Interesting Find [Archive] - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

boxcar

03-31-2011, 12:08 PM

So late? It's not late at all if you think of it. Let's look at it:

Clearly the Epistles of Paul (the ones he actually wrote) had to be written before 70 as he died. The Gospel of Mark is considered the oldest of the Gospels and is believed to have appeared right around this time, perhaps as early as 50 or as late as 80. Then along came Luke and Acts, by the same author and Matthew. The Gospel of John likely didn't show until the turn of the century and the Apocalypse of John (likely different John) around then as well.

How are these things known? In many ways. References in the texts themselves help place them in relation to known events. Word usage and style can also help date. Further, there are many other writings citing these works that further help date them. Debates were already happening in the 2nd century as to authorship and origin of several books of the NT.

There are clearly other works that the early church members used that no longer survive, the most famous is what is referred to as the "Q" Gospel, considered source material for Mark, Matthew and Luke.

Finally, the Gospels and Acts only needed to be written down when the eye witnesses and perhaps even the second hand tellers who knew them had died to perserve their testamony.

I find this stuff fascinating for the insight into the early church. By 70 AD they were still not unified in position on such questions as should they be restricted only to Jews or should Gentiles be allowed to join. Was Jesus man or divine wasn't even a question they had settled. There was a distinct break between those that followed the teachings of Peter and those who followed Paul and in every major city each group of these followers of Jesus were just a little different and used different texts in their teachings.

Then how did you arrive at the conclusion that if the Metal Books were authentic that they would pre-date "much the entirety of the New Testament"? I, apparently like you, believe that "much of the entirety of the New Testament" was written prior to 70 A.D.

And, yes, there was confusion in the early church about the place of Judaism, Gentiles, etc. after Christ has ushered in a new dispensation -- called the New Covenant -- the covenant that was predicted in the OT prophecies -- but the "mystery" thereof not fully revealed until the close of the NT canon. In fact, Al, to this very day, the "confusion" and arguments still persist within the Church over this Covenant, and what it means to Christians in terms of the other covenants (especially the Old Covenant), what it means to Christians' relationship to the Law, what it means in relation to corporate Israel and the Land Promises, etc., etc.. The debates go on. They have never stopped. To the contrary! They intensified in the 19th Century when an extreme form of Premillennialism was introduced into the Church known today as Dispensationalism.

As far as other issues you raise, apostasy and heresies started seeping into the Church very early. Paul constantly warned the churches to guard themselves against such things. Even most of the Seven Churches of Asia Minor in Revelation, which typify the types of churches today, had serious spiritual problems and received stern warnings from Christ, etc.

In short, nothing has really changed from the early church until this day. As Paul even said, the Great Apostasy must take place before the Lord returns.

Boxcar

OTM Al

03-31-2011, 12:25 PM

Then how did you arrive at the conclusion that if the Metal Books were authentic that they would pre-date "much the entirety of the New Testament"? I, apparently like you, believe that "much of the entirety of the New Testament" was written prior to 70 A.D.

And, yes, there was confusion in the early church about the place of Judaism, Gentiles, etc. after Christ has ushered in a new dispensation -- called the New Covenant -- the covenant that was predicted in the OT prophecies -- but the "mystery" thereof not fully revealed until the close of the NT canon. In fact, Al, to this very day, the "confusion" and arguments still persist within the Church over this Covenant, and what it means to Christians in terms of the other covenants (especially the Old Covenant), what it means to Christians' relationship to the Law, what it means in relation to corporate Israel and the Land Promises, etc., etc.. The debates go on. They have never stopped. To the contrary! They intensified in the 19th Century when an extreme form of Premillennialism was introduced into the Church known today as Dispensationalism.

As far as other issues you raise, apostasy and heresies started seeping into the Church very early. Paul constantly warned the churches to guard themselves against such things. Even most of the Seven Churches of Asia Minor in Revelation, which typify the types of churches today, had serious spiritual problems and received stern warnings from Christ, etc.

In short, nothing has really changed from the early church until this day. As Paul even said, the Great Apostasy must take place before the Lord returns.

Boxcar

Because it would predate at least 3 of the 4 Gospels and possibly all 4, plus Acts, plus the Apocalypse of John, plus a good number of the Epistles that are not the 7 that actually are attributed to Paul. I believe you have a typo as I do not believe these books were written before 70. To me that's the better part of what we call the NT. Further, say it does have one of the NT books (or more) actually recorded in it in some form. It would be the oldest existant NT writting we have. I find that exciting.

I find it humorous though you would refer to the beliefs of the different groups as heresy or apostacy. Especially when they hadn't even figured out where all this was going yet amongst themselves. Peter and Paul for some time were in bitter opposition on many of these issues. Would you call one or both of them a heretic?

Remember too, the books to be included in the NT were not decided on until the early Christians came to a decision on these things. Thus the books that conformed to these decsions were kept and others were removed that did not. I know you'll claim divine guidence on this as that's what you did before and that's fine if that's what you want to believe. I know better than trying to discuss this with you because you've made up your mind on this subject. However, I find the possiblility that this thing is real (though there is a good chance it is not) intriguing as it would have been written by someone who actually could have seen Jesus or at the least from the direct recollections of someone who did.

Greyfox

03-31-2011, 12:44 PM

I don't jump out of my skin with these archeological finds. ...
If Noah's Ark was discovered perched atop some mountain, it would barely raise an eyebrow.
Boxcar

So true. (Try Mt Ararat (?))....but if Osama bin laden was in it.
That would be a story.

TJDave

03-31-2011, 01:50 PM

If someone were to find the Ark of the Covenant of the OT, most would yawn at that discovery. If Noah's Ark was discovered perched atop some mountain, it would barely raise an eyebrow. If Pharaoh's personal war chariot were to be found in the middle of the Red Sea depths, that would probably elicit a shrug of the shoulders.

Somehow, I doubt it. In the first instance a fictional movie made of its discovery became one of the largest grossing films ever. Also, religious icons play an important role in the largest of Christian sects, Catholicism. Folks, religious and non-religious alike, LOVE this stuff.

boxcar

03-31-2011, 02:44 PM

Because it would predate at least 3 of the 4 Gospels and possibly all 4, plus Acts, plus the Apocalypse of John, plus a good number of the Epistles that are not the 7 that actually are attributed to Paul. I believe you have a typo as I do not believe these books were written before 70. To me that's the better part of what we call the NT. Further, say it does have one of the NT books (or more) actually recorded in it in some form. It would be the oldest existant NT writting we have. I find that exciting.

Ahh...but on what basis do you say this? How do you know it would? And just when do you think the Gospels and Acts were written, and why?

I find it humorous though you would refer to the beliefs of the different groups as heresy or apostacy. Especially when they hadn't even figured out where all this was going yet amongst themselves. Peter and Paul for some time were in bitter opposition on many of these issues. Would you call one or both of them a heretic?

Neither because Paul was correct and Peter was wrong and Peter saw the error of his ways. But nonetheless, heresies started seeping into the church very early. There is indeed a difference between between a heretic teaching or preaching against a fundamental Christian doctrine (which Peter wasn't doing) and a sinful, hypocritical Christian (which was what Peter was at that time).

Also, you grossly exaggerate Paul and Peter's differences. Paul confronted Peter on a very specific matter -- because of his hypocritical actions -- actions that were not consistent with Peter's gospel message, which didn't differ one iota from Paul's! Paul was very concerned over Peter's confusion about how to treat believing Gentiles. And even more importantly because Peter was spreading his hypocrisy to other Jewish believers. So, Paul, rightly confronted Peter on this matter for the sake of unity, harmony and consistency within the church. (This confrontation between the two is clearly laid out in Gal 2:11ff.)

All this refers back to what I said earlier -- the misunderstanding of the "mystery" of the New Covenant. What Peter was confused about, apparently, is that the New Covenant completely replaced and made obsolete the Old Covenant. Peter was confused about the role Gentiles would play in the Church. What Peter didn't understand is that Gentile believers were who were branches of a "natural olive tree" are now being grafted into the the "cultivated olive tree" (Old Covenant believers), and that this "cultivated olive tree" itself had branches removed (Unbelieving Jews), so that the New Covenant Church would now consist of just ONE Tree -- that "tree" consisting of believing Jews and Gentiles alike. (For NOW, there is no longer a distinction between Jew and Gentile believers -- both are ONE (Rom 10:12; 12:5). The great significance to this is that Corporate Israel, that is to say Israel as a Nation, no longer has a covenant relationship with God because they broke the Old Covenant through their constant disobedience (and these disobedient Jews were the branches broken off the "cultivated olive tree"). All this is spelled out by Paul in Romans 11, but to be thoroughly understood and to see the thread of Unconditional Election running through his formal argument, this chapter should be understood in the larger context of Romans 9 and 10.

Remember too, the books to be included in the NT were not decided on until the early Christians came to a decision on these things. Thus the books that conformed to these decsions were kept and others were removed that did not. I know you'll claim divine guidence on this as that's what you did before and that's fine if that's what you want to believe. I know better than trying to discuss this with you because you've made up your mind on this subject. However, I find the possiblility that this thing is real (though there is a good chance it is not) intriguing as it would have been written by someone who actually could have seen Jesus or at the least from the direct recollections of someone who did.

Of course, I've made up my mind. Scripture, throughout, tells us that all the apostles were eyewitnesses to the resurrected Christ (LK 1:2, Acts 1:3-5; 2:32; 3:15; 10:41; 13:31). Why couldn't the apostles have seen Christ? Why couldn't Luke have written his Gospel from the very recollections of eyewitnesses, as he claims? I find it remarkable how quickly and easily you dismiss NT testimony, yet you're so eager to have this latest archaeological find prove Jesus -- prove that he existed!? Or prove what, exactly? What is it that you're looking to have proved?

