it curiosity. The same applies to everything. Science, history, sports, fashion etc.

Wed have stuff like this hey. 
We do and there's nothing wrong with that. We either say not interested or we try and scratch the surface to see what, if anything, lies beneath. 

However  ( To Be taken seriously ) these days, on this subject  is ummmm hard. 
Near Impossible. 
Seemingly, but not really. Ideology replaced religion and increases as time goes on. Just don't question the authoritative without as many possible alternatives as you can find. Like language. When you say something to five different people, they can interpret it five different ways but there are multiple ways to interpret it either wrong or right. The question becomes, "Is it more likely to be right or wrong the more I know about you personally?"

For example, the case of Genesis 1:3. The Hebrew can be interpreted as "God said" or "God commanded." Either one is right, but I personally like commanded because 1 God doesn't have physical vocal cords and wasn't actually talking to anyone, and the state of imperfection in the Hebrew, indicating a gradual process is more correct than the archaic tradition which implies a "magic sky man" waving a wand to make things happen.

No ( theists )  is just
"avrage"
Avrage at translating scriptures.   
That protestation is about something else. If I poke at it, I come up with the most likely motivation I mentioned in my earlier response. Atheists don't like theist dogma, which isn't the real problem, the real problem is they aren't interested in supplying any alternative and so are only mimicking the authoritative dogma of the theism they despise.


#96
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,500
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@RaymondSheen

The real meaning of the Bible is very simple. It's about the vindication of Jehovah God's name through the ransom sacrifice of Christ Jesus. 

The Bible: Desktop / Mobile Device.

Is it? Why don't you prove it? 


#97
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,899
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Mall
What is BS
BS is an acronym for Bull Shit.

And like I stated, I used it as a reference to Stephens comment.



Mythical hypothesis.
If you know what a myth is and you know what a hypothesis is, then you will understand the comment.

In brief though.

Throughout human development, GODS have been a naive answer for everything.

Essentially B.S. 

Though logical in their naivety.
#98
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,899
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@RaymondSheen
Thank you Raymond.
Topic's author
#99
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
You, Victor. You are most welcome. 
Topic's author
#100
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@Tradesecret
Why don't you prove it? 
I have repeatedly. 

#101
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 414
Posts: 2,246
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@zedvictor4
Which is why I asked for proof.

Is b.s. not a vulgar way of saying fictitious?

You gotta have proof for fiction unless you just believe it to be fiction.
#102
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,500
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@RaymondSheen
Why don't you prove it? 
I have repeatedly. 

uh okay. I still haven't seen any proof of what you say has been proven. 

But hey, if that works for you, okay.  

I suppose proof means different things to different people. 
#103
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,899
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Mall
Stephen used the word bullshit.

I agreed, because definitively the basis of the Old Testament mythology is a naive creation hypothesis.

You cannot prove that the supreme creative entity proposed in the OT, is not nonsense.

Therefore I do not have to prove that it is.


Typically, aspects of myth will be based around real people and real places, and there is no reason why this should not be true of OT scripts, even though the verification of such details is impossible.

Typically also, myth tends to include other fantasy elements which do not stand up to modern day scrutiny.

If you are prepared to accept that biblical myth is wholly factual, then you should also be prepared to apply the same level confidence to all other global creation myths.


Which is not to say that the general GOD hypothesis/principle is not reasonable.
#104
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 414
Posts: 2,246
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@zedvictor4
So you do not have proof that the old testament scriptures or any for that matter are false.

Basically when you get down to it.
Topic's author
#105
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
Stephen used the word bullshit.

I agreed, because definitively the basis of the Old Testament mythology is a naive creation hypothesis.
I agreed based entirely on a different perspective, being pedantic, upon the linguistic Latin mistranslation of the Greek word for covenant into testament. There is no new and old covenant and testament is a misnomer, redundant and inaccurate but, of course, no one cares about any of that because everyone knows what the inaccurate implies. Common nomenclatures.

It is, as it always is, about ideology. Your statement that the "Old Testament" mythology is a naive creation hypothesis, which you can't substantiate beyond uninformed opinion based upon the modern naive evolution hypothesis which actually doesn't even consider creation but is post-creation.

Thank you, ideology, for giving us the illusion of intelligence by sacrificing fact, reason, truth, data, etc. All the stuff of "independent thinkers." Independent of thought.


You cannot prove that the supreme creative entity proposed in the OT, is not nonsense.

Therefore I do not have to prove that it is.
Because first you would have to prove what it is. All you have is what traditional theology has thought it was, which is, absolute bullshit. Again, no one cares about that argument because the ideologies have already been established. 