And what if this book talks about the prophetically-fulfilled destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple that took place in 70 A.D? Would you still think that it pre-dated the NT, which talks about neither? (One website claims that the books were found in a place that is known to have been a refuge for believing Jews after the the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., as they claim other documents from that period had been found in the cave previously.)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1371290/70-metal-books-Jordan-cave-change-view-Biblical-history.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Or worse yet (for you and other skeptics), what if this metal book took talks about witnessing a resurrected Christ? O horrors of all horrors! If this happened to be written in the book, the entire world would be crying out for the hills and mountains to fall upon it, so that its ears would not hear or eyes see this revelation. The last thing the world would want is for some extra-biblical find to give that kind of supporting testimony to Scripture! But even then the world would say these were delusional and extremely overzealous religious fanantics -- they merely saw some apparition, or they were hallucinating or something. They saw what they wanted to see -- pretty much the way the world believes what it wants to believe.

This is why I don't get overly excited over these kinds of discoveries. As stated previously, they will do very little to convert unbelievers...and skeptics. Jesus clearly said the truth would set us free and that believers would be sanctified by the truth, etc. -- not by Man's antiquities. I guess this is why Jesus commissioned his disciples to preach the gospel and not go out and become archaeologists so that they could dig up the truth. :D

Boxcar

boxcar

03-31-2011, 03:05 PM

Somehow, I doubt it. In the first instance a fictional movie made of its discovery became one of the largest grossing films ever. Also, religious icons play an important role in the largest of Christian sects, Catholicism. Folks, religious and non-religious alike, LOVE this stuff.

And you love it to death, as i recall. Did you not say that you are not a believer, nor would you ever become one? So, isn't your love a little misspent? I don't recall Jesus saying that the third greatest commandment was to love religious relics or icons. But who knows? That may yet to be found in the Book of Metal. :D

And, no, my take on the human condition -- on the incredible, incomprehensible hardness of man's depraved heart is grounded in numerous biblical texts. There are so many texts that testify to this fact that I barely know where to begin. Arguably, the strongest is this one uttered by Jesus himself in the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus.

Luke 16:19-31
19 "There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. 20 And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, 21 who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man's table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried, 23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. 24 And he called out, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.' 25 But Abraham said, 'Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.' 27 And he said, 'Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's house— 28 for I have five brothers —so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.' 29 But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.' 30 And he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' 31 He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.'"
ESV

So, yes, the religious world may utter their Ooh's and Aah's over some discovery, but they will do very little to change people's hearts. Just look at how the Dead Sea Scrolls have made the world such a better place in which to live.

But also, don't miss this in Jesus' teaching: What he's saying at the very end is that the scriptures are entirely sufficient to bring people to faith in the truth. And at the time Jesus said this, there was only the OT scriptures. Therefore, how much more, now that we have the NT which completes God's revelation to mankind?

Boxcar

OTM Al

03-31-2011, 03:08 PM

Greyfox

03-31-2011, 03:36 PM

Um, it would be the oldest extant NT writing because everything else we have is a copy of a copy because the originals have fallen to dust.

RE: A copy of a copy of a copy.....

Your comments OTM Al reminded me of the following:

In an ancient monastery, a new monk arrived to dedicate his life and to join the others copying ancient records.
The first thing he noticed was that they were copying by hand, books that had already been copied by hand.

He had to speak up. "Forgive me, Father Justinian, but copying other copies by hand allows many chances for error. How do we know we aren't copying someone else's mistakes? Are they ever checked against the originals?"

Father Justinian was startled! No one had ever suggested that before. "Well, that is a good point, my son. I will take one of these latest books down to the vault and study it against its original document."

He went deep into the vault where no one else was allowed to enter, and started to study. The day passed, and it was getting late in the evening.

The monks were getting worried about Father Justinian. Finally one monk started making his way through the old vault, and as he began to think he might get lost, he heard sobbing. "Father Justinian?" He called.

The sobbing was louder as he came near. He finally found the old priest sitting at a table with both the new copy and the original ancient book in front of him. It was obvious that Father Justinian had been crying for a long time.

"Oh, my Lord," sobbed Father Justinian, "the word is 'celebrate'!!"

Carry on, carry on...

OTM Al

03-31-2011, 03:52 PM

RE: A copy of a copy of a copy.....

Your comments OTM Al reminded me of the following:

In an ancient monastery, a new monk arrived to dedicate his life and to join the others copying ancient records.
The first thing he noticed was that they were copying by hand, books that had already been copied by hand.

He had to speak up. "Forgive me, Father Justinian, but copying other copies by hand allows many chances for error. How do we know we aren't copying someone else's mistakes? Are they ever checked against the originals?"

Father Justinian was startled! No one had ever suggested that before. "Well, that is a good point, my son. I will take one of these latest books down to the vault and study it against its original document."

He went deep into the vault where no one else was allowed to enter, and started to study. The day passed, and it was getting late in the evening.

The monks were getting worried about Father Justinian. Finally one monk started making his way through the old vault, and as he began to think he might get lost, he heard sobbing. "Father Justinian?" He called.

The sobbing was louder as he came near. He finally found the old priest sitting at a table with both the new copy and the original ancient book in front of him. It was obvious that Father Justinian had been crying for a long time.

"Oh, my Lord," sobbed Father Justinian, "the word is 'celebrate'!!"

Carry on, carry on...

I must be having a long day at work as that one took me a minute!

It is true though that copy errors and misinterpretations have been made. One of the most famous regards Moses and the Latin translation of Exodus by St Jerome from the Hebrew. In fact a statue by Michelagelo himself represents this error. In Exodus there is a description of Moses in which his face shown with enlightenment, but the Hebrew word used was idoimatic of this. Literally it meant that he grew horns from his head, which is how Jerome translated it "cornuta esset facies sua" and Michelangelo carved it almost 1200 years later....

riskman

03-31-2011, 04:21 PM

RE: A copy of a copy of a copy.....

"Oh, my Lord," sobbed Father Justinian, "the word is 'celebrate'!!"

Carry on, carry on...

Being from an Irish Catholic NYC backround this little ditty made my day! Now this is funny. :D

TJDave

03-31-2011, 04:25 PM

Did you not say that you are not a believer, nor would you ever become one?

I said I wasn't a Christian and wouldn't become one.

boxcar

03-31-2011, 04:35 PM

Um, it would be the oldest extant NT writing because everything else we have is a copy of a copy because the originals have fallen to dust. I was going to go on, but as I already said, it is pointless to discuss these things with you because that would call for a questioning and evaluation of things you either cannot or will not do.

You're quite wrong about me. Remember when Paul in recounting his salvation, he lamented that he was "chief among sinners". Likewise, I was chief among skeptics. And you know what they say about how smokers hate being around ex-smokers because they hate smoke and will freely complain? Feel free to color me in the same way as an ex-smoker; for as an ex-skeptic, I hate falsehoods and errors. :)

Yes, I'm well aware of the copying problems, such as variations in manuscripts, scribal errors etc. But so what? The $64. question is: Is the bible internally consistent? I say the various books are. They pass the "truth serum" tests with flying colors. The bible is one homogeneous, consistent, harmonious body of literature that obviously (to me and other Evangelicals) finds its origin in one mind. There are no contradictions in the bible with respect to any matters of faith necessary unto salvation. However, there are plenty of tough passages and passages that present difficulties.

I hope it is real. I hope it does have parts of the NT in it. It would be inetersting to see the variations from that particular group and to see their understanding of Jesus. But it will take a long time and very careful study to determine this.

I know. Tell me about it. I've been studying the bible for over 30 years, which is why I'm convinced it is for real. :)

Boxcar

boxcar

03-31-2011, 04:40 PM

I said I wasn't a Christian and wouldn't become one.

That's exactly what I thought you said. So...what fascinates you so much about these kinds of discoveries? You're just intellectually curious? What practical effects have these kind of things had on your life? I'm curious as to why a committed unbeliever, as yourself, has such an interest in these things.

Boxcar

TJDave

03-31-2011, 05:53 PM

I'm curious as to why a committed unbeliever, as yourself, has such an interest in these things.

Boxcar

Knowing full well my religious persuasion, and as evidenced by your pejorative use of the term 'unbeliever', I'd be curious as to whether early Christians were as mean-spirited and prejudiced as you. :rolleyes:

boxcar

03-31-2011, 06:17 PM

Knowing full well my religious persuasion, and as evidenced by your pejorative use of the term 'unbeliever', I'd be curious as to whether early Christians were as mean-spirited and prejudiced as you. :rolleyes:

First of all, I know NOT your religious persuasion. I don't recall ever seeing you reveal that.

Secondly, from a biblical perspective and as a self-confessed non-believer in the Christian Faith, you are an unbeliever, so how am I using the term pejoratively? Paul talking about unbelieving Jews, as one example, to the Christian faith wrote:

Rom 11:20
20 That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you...
ESV

And again in the same passage:

Rom 11:23
23 And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again.
ESV

What am I missing here? If these people of which Paul spoke weren't unbelievers, what were they? Are you a universalist or something? I really don't understand your complaint.

Boxcar

SchagFactorToWin

04-01-2011, 10:22 AM

did anyone watch discovery channel the other night about the archives in the vatican and the tombs and bascillicas underneath.

awesome stuff.
What program was it? I can't seem to find it on their site.

OTM Al

04-01-2011, 10:28 AM

What program was it? I can't seem to find it on their site.

I think it was on History Channel actually. It was a 2 hour show.

boxcar

04-01-2011, 12:10 PM

I must be having a long day at work as that one took me a minute!

It is true though that copy errors and misinterpretations have been made. One of the most famous regards Moses and the Latin translation of Exodus by St Jerome from the Hebrew. In fact a statue by Michelagelo himself represents this error. In Exodus there is a description of Moses in which his face shown with enlightenment, but the Hebrew word used was idoimatic of this. Literally it meant that he grew horns from his head, which is how Jerome translated it "cornuta esset facies sua" and Michelangelo carved it almost 1200 years later....

You know, I never knew that. That was quite a blooper -- in fact, huge when you consider that that event on top of Mt. Sinai at the giving of the Law is also mentioned in the NT! I'm really surprised that Jerome was ignorant of Paul's commentary.

Boxcar

OTM Al

04-01-2011, 12:13 PM

You know, I never knew that. That was quite a blooper -- in fact, huge when you consider that that event on top of Mt. Sinai at the giving of the Law is also mentioned in the NT! I'm really surprised that Jerome was ignorant of Paul's commentary.

Boxcar

The dangers of literal interpretation....

boxcar

04-01-2011, 12:31 PM

The dangers of literal interpretation....

It's more the dangers of poor hermeneutics...and not doing one's homework.

Boxcar

TJDave

04-01-2011, 01:51 PM

I must be having a long day at work as that one took me a minute!

It is true though that copy errors and misinterpretations have been made. One of the most famous regards Moses and the Latin translation of Exodus by St Jerome from the Hebrew. In fact a statue by Michelagelo himself represents this error. In Exodus there is a description of Moses in which his face shown with enlightenment, but the Hebrew word used was idoimatic of this. Literally it meant that he grew horns from his head, which is how Jerome translated it "cornuta esset facies sua" and Michelangelo carved it almost 1200 years later....

That Michelangelo, a learned Jewish scholar would not have been aware of the misinterpretation of the text, is ludicrous. There is evidence that Michelangelo did it purposefully, snubbing his papal benefactor.

The book, The Sistine Secrets, examines this theory and more.

An interesting read.

Let's Roll

04-01-2011, 01:57 PM

That Michelangelo, a learned Jewish scholar would not have been aware of the misinterpretation of the text, is ludicrous. There is evidence that Michelangelo did it purposefully, snubbing his papal benefactor.

The book, The Sistine Secrets, examines this theory and more.

An interesting read.
Thanks for the tip on that book, I'll check it out at the Library !

boxcar

04-01-2011, 02:05 PM

That Michelangelo, a learned Jewish scholar would not have been aware of the misinterpretation of the text, is ludicrous. There is evidence that Michelangelo did it purposefully, snubbing his papal benefactor.

The book, The Sistine Secrets, examines this theory and more.

An interesting read.

That explanation would make more sense, even apart from Paul's commentary.

Boxcar

OTM Al

04-01-2011, 02:12 PM

It's more the dangers of poor hermeneutics...and not doing one's homework.

Boxcar

Which leads to literal interpretations. Six of one, half dozen of another.

OTM Al

04-01-2011, 02:15 PM

That Michelangelo, a learned Jewish scholar would not have been aware of the misinterpretation of the text, is ludicrous. There is evidence that Michelangelo did it purposefully, snubbing his papal benefactor.

The book, The Sistine Secrets, examines this theory and more.

An interesting read.

It's possible, but still represents the fact that the misinterpretation was common knowledge 1200 years after it happened.

TJDave

04-01-2011, 03:40 PM

It's possible, but still represents the fact that the misinterpretation was common knowledge 1200 years after it happened.

"Misinterpretation" is disingenuous. There was a systematic, ongoing conspiracy portraying Jews as devils and devil worshipers... For which the Church only recently apologized.

Native Texan III

04-01-2011, 03:53 PM

It's possible, but still represents the fact that the misinterpretation was common knowledge 1200 years after it happened.

I don't know about common knowledge, as all services were held in the Latin language at the time and only the few understood any of that. Even fewer classical Greek or Hebrew. (Even the Texan Governer was fooled by saying "if English was good enough for Jesus then it is good enough for me").

It was more than misconceptions - whole books were removed that did not agree with the political canon. Who knows what was just conveniently lost when you are stuck with papyrus fragments 200 years after the events. It was all highly political to convert the pagan Romans and subsequently the Pope had in those times real power as the Holy Roman Emperor and supreme editor of the "truth".
Kings ruled as agents of God under the blessing of the Pope.
Pagans were helped to convert by maintaining their customs such as "Christmas" and Easter for the Winter and Spring feasts.

Unless you get back to the source and take notice of archaeological evidence then we may never know the true story.

A similar current issue is:

"The discovery of 56 stone tools four feet underground in the Texas Hill Country makes certain what most archaeologists have suspected for a while — that human beings were in the Americas at least 15,000 years ago."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/texas-dig-solidifies-evidence-that-the-first-americans-were-here-15000-years-ago/2011/03/24/ABgKi4PB_story.html

That was 10,000 years before Adam and Eve?

You can hear the closed minds clanging shut all over the Bible Belt.
Save us from these socialist purveyors of evil (facts).
They surely must have been Muslims.

OTM Al

04-01-2011, 03:56 PM

"Misinterpretation" is disingenuous. There was a systematic, ongoing conspiracy portraying Jews as devils and devil worshipers... For which the Church only recently apologized.

Jerome misinterpreted. Middle ages and forward depictions of Jews with horns and thus demonic wasn't even conspiracy. It was just out right hatred. But you can see from this example how small mistakes can lead to wide spread hysterias. It is no cooincidence that Moses became a marginalized figure during this period. Of course they all kind of forgot Jesus was Jewish, just like him mom and dad....

boxcar

04-01-2011, 04:54 PM

Jerome misinterpreted. Middle ages and forward depictions of Jews with horns and thus demonic wasn't even conspiracy. It was just out right hatred. But you can see from this example how small mistakes can lead to wide spread hysterias. It is no cooincidence that Moses became a marginalized figure during this period. Of course they all kind of forgot Jesus was Jewish, just like him mom and dad....

Well, at least you got the "mom" part right. In football, .500 average ain't so hot. In baseball, though, it's excellent. ;)

Boxcar

OTM Al

04-01-2011, 04:58 PM

Well, at least you got the "mom" part right. In football, .500 average ain't so hot. In baseball, though, it's excellent. ;)

Boxcar

Accept the dogma that you will, but the guy that raises you is your dad even if he might not be your father.

TJDave

04-01-2011, 05:25 PM

the guy that raises you is your dad even if he might not be your father. :lol: :lol:

I'll stick that in my quiver...

For when the watchtower comes-a-calling. :rolleyes:

boxcar

04-01-2011, 07:06 PM

Accept the dogma that you will, but the guy that raises you is your dad even if he might not be your father.

This is true what you say about my dad, even though he did not raise me; but then I'm not divine. I'm not the fulfillment of Gen 3:15 and countless other prophecies.

And whether your worldly dogma wishes to accept this or not, Christianity has several unique characteristics that distinguishes it from all other religions. One of these is that the primary focus of scripture is on the person of Christ -- the identity of Christ. If he is is not the eternal Son of God, his ministry, his life, his teachings are basically no better or worse than any other religious teacher. This is why Christ could ask the world's most important question:

Matt 16:13-17
13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" 14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." 15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16 Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
ESV

There are people on this forum (very many, in fact) who swear by consensuses. Oh yes, they feel as snug as a bug in a rug (and twice as smug) when their opinion on something is bolstered by a consensus (real or perceived). Well, the real consensus in Jesus' day about his true identity was that he was some great prophet. He was a great teacher. To this day, this is the consensus, except among those, who deny Jesus ever existed, of course. Jesus was "something good". He was a "good person", etc., etc.

But Jesus pressed the issue with Peter in verse 15 because, evidently, the consensus on Jesus was all wrong. But Peter, nailed it perfectly, didn't he?
Peter, this uneducated, stubborn, hard-headed, impetus fisherman was smarter than Einstein, wasn't he? Look how Jesus praised (NOT) his smarts!

But this same all-important question was asked in reverse once upon a time in Palestine. The Pharisees, who accused Jesus of being demon-possessed got very indignant and insulted by some of his words and there ensued this remarkable and revealing exchange between them and Jesus:

John 8:49-59
49 Jesus answered, "I do not have a demon, but I honor my Father, and you dishonor me. 50 Yet I do not seek my own glory; there is One who seeks it, and he is the judge. 51 Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death." 52 The Jews said to him, "Now we know that you have a demon! Abraham died, as did the prophets, yet you say, 'If anyone keeps my word, he will never taste death.' 53 Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? And the prophets died! Who do you make yourself out to be?" 54 Jesus answered, "If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, 'He is our God.' 55 But you have not known him. I know him. If I were to say that I do not know him, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and I keep his word. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad." 57 So the Jews said to him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?" 58 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." 59 So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.
ESV

Jesus claimed his preexistence in two ways: First, Abraham rejoiced to see HIS day. This further infuriated the Pharisees. How in the world could this guy Jesus make such an astonishing, fantastic, utterly unbelievable claim? But Jesus didn't back off, did he? He didn't ease up. He kept the pedal to the metal. In fact, he increased the pressure! He was the same I AM who addressed Moses in the burning bush. In Exodus 3, he told Moses that he was the God of his fathers -- Abraham, Issac and Jacob. In fact, the term "God" is used each time, intimating the Trinity.

This last claim drove the Pharisees crazy. They went nuts. They went ballistics. They understood exactly what Jesus was claiming. They understood so well, they wanted to murder him right in the temple because they thought he was blaspheming the Most High God!

Anyway you want to slice it or dice it, Big Al, this guy Jesus is either who he said he was, i.e. LORD, but if not then either Lunatic or Liar. The Pharisees though he was pretty loony because demons were controlling him. And if he was a lunatic or liar, then I'm not so sure how good his teachings could possibly be. Everything really does hinge on how each of us answers Jesus' all-important question: "But who do you say I am?"

Boxcar

boxcar

04-01-2011, 07:32 PM

:lol: :lol:

I'll stick that in my quiver...

For when the watchtower comes-a-calling. :rolleyes:

Actually, it was a pretty lame analogy -- unless of course, Big Al (inadvertently, of course) meant:

Gal 4:6-7
6 And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!" 7 So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.
ESV

If Al meant this, then this proves conclusively that even blind squirrels find that occasional acorn :D "Abba" is an Aramaic term of endearment and intimacy for "daddy". Ironically, my earthly father did not raise me; but there was never a moment in all eternity when my Heavenly Father was not "raising" me -- "For those whom he foreknew he also predestined..." (Rom 8:29).