Which is not to say that the general GOD hypothesis/principle is not reasonable.
The term GOD principle is not reasonable because it postulates, however vague, the Biblical Yahweh as the original model. God means worshipped, not creator, and there were GOD paradigms prior to the beginning of the writing of the Bible in 1513 BCE by Moses. God was just a god, meaning worshipped.   

Topic's author
#106
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@Tradesecret
To prove, by definition, is to demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument; to demonstrate to be the specified thing by evidence or argument. I proved, or demonstrated, the Bible to be about what I thought it to be about. That is all that means. 
#107
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,500
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@RaymondSheen
To prove, by definition, is to demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument; to demonstrate to be the specified thing by evidence or argument. I proved, or demonstrated, the Bible to be about what I thought it to be about. That is all that means. 
Well then, please point the particular posts where you have "proved" such points. I have looked above and they seem to have been deleted. Or else just not there. 
#108
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,899
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@RaymondSheen
The GOD principle could be a BIG BOOM.

Or ..............


The reason I use upper case is to differentiate between X and Gods

As it is, the sound and accompanying noise, or the symbolic narrative, are widely recognised as representing the idea of some form of creative energy.

Postulation is therefore unavoidable.


Just as X represents an unknown quantity.
#109
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,899
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Mall
If you read my previous posts, you will  note that I regard OT scriptures as mythical.

Based around a naive creation hypothesis.

The naive creation hypothesis cannot be validated, therefore there is nothing to disprove.


Archaic fantastic GOD stories are what they are.

Associated people and places maybe reasonably accurate. (But there is no way of being certain).

Such is mythology.


Topic's author
#110
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@Tradesecret
Well then, please point the particular posts where you have "proved" such points. I have looked above and they seem to have been deleted. Or else just not there. 

Post 13
Topic's author
#111
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
The GOD principle could be a BIG BOOM.
How so? 

The reason I use upper case is to differentiate between X and Gods

As it is, the sound and accompanying noise, or the symbolic narrative, are widely recognised as representing the idea of some form of creative energy.

Postulation is therefore unavoidable.


Just as X represents an unknown quantity.

X and Gods seems a sufficient enough distinction without GOD principle as an Ockham's Razor.

To create is to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes, so what I can't figure out is how a BIG BOOM could be something that would naturally evolve and how that could be construed as a principle having anything to do with any gods, God, GOD or principle at all. To me it seems you're taking something we think happened naturally and tacking on the end of it some ancient mythology, bullshit in your words.

Have I not asked you to define GOD?

#112
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,899
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@RaymondSheen
Bullshit in Stephens words.


As I tried to make clear,

And in short,

Gods are deities,

GOD is the fundamental source of everything.

So BIG BOOM, or magical thing that exists outside of everything...Or otherwise.

Though a magical thing that exists outside of everything is a tad contradictory in my book.

Of course, something from nothing is also somewhat magical.

As is eternal something. 


GOD...Simply because it's a label applied to a general concept.

I could have referred to it as Dave I suppose.
#113
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 414
Posts: 2,246
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@zedvictor4
Bottomline of the semantics, when you get down to it, the old testament hasn't been proven false.

Now that statement there is either true or false.
#114
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,487
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
  • Isaiah 13 predicts the destruction of Babylon by the Medes, when it was ultimately levelled by the Assyrians. It was also rebuilt afterwards (contrary to “She will never be inhabited”)
  • Isaiah 17 predicts Damascus would be levelled, which has never happened.
  • Isaiah 19 predicts Egypt speaking the language of Canaan, which has never happened.
  • Isaiah 52 says no uncircumcised person will ever enter Jerusalem, which has since been occupied by Romans and Muslims.
  • Ezekiel 29 predicts a desolate and uninhabited Egypt, which has never happened
#115
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,500
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@RaymondSheen
Well then, please point the particular posts where you have "proved" such points. I have looked above and they seem to have been deleted. Or else just not there. 

Post 13
Hmm. 

Post 13 provides lots of assertions. Not a lot of proof.  E.g. That Michael was created. That Michael is the Christ. That the angels - spirit beings lived for a long time before humans.  You essentially gave your theological position; Jehovah's Witness.  Proof is not just stating what you believe. It is also providing a reason for that assertion or belief.  It may well be that you think that asserting that this is what the Bible teaches is proof. Certainly, it was entertaining. 

I liked some of your ideas around the Garden of Eden. Yet in many parts, your ideas were not so dissimilar to what the church teach's today. 