Boxcar

hcap

04-01-2011, 08:34 PM

Christianity has several unique characteristics that distinguishes it from all other religions. One of these is that the primary focus of scripture is on the person of Christ -- the identity of Christ.Amazing how those sentiments are shared by so many religions about their own version of god and and messengers. Not exactly the same but very close. Religions and myths both before the NT and after.

Sometimes it's as interesting to look at the similarities not just differences.

boxcar

04-01-2011, 11:20 PM

Amazing how those sentiments are shared by so many religions about their own version of god and and messengers. Not exactly the same but very close. Religions and myths both before the NT and after.

Sometimes it's as interesting to look at the similarities not just differences.

They may share the same sentiments, but those other religions do not share in any of Christianity's outstanding distinctions. How many monotheistic religions teach that there are three distinct persons in the Godhead? How many leading religious leaders sacrificed himself unto death for his people, resurrected from the grave and now lives? How many religions teach that man ultimately cannot work his way to salvation or earn it in any way, shape or form, or please God by any of his own efforts? How many of the world''s major religions' leading figures claimed to be divine? Which religion has claimed that its deity is love? Which religion's deity has the name Holy? How many leading religious figures claimed to have all authority in heaven and in earth? Which religion's leading figure ever claimed to have power to deliver people from the power of their own sin nature? Which religion's leading figure claimed to have authority to judge all mankind? Which religion's leading figure claimed royal kingship over all creation? Which religion can boast of hundreds of fulfilled prophecies? Which religion was such a powerful force in the world that that world has set its calender by its leading figure? Which religion tells its adherents that they can know and be certain of their eternal destiny in this age, etc., etc., etc.?

The "similarities", 'cap, in other religions are analogous to cheap forgeries. Why would I want to waste valuable time examining those when I already possess the great treasure? As it is written:

Matt 13:44
"The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and covered up. Then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.
ESV

So, you see: On top of everything else, I'm poor according to the world's standards; for I have bought that field. But nonetheless I'm exceedingly rich, spiritually -- both in the Now and in the age to come -- the Not Yet.

Boxcar

TJDave

04-01-2011, 11:21 PM

"Abba" is an Aramaic term of endearment and intimacy for "daddy".

In first century Judea, not so much. Abba meant father (still does today in modern Hebrew, BTW). A term of endearment, intimacy and respectability. As would be the case in a society that considered "Honoring your parents" as a commandment to be obeyed...on great peril. ;)

boxcar

04-01-2011, 11:29 PM

ABBA
abba (
<START GREEK>a)bba=
<END GREEK>, NT:5) is an Aramaic word, found in Mark 14:36; Rom 8:15 and Gal 4:6. In the Gemara (a Rabbinical commentary on the Mishna, the traditional teaching of the Jews) it is stated that slaves were forbidden to address the head of the family by this title. It approximates to a personal name, in contrast to "Father," with which it is always joined in the NT. This is probably due to the fact that, abba having practically become a proper name, Greek-speaking Jews added the Greek word pater, "father," from the language they used. Abba is the word framed by the lips of infants, and betokens unreasoning trust; "father" expresses an intelligent apprehension of the relationship. The two together express the love and intelligent confidence of the child.
(from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Copyright © 1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers.)

Boxcar

OTM Al

04-02-2011, 09:25 AM

Once again as predicted this is going completely off the reservation. I'm out.

hcap

04-02-2011, 09:48 AM

The "similarities", 'cap, in other religions are analogous to cheap forgeries. Why would I want to waste valuable time examining those when I already possess the great treasure? As it is written:

Matt 13:44
"The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and covered up. Then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.
ESV

So, you see: On top of everything else, I'm poor according to the world's standards; for I have bought that field. But nonetheless I'm exceedingly rich, spiritually -- both in the Now and in the age to come -- the Not Yet.
Many similarities exist between Christain beliefs and stories and pre-Christian myths that you would call pagan

The virgin birth, bringing dead people back to life, many miraculous hearings, exorcisms, transfiguration, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, Jesus' anticipated return to judge humanity, were stories that could have been derived from pagan myths that had been circulating for centuries when Jesus was born. Much much earlier than the Trinity of Christianity, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, there was the Trimurti of Hinduism, whose members -- Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva.
In Hinduism (also in Jainism and Sikhism), the concept of moksha is akin to that of Buddhism's nirvana, as well as Christianity's doctrine of salvation.The Last Judgment, rewards and punishments, and immortality, is very close to Zoroastrian. In fact Zoroastrianism effected Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. There is a trinity as well.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5b.htm

Go down to "Comparison of some life events of Horus and Jesus" about 1/2 way down
Similarities are amazing. Including

1-Virgin birth

2-Only begotten son of the God Osiris. Only begotten son of Yehovah (in the form of the Holy Spirit).

3-Foster father: Seb, (a.k.a. Jo-Seph). 4 Joseph.

4-Birth heralded by: The star Sirius, the morning star. An unidentified "star in the East."

5-Birth witnesses: Shepherds. Shepherds.

more on this page

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5d.htm

I would also argue that in many cases the internal differences within religions, including Christianity, are sometimes greater than the differences between entirely separate religions

boxcar

04-02-2011, 02:36 PM

Many similarities exist between Christain beliefs and stories and pre-Christian myths that you would call pagan

The virgin birth, bringing dead people back to life, many miraculous hearings, exorcisms, transfiguration, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, Jesus' anticipated return to judge humanity, were stories that could have been derived from pagan myths that had been circulating for centuries when Jesus was born. The Last Judgment, rewards and punishments, and immortality, is very close to Zoroastrian. In fact Zoroastrianism effected Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. There is a trinity as well.

We've been down this road before. The OT and even the NT predates all the corrupt versions of Christian doctrines. So, as usual, you have it backwards. We see this corruption of true religion very early on in Genesis. It didn't take long at all for truth to become corrupted.

After the Fall, Adam and Eve tried to hide their shame and guilt with their "good works" --through their own human efforts -- by fashioning loin coverings for themselves from fig leaves to hide their nakedness. But this was an unacceptable sin covering in God's eyes. So, he slew innocent animals -- he shed their blood -- so that Adam and Eve could cover themselves with their skins (Gen 3:21). Herein we have the very first record in all recorded history of a practice that evolved through virtually all religions that required the shedding of blood through the sacrifice of the innocent for the guilty. (And we know how perverted this practice became very early.) This was the first record in Genesis of the necessity for a substitutionary atonement. It's the first record of what constitutes a proper sin covering. And the record also implies that's it's impossible for the guilty to atone for their own sins.

Shortly after this, Eve gave birth -- first to Cain, then to Abel, according to Genesis 4. Abel, apparently, was a shepherd and Cain was a farmer. Two honorable occupations. Both, apparently, were productive workers. So far, so good. But these two brothers approached the sin issue very differently -- from different spiritual perspectives. Abel offered up acceptable sacrifices to God, following God's example that he had set with his parents. But Cain opted out of that prescribed program, wanting nothing to do with it. He, instead, offered up the fruits of his own labor -- the fruits HE farmed. The fruit HE cultivated.

God was pleased with Abel's sacrifices; but with Cain's, we are told, he had no regard. This angered Cain. God tried to talk sense into him and told him that if he did well (followed God's prescribed sacrificial system), that God would not only accept the sacrificial offering but he'd accept him, as well. Apparently, this conservation and rejection by God enraged Cain even more and it eventually incited him to murder his brother Abel -- the first recorded "war" in human history.

We could take away many valuable spiritual lessons away from account, but what should not be lost amongst all these lessons is that true religion became perverted immediately after the Fall. In fact, what we see in this account is the very early beginnings-- the initial fulfillment of the prophetic curse God placed upon the Serpent in Gen 3:15. Abel was of the godly line -- "the seed of the woman"; whereas Cain was of Satan's spiritual seed -- "the seed of the serpent". And we can see throughout all scripture the development of these two seeds -- seeds which would be at war with one another until the end of the age; for God told the Serpent that HE would put enmity between the two seeds. Cain and Abel was but the first Act in this long human drama, relative to the fulfillment of God's prophetic curse and promise regarding these two spiritual seeds.

After Cain murdered his brother, God pronounced a curse upon him. Cain is also the first recorded human to be given over to his reprobate ways -- to his reprobate mind. There is no reason to believe that Cain ever became a child of God or that he ever was able to find favor with God. Quite the contrary. Cain produced more of the Serpent's spiritual seed and even bore "the mark of the beast" upon his head, as part of the curse! The roots of evil spread quickly throughout the earth.

So, yes, there are numerous "similarities" amongst the major religions. But the Cause to all these perversions was a willful departure from the practice of True Religion, which occurred primary through the communication vehicle of oral tradition. Is the doctrine of the "resurrection" taught in some form in some other religions? Perhaps. But it's origins is in the OT, and any version taught in some other religion, it is a perversion. Even Abraham, David and Daniel (to name a few in the OT) believed in the resurrection. Tell me, for example, which religion claims that its leading figure is still alive because he or she rose from the dead. Or tell me which religion has recorded eyewitness accounts to this resurrection in its "sacred texts".

Ditto for the doctrine of the Trinity which also has its origins in the OT. Everything has its origins in the OT. The NT functions to more fully reveal (shed more light) on the Old. To try to draw a parallel between the Trinity in a monotheistic religion to the 3 gods in Hinduism is absurd. Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva were three distinct gods -- not three persons in one Godhead. Hinduism is a polytheistic religion. Judaism and Christianity are monotheistic. Neither the orthodoxy of Judaism or Christianity ever teach that the Father Son and Holy Spirit are three Gods. As Jesus himself said, "I and my Father am one" (Jn 10:30). And when Jesus commissioned his disciples to preach the gospel throughout the word, he didn't say to do so in the nameS of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. He said in the NAME -- singular; for there is only one God (Mat 28:19)

And also as discussed previously, the spread of the gospel throughout Asia Minor and the rest of the word resulted in more versions of the truth and, therefore, more perversions of it. What the lost in this dark, fallen world have done is dilute and pollute The Truth. This is why we have these "similarities". And these perversions began immediately after the Fall.

Boxcar

hcap

04-02-2011, 04:10 PM

- so that Adam and Eve could cover themselves with their skins (Gen 3:21). Herein we have the very first record in all recorded history of a practice that evolved through virtually all religions that required the shedding of blood through the sacrifice of the innocent for the guilty.

I don't think so.

I know what you believe, but it is not supportable by archaeological record. There is quite a it of evidence that older civilizations' myths and religious themes pre-dated the NT story. You cannot use genesis as history. Where is the archaeological record for Cain and Able. Let alone Adam and Eve? A powerful myth and story yes, but lacking historical fact---unless of course you take it literally.

Other than broad themes the OT it contains no details of the story of Jesus. (or the Trinity) The earlier Egyptian myth of Horus is much more specific on details. And the Egyptian civilization pre-dates the NT by at least 1000 years. Btw, Hinduism is not pagan and the 3 main divinities are thought of representing one and the same truth.

The broad themes however although not specific do share some major allegorical truths. But it is not only shared between the OT and NT, is shared among many religions

....So, yes, there are numerous "similarities" amongst the major religions. But the Cause to all these perversions was a willful departure from the practice of True ReligionPerversions ?

boxcar

04-02-2011, 05:16 PM

I don't think so.

I know what you believe, but it is not supportable by archaeological record. There is quite a it of evidence that older civilizations' myths and religious themes pre-dated the NT story. You cannot use genesis as history. Where is the archaeological record for Cain and Able. Let alone Adam and Eve? A powerful myth and story yes, but lacking historical fact---unless of course you take it literally.

You're muddying up the waters. You're talking NT, whereas I appealed to the authority of the OT to demonstrate that corruption and perversion seeped into the religion of the very first generation of Adam!

Of course, I take the Genesis account of Creation and the Fall literally -- just as Jesus and the Apostles did. So, yes, it is history --God- inspired history to boot! For all scripture is God-breathed (2Tim 3:16).

Heck, scholars date the oldest book in the NT (Job) as being written around 2000 BC). And even as old as this book is, Job believed in the Resurrection (Job 14:14; 19:26,27)) and in the need for a personal Redeemer and that his Redeemer lived and that his Redeemer would one day stand upon the earth (Job 19:25). And this was fulfilled by Christ!

And I'll tell you what is even more amazing by Job, just as a highly interesting aside: This is the only OT book written by a Gentile! Yet, it is included in the Jewish scriptures. Orthodox Jews consider Job to be part of the sacred text! It's in the OT canon. Tell me that's not a miracle! If God's hand was not in the formulation of the canon of scripture, then how in the world would the Jews have included a book written by a non-Jew -- written by a person who was not in a covenant relationship with God -- specifically the Abrahamic or Mosaic Covenant? Orthodox Judaism, even to this day, revolves around its supposed covenant relationship with YAWEH. Don't Zionists believe that God is fulfilling the Abrahamic Land Promises to them today?

Again, all doctrines find their source in the OT. Everything originates in the Old, is predicted in the Old and is more fully revealed and fulfilled in the New.

Other than broad themes the OT it contains no details of the story of Jesus. (or the Trinity) The earlier Egyptian myth of Horus is much more specific on details. And the Egyptian civilization pre-dates the NT by at least 1000 years. Btw, Hinduism is not pagan and the 3 main divinities are thought of representing one and the same truth.

And as for Horus, would one of your beloved details he was worshiped in the image of a falcon? :rolleyes: But even the "immaculate conception" of Horus was in all probability borrowed from Gen 3:15 because it's never Adam's seed that is view in God's curse to the Serpent. It's the WOMAN's seed! And one particular seed to boot! But again, I'm not going to involve myself into a dissertation on the Protoevangelium in this text -- which is the first messianic prophecy in seed form. As progressive revelation unfolds, we find that the Messianic prophecy started with Eve (the Mother of All the Living), then the through Noah's godly line, then through Abraham, then through the covenant nation of Israel, then through the tribe of Judah, then through the house of David. And you say, there are no Messianic details? :bang: :bang:

And, btw, the Egyptians, too, were thoroughly polytheistic.

Boxcar

OTM Al

04-02-2011, 10:27 PM

boxcar

04-03-2011, 12:42 AM

Sorry, said I was getting out, but this last post is full of misinformation.

This said I'm sure I just wasted the last ten minutes of my life.

You should have quit while you were ahead. You did flush those ten minutes down the commode. Sorry to say, there won't be any way for you to "redeem" them -- ever. :)

Boxcar

PaceAdvantage

04-03-2011, 04:01 AM

You should have quit while you were ahead. You did flush those ten minutes down the commode. Sorry to say, there won't be any way for you to "redeem" them -- ever. :)

BoxcarI don't blame Al for feeling the way he does. He gave a thorough and thoughtful reply only to be met with smug nothingness. What a shame...

boxcar

04-03-2011, 02:46 PM

I don't blame Al for feeling the way he does. He gave a thorough and thoughtful reply only to be met with smug nothingness. What a shame...

So, you don't blame Al for the way he feels? Would that have been before or after my "smug nothingness"?

And why is it a "shame"? Shame on me because I don't respond to all the ill-conceived posts on this forum, despite what you may personally think to the contrary about those posts? Or is it a shame because Al is such an honest, open-minded skeptic who I'm depriving of my knowledge and insights of scripture? Would this be the same Al who said he was bowing out of this thread probably due to my post 42, which he characterized as "going off the reservation". So, now because I believe the same thing about his last post with an equally dismissive (but justified attitude, I think) and basically agreed with him about what a waste of time it was for him to have written it, I'm "smug"? Really? You have forgotten that Big Al and I have gone around in the past over the scriptures. I'm fully aware of his affinity for "higher criticism" of the bible as he is of my evangelical orthodoxy.

Besides all this, if I spent all my time replying in full to all the nonsense on this forum, how would I have any time to enjoy my good java in peace? :D But...I'll tell ya what I'll do for YOU, PA, since you have chosen to become an "umpire", of sorts, between Al and me, I will respond to his post. And then you can judge for yourself who gave the truly "thorough and thoughtful reply." I will do this in two posts. One will deal with dating issues of the book -- in terms of the writing itself and the historical period of the narrative (two separate issues). And the other will deal with Al's objection to the term translated "redeemer" in 15 of the 16 translations that I have.

Al is very fortunate. Even poor Job longed to have an umpire (or "arbiter") intercede on his behalf before God:

Job 9:33-35
3 "There is no umpire between us,
Who may lay his hand upon us both.
34 "Let Him remove His rod from me,
And let not dread of Him terrify me.
35 "Then I would speak and not fear Him;
But I am not like that in myself.
NASB

Where were you when Job needed you? But be of good cheer: Now I have no dread of Big Al, thanks to you. :D :D

Boxcar

PaceAdvantage

04-03-2011, 06:29 PM

I guess if HORSEPICKER were still able to comment here, he'd tell me I'm picking on Boxcar because he's a conservative... :lol: ....ooops....that didn't go as planned, did it HORSEPICKER? :lol:

(for those that didn't follow the PACE QUESTION thread in the horse racing section http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=81395 you might not know what the hell I'm writing about here...sorry about that)

boxcar

04-03-2011, 09:10 PM

boxcar

04-03-2011, 09:46 PM

Sorry, said I was getting out, but this last post is full of misinformation.

The central section of Job is a poem. It dates around 600 BC there are pieces tacked on by different writers at the beginning and end in prose to male sense of what the poem was about. These parts were most likely added by 400 BC. It is true this is a very old story which has similarities to stories in Babylonian literature as well as Egyptian. There is no tradition on who wrote Job, so claiming a gentile wrote it is wholly incorrect.

I did possibly misspeak earlier when I referred to the dating of the writing of Job. I had the writing of it confused with the historical period of the narrative itself (again, two separate issues). So, yes, the book could be a post-exilic piece of literature. The unnamed author could have stumbled upon some ancient manuscripts or oral tradition which some Israelite in Babylon took to transform those ancient writings or oral traditions into the canonical Book of Job. But it's impossible to date with an degree of accuracy the writing of Job without knowing the author. So, Al is correct on this point.

Some suggest that Moses wrote Job. But poetry, essentially, is not be found in the Pentateuch. Nor is Wisdom Literature (which is what Job is) in Moses' literary repertoire. Plus there's significantly more Arabic in Job than in the Pentateuch. Also, significantly fewer uses of the Hebrew term "YAWEH". At best, one can only speculate when this was actually written.

But the one thing that appears to be certain is that Job lived in the Patriarchal Period, that is around 2000-1500 BC. The evidence for this is that he lived in the Land of UZ, which was probably near Edom in northern Arabia. And the family priesthood was commonly practiced before the Mosaic Covenant was instituted (1:5) Also, wealth was still determined by the number of livestock owned, as well as by the number of servants (1:3). Additionally, the Sabeans and Chaldeans were ancient, fierce tribal peoples (1:15:17). Plus Job lived to the ripe old age of 140 (42:16), which probably dates him pretty close to the post-Flood period when man was still living relatively long years. Abraham himself lived to the age of 175 (Gen 25:7-11).

Also, there's no mention at all of any Hebrew history in this book, which would be very odd if Job had been a part of the Abrahamic Covenant, especially since Abraham himself is noted for his great, unwavering faith in YAWEH. Yet, God told Satan that there was no man like Job in all the earth (1:8). This tells me Job lived either before or slightly after Abraham, and I favor the former, which I'll get into later.