I'd probably use the term YHWH as the name for God, not Jehovah.  Not that we can actually speak his name anyway. 

I also thought the notion of God allowing Satan to test his theories was ingenious.  I suppose it goes with the idea of the Divine Council - with people like Michael S Heiser. It's all rather interesting. Some also put the story of Job into that category.  I haven't ruled it out - but nor have I been convinced of it - not from Heiser and certainly not from your brief assertion in post no 13. 

Thanks for the attempt though. Cheers.

#116
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,899
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Mall
As I stated, the OT is a mythical account from a period in time when humanesque GODS were cutting edge pseudo-science.

Bottom line is, nothing in the OT can be proven to be accurate, especially the associated GOD hypothesis. 

Therefore there is nothing to disprove.

And of course, if it was unequivocally proven that every aspect of the OT is accurate, then why would I bother to refute such claims anyway.

Nope, the burden of proof is not mine to bear.
Topic's author
#117
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@Tradesecret
Post 13 provides lots of assertions. Not a lot of proof.  E.g. That Michael was created. That Michael is the Christ. That the angels - spirit beings lived for a long time before humans.  You essentially gave your theological position; Jehovah's Witness. 
For some reason, which I could never quite understand, it seems extremely difficult for some people, especially skeptics, to understand that Jesus and Michael are the same. Lets look at the facts regarding Jesus and Michael.

1. Jesus existed in heaven before he came to earth. Proverbs 8:22 / John 1:1,3, 14; 3:13; 8:23, 58; 17:5 / Colossians 1:15-17 / 1 John 2:13 / Revelation 3:14 all speak of Jesus' existence before the world began, in fact before anything was created Jesus was created. Before Heaven, the heavens, the Earth, and of course, man. He is the firstborn of creation, the beginning of creation, he came from somewhere other than this world, he descended from heaven. There can be no doubt that he had a pre-human existence in heaven before he came to Earth as the man Jesus Christ.

2. Jesus' position in heaven before he came to the earth must have been an important one, considering he was the first of Jehovah's creation and all things were created through him and for him. (Proverbs 8:22 / John 1:3) That means not only the heavens and earth as we know them but the angels and heaven as well. Jesus is referred to as the "word of God," this means he is the spokesperson. (John 1:1) As the spokesperson for Jehovah God we can assume that when an angel performed some important task on earth, like guiding and protecting the early Israelites from Egypt or taking the physical form of men in performing an important task, it was likely Michael as he existed before he came to earth as Jesus.

3. The term archangel means chief of the angels. Arch means chief or principal. The term is only applied to one angel in the Bible. Michael. It is always used in the singular. There is only one archangel. The term archangel itself only appears twice throughout Scripture. At 1 Thessalonians 4:16 Paul writes of Jesus as having the voice of the archangel, and Jude 9 indicates Michael disputed with Satan over the body of Moses. So there is a connection with Jesus as well as an indication that Michael was connected in some way with the people of the exodus of Egypt.

4. Other than Jehovah God himself only two people in the Bible are said to be in charge of or over the angels. They are Michael and Jesus Christ. The name Michael appears only five times throughout Scripture. At Daniel 10:13, 21; 12:1 / Jude 9 and Revelation 12:7.

5. Are there any others who believe Michael and Jesus are the same? Yes, there are many. Joseph Benson, E. W. Hengstenberg, J. P. Lange, Butterworth, Cruden, Taylor, Guyse all wrote that Michael and Jesus were the same.

Clarke's Commentary (Adam Clarke) - "Let it be observed that the word archangel is never found in the plural number in the sacred writings. There can be properly only one archangel, one chief or head of all the angelic host .... Michael is this archangel, and head of all the angelic orders .... hence by this personage, in the Apocalypse, many understand the Lord Jesus."

W. E. Vine - the "voice of the archangel" (1 Thessalonians 4:16) is apparently "the voice of the Lord Jesus Christ" - An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 64.

The 1599 Geneva Study Bible: Christ is the Prince of angels and head of the Church, who bears that iron rod."

The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia: - "The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with the preincarnate Christ, finding support for their view, not only in the juxtaposition of the "child" and the archangel in Rev. 12, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Daniel" – vol. 3, p. 2048, Eerdmans Publishing, 1984 printing.

John Calvin: "I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of Christ, because it suits the subject best to represent him as standing forward for the defense of his elect people." - J. Calvin, Commentaries On The Book Of The Prophet Daniel, trans. T. Myers (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), vol. 2 p. 369.

Brown's Dictionary of the Bible - on 'Michael' and 'Angel,' both these words do sometimes refer to Christ; and also affirms that Christ is the Archangel.

The NIV Study Bible - "The Angel of the LORD .... Traditional Christian interpretation has held that this 'angel' was a preincarnate manifestation of Christ as God's Messenger-Servant. It may be ..., the angel could speak on behalf of the One who sent him." - footnote for Gen. 16:7. Zondervan Publishing, 1985

Smith's Bible Dictionary (says of Michael) - "Angel of the Lord. ... Christ's visible form before the incarnation. p. 40"

Today's Dictionary of the Bible - "Angel of the Lord [angel of Jehovah] - occurs many times in the Old Testament, where in almost every instance it means a supernatural personage to be distinguished from Jehovah .... Some feel the pre-incarnate Christ is meant." Bethany House Publ., 1982, p. 39.

I liked some of your ideas around the Garden of Eden. Yet in many parts, your ideas were not so dissimilar to what the church teach's today. 
Nothing I, or you, or the JWs or anyone else says on the subject of the Bible is original. It's all from one source and it all has been said before. 

I'd probably use the term YHWH as the name for God, not Jehovah.  Not that we can actually speak his name anyway. 
The ancient Hebrew didn't have vowells in their written language. They added them in. Comaritive example wld b lk ths (would be like this). So, Jesus' Hebrew name would be written like that as well. Just as the English form of Jesus is the son of God's name Jehovah is the English form of God's name. To say YHWH or Yahweh only demonstrates ignorance on the subject. Could you use the similar term for Jesus' name as you do Jehovah's? In languages other than English the name is also different. 


Thanks for the attempt though. Cheers.
As always and with everyone, you are most certainly welcome. 

Topic's author
#118
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
Bullshit in Stephens words. 

As I tried to make clear,
Yes. Sorry. My mistake. You say mythical. I guess, to me, that's the same. Myth is a widely held but false belief or idea.

And in short,

Gods are deities,

GOD is the fundamental source of everything.

I'm not picking on you. I want to understand where you're coming from. I have my ideas about what a god is and you have yours. It's none of our business what the other thinks. I'm not an ideologue. When I question or disagree with you, I'm not being disrespectful, I'm only allowing for differences. That's important to me because it wouldn't be fair of me to expect that for myself while denying it for anyone else, no matter what their beliefs or lack thereof involve. Fairness is very important to me because I don't think you can seek or uphold the search for truth without it. While I will disagree and question you and am very pleased when that is reciprocated by as many people as possible, it isn't dogmatic tyranny that is my motivation. You are not ignorant of your beliefs, I am. We are bound by words while communicating, and I have no issue with the way you use the word deity.

Deity: "A deity or god is a supernatural being considered to be sacred and worthy of worship due to having authority over the universe, nature or human life. The Oxford Dictionary of English defines deity as a god or goddess, or anything revered as divine." Wikipedia

If I'm not mistaken, your beliefs are Deistical? Something I know very little about and so find it especially interesting. I don't want to bug you, so if you don't feel like taking part in my enlightenment on the subject, I totally get that.

Uh - so Deism, also according to the great and powerful Wikipedia is "Deism derived from the Latin term deus, meaning 'god' is the philosophical position and rationalistic theology that generally rejects revelation as a source of divine knowledge and asserts that empirical reason and observation of the natural world are exclusively logical, reliable, and sufficient to determine the existence of a Supreme Being as the creator of the universe."

This much I get. Deus (god) means something is mighty and therefor respected. That's what worship means. Respect. So, for example if I didn't believe in (trust) the Bible but I thought we evolved I would respect, in a sense, have trust in, the random sort of process of evolution, I wouldn't see any point in attributing any semblance of design or creation. Religion is a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance. While the random process would be important, it isn't sentient so attribution to a creator would involve veneration, the random process wouldn't. The latter would be like praying to the God of rocks so one doesn't come crashing down on yo' head. Chinese philosophy, for example, has various ways in which they venerate heaven (Tian). The Taoist being passive and the Confucianists being active.
#119
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,306
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@Mall
So none of the prophets told about Jesus the son of God,is that what you're saying?
*None of the Old Testament prophets.
#120
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 414
Posts: 2,246
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@zedvictor4
The scriptures have not been proven false. What do you mean there's nothing to disprove?

If something has not been proven false, it's not b.s., fictitious or mythical outright or automatically . Did you not know this?

Maybe this is why you're struggling with saying directly the statement is true or false.
Now you making the claim that the old testament cannot be proven accurate, what is your evidence for that?
If I were you, I'd start making neutral statements about the scripture. Don't go one way or the other. That's as far as you can go with it correctly.