And despite what even many conservative commentators say about the two large, unusual beasts mentioned in Job 40 (the "behemoth") and the "leviathan" (Job 41). Many consider the latter to be a hippo and the former an alligator. I disagree with these sloppy interpretations because of the descriptions of these beasts as being very fierce and very large. In addition, the "behemoth" is described as the "first of the works of God" (40:19). And when have mountains, wherein all the wild beasts play, provided food for hippos (40:20)? And it seems that this beast (whatever it was) had quite a roaming range from mountaints to marshes (40:21), which doesnt' characterize a hippo either. All this evidence suggests that Job may have lived so soon after the Flood, that the dinos still weren't extinct. Perhaps, not enough change in the earth's atmosphere had taken place yet in Job's day for these "monsters" to have become totally extinct. If they were still around in his day, this is how God could call them the "first of the works of God". Perhaps they were created very early on during the creation period. But whatever the explanation, it makes no sense for God to refer to extinct, unknown animals to make a point to Job about his awesome power and incomprehensible wisdom -- or for that matter to challenge Job to take on these beasts. It would only make sense if those animals were contempary with Job -- animals which Job knew about and to which he could practically draw a frame of reference.

And as far as the speculation of "alligators" go, give me a break. Men wrestle with these "fierce" beasts with bare hands. (I just don't know what some of my brethren are thinking.) :D

Some scholars have estimated that Abraham was born roughly 300 years after the Flood. It could be that Job was born prior to Abraham but after the death of Noah, which would explain why Job was not part of the Abrhamic Covenant. Other factors leave me to believe this, as well. Again, I refer to 1:8, which says

Job 1:8
And the Lord said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil?"
ESV

If there was no one like Job during his day, then all likelihood Abraham was either born after Job or certainly did not enter into a covenant relationship with YAWEH until after Job died. The reason I say this is because Abraham himself had a very close, personal, intimate relationship with God -- being called a "friend of God" (Jas 2:23), and Abraham is often referred to in the NT and praised for his great faith. In fact it's Abraham's faith that is often displayed as the model for Christian faith.

Further, it's not likely that Job would have been contemporary with Issac either. For Issac, too, was an heir to the covenant promises made to his father Abraham, and God specifically chose to make the younger Issac the heir over Ishmael. God sovereignly rejected Ishmael from being heir to the promises.

Nor is it likely that Job was contemporary with Jacob, who God later named "Israel'. Jacob was the patriarch who "wrestled with God and prevailed", and climbed "Jacob's ladder". Jacob, too, was chosen to be heir of the covenant promises over his older twin Esau, which can be read in some detail in Romans 9.

Therefore, God had a very close personal relationship with those with whom he has entered into a covenant relationship. And all these patriarchs were great men of faith and are even included in the great "Faith Hall of Fame" in Hebrews 11 (which is also another book in the bible written anonymously). All three of these patriarchs are mentioned in this chapter because they were all men of exceptional faith.

It is noteworthy, since I bring up Hebrews, that only three mentioned in this chapter who are non-Israelites. Two of them (Abel and Enoch) lived prior to the Flood. Noah, lived prior, during and after the Flood, but God entered into a covenant with Noah right after the Flood. The rest of the people mentioned were all Hebrews or they were Gentiles who were brought into covenant Israel, such as was the case with Rahab the Harlot.

Job's absence is conspicuous in this chapter; for he, too, was a great man of God. Yet, I think the reason for this absence could be attributed to the real possibility that he lived after the Flood and apart from any covenant relationship with God. He lived, as it were, in a covenant twilight zone -- born after Noah but before Abraham. His life fell in between the cracks of two great covenants -- not being a part of either one. The focus during the post-Flood period in Heb 11 is on the patriarchs and covenant Israel. Therefore, for all these reasons stated herein, I think Job probably lived -- again, either before Abraham or certainly died before God "cut" his covenant with Abraham.

Finally, Al himself has admitted that there is "no tradition of who wrote Job", yet though the whole world is in the dark as to who this anonymous author is, Al still glibly proclaimed that I'm "wholly incorrect" about the possibility of Gentile authorship. How does Al know I'm "wholly incorrect" if he himself can't tell us with certainty who the author is? :bang:

In my last installment, I will deal with Al's feeble objection to the translation of "redeemer" in chapter 19.

Boxcar

boxcar

04-04-2011, 04:59 PM

Finally, the interpretation of Job prophesying a messiah is also wrong. Job is calling on Yahweh to be his avenger to right the wrongs done to him, so despite how Handel uses this in his wonderful piece, it's not what the poem is saying. The very fact that you have capitalized "Redeemer" shows this mistake as Hebrew doesn't even employ capital letters. This is a well meaning attempt to make this poem say something it does not.

From the outset of the argument that will follow, it bears repeating that all doctrines find their origins in the OT, and that the OT often expressed those doctrines in shadows or symbols or types, all of which prefigured the NT and the OT's predicted Messiah. The NT, therefore, more fully reveals and fulfills the OT prophecies, as well as completes the Types of the OT with its Antitypes. One very quick example will serve to illustrate this, which I'll take from a text that adds more support to my current tag line:

Luke 4:16-20
16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up. And as was his custom, he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and he stood up to read. 17 And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written,

18 "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives
and recovering of sight to the blind,
to set at liberty those who are oppressed,
19 to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."

20 And he rolled up the scroll and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. 21 And he began to say to them, "Today, this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing."
ESV

Jesus was quoting from Isa 61:1-2a. I would be remiss if I didn't tell you why he stopped dead in the middle of a verse, instead of finishing it. It's because 2b and what follows have to do with his Second Coming. The next part of the verse talks about the "day of vengeance of our God". But Jesus said elsewhere that he didn't come into the world to judge it, but to save it, and that judgment was reserved for the last day (Jn 12:47-48). Therefore, Jesus had to stop precisely at the point he did in Isaiah's prophecy. This Isaiah passage will also be very pertinent to the immediate topic at hand, which is Redemption and the proper interpretation of Job 19:25-26. So, we'll revisit Isaiah later. But the point I wish to drive home immediately is that the bible is Christocentric. It's all about Him from cover to cover!

But now to the immediate topic at hand: Big Al has objected to my messianic interpretation of the text in Job. He thinks I spun that to fit in with my misguided messianic presuppositions. And his argument is two-fold: Capitalization and the proper rendering of the Hebrew ga'al, which Al says should have been translated "avenger" instead of "redeemer". The first argument I will dismiss in five simple sentences by starting out with, so what? If every or any version of the entire OT were translated in lower case letters, so what? Would that change the content or context thereof? People write posts on this forum all the time in all lower case letters. Does that change the content or context of their posts?

Now, on to a lot more substantial matters, which for starters are the various definitions of the above mentioned Hebrew term and a little item in hermeneutics called Word Usage.

OT:1351
OT:1350 <START HEBREW>la^G*
<END HEBREW> ga'al (gaw-al'); a primitive root, to redeem (according to the Oriental law of kinship), i.e. to be the next of kin (and as such to buy back a relative's property, marry his widow, etc.):

KJV - in any wise, at all, avenger, deliver, (do, perform the part of near, next) kinsfolk (-man), purchase, ransom, redeem (-er), revenger.

OT:1351 <START HEBREW>la^G*
<END HEBREW> ga'al (gaw-al'); a primitive root, [rather identified with OT:1350, through the idea of freeing, i.e. repudiating]; to soil or (figuratively) desecrate:

(New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 International Bible Translators, Inc.)

Please notice the various ideas associated with redemption because these ideas carry right over to the NT, as we'll eventually see. Therefore, it's important to grasp the main ones. You have these concepts of blood relatives ("near kinsman"), the idea of the ancient Oriental law of "kinship" with respect to one's obligation to buy back or purchase something belonging to a relative (such as land) or even to marry a close deceased relative's, wife, etc.. It also contains the concept of "ransom" and "deliverance" and "freeing". These are the central ideas bound up in "redeemer" or "redemption".

But as Al has correctly pointed out, the term can also mean "avenger" or even "revenger". So, now how can we tell? How can we know which is the proper meaning? Did 15 of 16 of my bible translations have it wrong, when all those various scholars on those various committees translated the Hebrew "redeemer"? Well, this really isn't a difficult matter at all to solve. Even in the English language we frequently encounter words that are spelled the same and are identical in parts of speech, yet have multiple meanings. (Several come to mind immediately: matter, arms, party, table, bow, etc.) How do we know what a writer or speaker means when he employs these kinds of terms? Well, we pay attention to how they are used in a sentence. We pay attention to context. So, to be fair to Al, let us do that with his proposed translation of "avenger". Let us briefly study to see how this term is used in the OT.

How "avenger" became part of the definition of ga'al is that it is connected to the idea of "kinship". Under the Mosaic Covenant, it was the duty of the "next of kin" to avenge a murder under certain circumstances. It was the "avenger's" right and even duty to slay the manslaughterer of a relative if he was found outside the "city of refuge" to which he was sent to serve out his term. If the criminal left the city of refuge, the "next of kin" was obligated to hunt him down and kill him. In such cases, this "next of kin" would frequently be referred to as the "avenger of blood" (2Sam 14:7ff.). Moses designated six such "cities of refuge" (Ex 21:13, Num 35:13; Deut 19:1,9) so that those convicted of manslaughterers would have their freedom restricted to that place, but also those cities would serve as "safe havens" against those unlawfully seeking vengeance; for the avenger was prohibited from entering the city. However...if someone committed premeditative murder and fled to a "city of refuge", thinking to escape capital punishment, the case would be studied and judged, and if the person was found guilty by the officials, he'd be delivered up to the "next of kin" -- to the "avenger of blood" to be executed. Those convicted of manslaughter were required to stay in their city of refuge until the death of the High Priest (Num 35:25), so this meant they could be there a short while or even for life! With this background information, let us look to see how a few passages read that have been translated "avenger" in the OT.

Num 35:12
12 The cities shall be for you a refuge from the avenger, that the manslayer may not die until he stands before the congregation for judgment.
ESV

Num 35:18-19
The murderer shall be put to death. 19 The avenger of blood shall himself put the murderer to death; when he meets him, he shall put him to death.
ESV

Num 35:20-21
20 And if he pushed him out of hatred or hurled something at him, lying in wait, so that he died, 21 or in enmity struck him down with his hand, so that he died, then he who struck the blow shall be put to death. He is a murderer. The avenger of blood shall put the murderer to death when he meets him.
ESV

Josh 20:5-6
5 And if the avenger of blood pursues him, they shall not give up the manslayer into his hand, because he struck his neighbor unknowingly, and did not hate him in the past.
ESV

Ps 44:15-16
15 All day long my disgrace is before me,
and shame has covered my face
16 at the sound of the taunter and reviler,
at the sight of the enemy and the avenger.
ESV

Additionally, look how this idea of "avenging" for murder carries right over to the NT in Revelations, which is steeped in OT language and imagery.

Rev 6:10-11
10 They cried out with a loud voice, "O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before you will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?" 11 Then they were each given a white robe and told to rest a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brothers should be complete, who were to be killed as they themselves had been.
ESV

Now, let us look at some passages in which the Hebrew term is translated "redeemer". We'll see a very different usage -- very different contexts:

Prov 23:11
1 for their Redeemer is strong;
he will plead their cause against you.
ESV

The idea in the above text is that the "redeemer" will be their "defender".

Ruth 4:1-3
Now Boaz had gone up to the gate and sat down there. And behold, the redeemer, of whom Boaz had spoken, came by. So Boaz said, "Turn aside, friend; sit down here." And he turned aside and sat down. 2 And he took ten men of the elders of the city and said, "Sit down here." So they sat down. 3 Then he said to the redeemer...
ESV

Ps 19:14
14 Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart
be acceptable in your sight,
O Lord, my rock and my redeemer.
ESV

Ps 78:35
5 They remembered that God was their rock,
the Most High God their redeemer.
ESV

Isa 41:14
4 Fear not, you worm Jacob,
you men of Israel!
I am the one who helps you, declares the Lord;
your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel.
ESV

Isa 54:5
5 For your Maker is your husband,
the Lord of hosts is his name;
and the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer,
the God of the whole earth he is called.
ESV

Isa 60:16
16 You shall suck the milk of nations;
you shall nurse at the breast of kings;
and you shall know that I, the Lord, am your Savior
and your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob.
ESV

As we can all see these latter passages differ significantly from those texts which preceded them. In these latter passages, there's no idea of "avenging for blood", as was case with first group of passages. Nor is the "avenger" in the first group of passages ever YAHWEH. But in the NT when He is called upon to "avenge", it's in the context of martyred (murdered) saints calling out to their Lord (Christ) to avenge their blood!

And the decisive nail that could be driven into Al's interpretation is that "avenger" only appears in the OT under the Mosaic Economy -- the Mosaic Law -- the Mosaic Covenant.. Yet, Job was not a part of that Economy. Nor do we have any other evidence between the post-Fall and pre-Mosaic Covenant, that anyone during this period ever looked upon God as an "avenger". However, there is plenty of post-Fall evidence to support the blood sacrificial system, the idea of atonement -- the idea of the innocent substituting its life for the guilty -- the idea of someone mediating on behalf of the guilty, etc. All these ideas are very closely related to Redemption, as we will see in my next post. But before I get too far ahead of myself, let's look at that passage in Job to see how it reads, and ask: Does the usage of the term ga'al justify the translation "redeemer" or "avenger" better in the context in which it is found?

Job 19:25-27
25 For I know that my Redeemer lives,
and at the last he will stand upon the earth.
26 And after my skin has been thus destroyed,
yet in my flesh I shall see God,
27 whom I shall see for myself,
and my eyes shall behold, and not another.
My heart faints within me!
ESV

Does it appear to anyone here that Job is calling out to God to "avenge" anyone? Does this passage fit in better with the first group of "avenger" texts or with the latter group of "redeemer" passages? This is clearly a prophetic passage in which Job is anticipating a day in the future when three things will happen: The Lord will stand upon the earth "at the last" (last day, at the end). Job will see Him precisely because he will be one of the redeemed, which is why he refers to him as his "Redeemer". And Job will have a new body after he dies -- a body that will resurrected on the last day. Without doubt, Job is looking forward in time -- to a much brighter future.

I believe I could end this argument right here and confidentially walk away, knowing I have done justice to God's holy word, regardless of what anyone else may think. However, there still would be two "loose ends" to tie. The obvious one is the identity of this "redeemer". And then we'd want to find out if the OT concept of "redemption" or "redeemer" is consistent with what the NT teaches about "redemption". Lord willin' and the crik doesn't rise, I'll take up these last two issues in my next post. Besides this, I'd never want anyone here to accuse of me of not being "thorough or thoughtful". :)

Boxcar

lsbets

04-04-2011, 07:47 PM

But the one thing that appears to be certain is that Job lived in the Patriarchal Period, that is around 2000-1500 BC.

All this evidence suggests that Job may have lived so soon after the Flood, that the dinos still weren't extinct.

Had to put those two together. Dinosaurs alive in 2000 BC. :lol: :lol: :lol:

I don't normally laugh at people for their beliefs, but when one is as smug and condescending as Boxcar and then make an idiotic assertion that completely defies reason and the ability to think, it either calls for laughter or tears. Holy crap. Boxcars bible was like the movie previews for Land of the Lost.

OTM Al

04-04-2011, 09:14 PM

boxcar

04-05-2011, 01:01 AM

boxcar

04-05-2011, 01:06 AM

Had to put those two together. Dinosaurs alive in 2000 BC. :lol: :lol: :lol:

I don't normally laugh at people for their beliefs, but when one is as smug and condescending as Boxcar and then make an idiotic assertion that completely defies reason and the ability to think, it either calls for laughter or tears. Holy crap. Boxcars bible was like the movie previews for Land of the Lost.

Well, my speculation still beats the crocks and hippos theories. Whatever those beasts were, it doesn't sound like they're around today, unless the bible's description of them sounds like something you're keeping chained up in your own backyard or swimming in your fish tank, that is. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Boxcar

boxcar

04-05-2011, 01:23 AM

Even before the birth of Jesus, the prophetess Anna, who was always in the Temple day an night in Jerusalem, "gave thanks to God and spoke of Him to all who were awaiting the redemption of Jerusalem" (Lk 2:38). And the "him" to which the text is referring is the same person who the righteous and devout Simeon, just a little earlier, held the infant Jesus in his arms and praised God for honoring his promise, allowing this old man to see the salvation of God before before his death (2:30). So, was this infant the promised Redeemer? Was this Job's Redeemer who he knew lived and who he'd see one day here on earth?

Again, and by way of a third reminder, all the bible is all about Jesus -- if we are to believe this Jesus. After Christ resurrected, a few disciples were traveling along the road to Emmaus and encountered Jesus, unbeknownst to them at first. The hearts of these disciples were deeply troubled and saddened, and they were disheartened because their Master had been crucified. When they told Jesus this he gently rebuked them, telling them that they were foolish and slow of heart to believe all that the Prophets had spoken (Lk 24:25). And then the text goes on to say:

Luke 24:27
And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.
ESV

I would have given my right arm, leg and eye to have been at that bible study! Imagine: The Logos -- the living Word who was with God and was God (Jn 1:1) giving a commentary on his own scriptures! Later on in this narrative, after Jesus had removed the scales from the eyes of these disciples, it is said that their hearts were burning within them (2:32).

Keeping in mind the major elements to the concept of redemption, which are kinship, price, purchase, ransom, liberation and deliverance, let's look at some of these aspects in the OT and see how they carry over to the New.

1. Hebrew words "padah" (to ransom), pidyon (ransom)
The Lord "redeemed" Israel from the "house of slavery" in Egypt (Deut 7:8).
By the Lord's power he "redeemed" his people from their adversary...in Egypt (Ps 78:42).

2. Hebrew words "kopher" (ransom) and "kippur" (to make atonement).
"...burnt offering accepted to make atonement" (Lev 1:4)
"make atonement for the house of Israel for all their sins once a year" (Lev 16:6-34)
"to make and end to sin...to make atonement...Messiah the Prince" (Dan 9:24)

3. Heberew words "ga'al (to ransom, redeem), "guella" (redemption), "goel" (redeemer)
"the man is our relative, one of our redeemers" (Ruth 2:20)
"the Lord who has not left you without a redeemer" (Ruth 4:14)
"you will be redeemed without money" (Isa 52:3)
"a Redeemer will come to Zion" (Isa 59:20)

Moving forward to the NT, we can see how all the aspects of redemption are carried throughout the entire bible. Not surprising at all, since the "scarlet thread of redemption" started way back in Gen 3:15ff and runs right through the Book of Revelation.

The idea that God's people are bought with a price can be found 1Cor 6:20; 7:23; 2Pet 2:1.

By the blood of Jesus, God's people were purchased for God (Rev 5:9)

Christ redeemed his people from the curse of the law (Gal 3:13), and who were under the Law(Gal 4:5).

Christ gave his life as a ransom for many (Mat 20:28; Mk 10:45).

Christ redeemed his people from every lawless deed (Tit 2:14)

Through Christ's shed blood, his people obtained eternal redemption (Heb 9:12; 1Pet 1:18,19)

Redemption is only in Christ Jesus and through his shed blood (Rom 3:24; Eph 17)

With respect to the "kinship" aspect to the OT idea of redemption, believers are "kin" to Christ -- spiritually. Believers are related to the Father as "sons" (Rom 8:23; Heb 2:10; 12:7). Jesus called all those who do his will his mother, brothers and sisters (Mat 12:48-50). Jesus is also not ashamed to call those who the Father has given to him his "brothers" (Heb 2:10). Moreover, Jesus and all believers are spiritually related because they are "seed of the woman" (Gee 3:15). Therefore, Jesus is the "near kin" to all believers!

Jesus is the High Priest of all those of Faith (Heb 4:14).

He was designated as High Priest by God the Father (Heb 5:10)

But in addition to all this evidence, it's important to show the connection between Redemption and the Resurrection. If all power and authority have been given to the Son by the Father, so that Son is able to redeem a people for his Father, then does the Son also have the power to raise the dead? He raised Lazarus (Jn 11;1ff). He raised Jairus' daughter (Lk 8:49ff). And Jesus said of himself that he also had authority to lay down his life and take it up again (Jn 10:17,18). Jesus also claimed to be the Resurrection and the Life (Jn 11:25,26). It is, therefore, Jesus who is going to raise the dead on the last day (Jn 5:24-30; 6:40). These are important truths to be apprehended because they will strengthen my argument about Job looking for a future Redeemer and Resurrection.

As pointed out on another occasion, there are three tenses to a believer's salvation. The Future tense has to do with Glorification, and this aspect concerns itself with the Resurrection because it is at the resurrection when believers receive their Glorified Bodies -- bodies just like Christ has. Therefore, as one might expect, believers' bodies will also be redeemed[i] on the last day by their Redeemer! Please look at this passage:

Rom 8:18-25
[i]18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. 23 And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.
ESV

Paul clearly has in mind the curse God placed upon the whole creation after the Fall. And he says the entire creation is in bondage and also groans to be set free from that bondage, futility and decay. And when this is going to happen is when believers have their bodes redeemed, which will happen on the last day (or as is it says in Job "at the last". The creation, too, on that day will be set free because that's when God destroys the present order and creates the New Heavens and New Earth! Therefore, I submit to you, as the final nail in my argument, that Job was indeed looking for his Redeemer because Job was also looking forward to the time when his body would be Redeemed by that Redeemer! Job was most certainly not looking for an "avenger"! That was the last thing on his mind in the context of that passage, and in the larger context of the entire bible.

While in the Job passage itself, Job is looking to the last day ("at the last" -- to the day when he would be raised up, that is to say, at the Second Coming, nonetheless the prophetic portion that deals with his Redeemer taking his stand on the earth was initially filled by Christ at his First Advent. And it will be fulfilled again at the Second Coming.

Boxcar

OTM Al

04-05-2011, 09:03 AM

Your meanness is begining to show again. But the mistake you continue to make puts you in good company. As the Vulgate error was brought up, it already puts you in the company of Jerome.

What you are doing reminds me of a difficulty faced by the early church fathers and scholars through the Middle Ages. Works by authors such as Aristotle and P. Vergilius Maro (Virgil) were revered by these men. The conundrum though was that clearly these men were pagan, so how could they have written such great things without knowing God? Well, with Virgil, they thought they had a way out. One of the poems he had written early in his career spoke of a male child going to be born that would usher in a golden age for the earth. Aha! said those scholars. Virgil may have been pagan but still he was blessed by god with knowledge of the imminant birth of Jesus. Thus he did hold a special place with God.

The problem was that they only saw this result because they wanted to. The poem was actually to memorialize the impending birth of the first child of Marcus Antonius (yes that Mark Anthony) and his wife. Their child turned out to be a girl.

boxcar

04-05-2011, 09:14 AM

I can understand why you are making this mistake. The idea that this passage means that Job believes in resurrection goes back to the Vulgate translation again. However, it simply doesn't say this. The passage is couched entirely in terms of Hebrew legal language. Job is so faithful to God that he believes no matter what has been done to him, he will be vindicated by God. Jewish scholars recognize this and do not include this among the messianic prophesy. You are seeing what you want to see here, not what is.

Okay, Al, it's very early in the morning, and I haven't even made coffee yet; but I'm so confident in my interpretation, I will tackle a reply before having the first sip. (Translation, I will write this post in a fog, but even so my sight will be better than those vaunted "Jewish scholars" of yours.)

I find it ironic that you accuse me of bias -- of seeing only what I want to see -- when it was you who who originally said that "redeemer" in 19:25 should have been rendered "avenger", paying absolutely no attention to word usage details in your favored interpretation, as though such details have no place in hermeneutics. But this wasn't enough; for you climbed even farther out on the limb by trying to argue that because "Redeemer"should not have been capitalized, since there are no capitals used in the Hebrew language, this somehow proved that "redeemer" was the wrong English translation. Now, after I more than adequately dealt with these two feeble arguments (nothing personal, so please don't take it that way), you come back with a new word that should replace both "redeemer" and "avenger" --this being your implied "vindicator". With all due respect, now you have cut off the branch from under you!

This new idea of yours is equally as weak because it doesn't fit the larger context of the book. God had already "vindicated" Job in this life -- after Job passed God's test for righteousness! Why would Job be looking for a far off, distant, future vindication after God blessed him more at the last than at the first (42:10ff)!? And after God praised Job to Eliphaz, while expressing his displeasure to him and his two friends? Or after Job retracted his earlier sentiments and repented of them? Let's read this account:

Job 42:1-10
1 Then Job answered the Lord and said:

2 "I know that you can do all things,
and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted.
3 'Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?'
Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand,
things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.
4 'Hear, and I will speak;
I will question you, and you make it known to me.'
5 I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear,
but now my eye sees you;
6 therefore I despise myself,
and repent in dust and ashes."

7 After the Lord had spoken these words to Job, the Lord said to Eliphaz the Temanite: "My anger burns against you and against your two friends, for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has. 8 Now therefore take seven bulls and seven rams and go to my servant Job and offer up a burnt offering for yourselves. And my servant Job shall pray for you, for I will accept his prayer not to deal with you according to your folly. For you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has." 9 So Eliphaz the Temanite and Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite went and did what the Lord had told them, and the Lord accepted Job's prayer.
ESV

Job was just as much a righteous servant of God (if not more!) after his testing as he was before God brought Job to Satan's attention. Four times in this latter passage, God refers to Job as "my servant". Four times! (Which is four times more than when God spoke of Job to Satan!) And Job was so righteous in God's eyes that he designated Job to intercede, on behalf of his three friends, through his prayers. And God accepted his righteous servant's prayers! For it also written:

Prov 15:29
29 The Lord is far from the wicked,
but he hears the prayer of the righteous.
ESV

And,

James 5:16
16 Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working.
ESV

And again,

1 Peter 3:11-12
11 let him turn away from evil and do good;
let him seek peace and pursue it.
12 For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous,
and his ears are open to their prayer.
But the face of the Lord is against those who do evil."
ESV

So, Job was looking to be vindicated at some distant time in the future!? Vindicated from what? Why? It doesn't make sense, Al. Really, it doesn't.

And then you keep appealing to "Jewish scholars" who are dead in their trespasses and sins and have no spiritual enlightenment to understand their own sacred texts? Yet, you ignore the fact that the vast majority of Hebrew language scholars have rendered ga'al as "redeemer". And you accuse me of bias? Were all the scholary translators of those bible versions as biased as you make me out to be? Methinks we have a case here of the Pot calling the Kettle black because what is revelaed in the passage does not fit into your presuppositional luggage. It doesn't fit in with your preconceived notions of what scripture is teaching -- of what you want scripture to say.

Now, in addition to your balking at the term "redeemer", you object to the clear teaching of the resurrection in 19:25? But why? Even Abraham believed in the resurrection, and Job wasn't that far removed from the patriarch.

Heb 11:17-19
17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son, 18 of whom it was said, "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named." 19 He considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead, from which, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back.
ESV

Finally, you object to my interpretation because those "Jewish scholars" of yours don't see a messianic prophecy in 19:25, 26? What else is new? (I would to God they understood Gen 3:15, for it they did all the scales would fall from their eyes.) Even orthodox Jews have minimal understanding of messianic prophecy, so your revelation is not stunning. Besides, how do you think the Messiah was able to silence his "scholarly" detractors each and every time? If we were to liken their true knowledge to water, their drop wouldn't be enough to keep alive a sparrow, dying of thirst. For it is also written:

John 4:10
10 Jesus answered her, "If you KNEW the gift of God, and WHO it is that is saying to you, 'Give me a drink,' you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water."
ESV

Boxcar

boxcar

04-05-2011, 09:52 AM

Your meanness is begining to show again.

Why am I mean? Because I allude to many scriptures that teach that those who are separated from God spiritually (dead) cannot understand spiritual truth? I even alluded to the gospels where those "scholarly" Pharisees and Sadducees couldn't agree on the resurrection. Yet, those who did believe must have felt they had a reason or two or three.

But the mistake you continue to make puts you in good company. As the Vulgate error was brought up, it already puts you in the company of Jerome.

Personally, I don't care what Jerome believed. He has never contributed one iota to my understanding of scripture. I have enough bible translations and enough study tools, when needed, to get me through. (However, I'm very happy Jerome saw things my way. :D ) But even more than all this, believers have the promised Holy Spirit who Jesus said will lead them into all truth. (So, I'll let you hash out where you think that leaves unbelievers.) And more yet...I do appeal to the best bible "scholars" when learning how to interpret scripture. They are Jesus and his Apostles. Couldn't possibly ask for better! And if you think that's mean-spirited, so be it. Feel free to shoot the messenger whenever you don't like the biblical message.

But, Al, do me a favor: Quit appealing to these scholars and learn to do your own homework. Be your own man! Quit using them as an expedient crutch, and don't think for a moment that I'm impressed. Dig into the scriptures for yourself, and then come back and tell me what YOU have found. I very, very rarely appeal to any scholars or creeds or confessions or any extra-biblical works when sharing or discussing scripture with anyone -- either online or offline. The greatest paradox about scripture is that it's exceedingly profound because it reveals the mind of the Living God, so it's at once challenging to try to understand his revelation, but it is also simple enough for the most simple among us to understand. How a person approaches scripture will make all the difference. God will reveal himself to the humble and contrite; but he will hide himself from the proud and arrogant.

Boxcar

OTM Al

04-05-2011, 10:34 AM

Why do you feel that these two activities are mutually exclusive? The books of the Bible contain wonderful things. They also contain difficult things that become much clearer when understanding the culture and the times of the people who wrote them. And they also contain things that we can debate ad infinitum and no one can claim to be absolutely sure what they mean. To think you can take these books and study them in isolation of the culture of the people who wrote them and think that you have it all figured out is no different than the group of blind men trying to describe an elephant. You'll get a part of it right but the rest will be biased on your impression of that part. And many times in our history we have seen how doing just that has resulted in terrible outcomes.

I feel that any time I challenge you on your statements, you act as if I challenge your faith. It's not my intent, but perhaps you don't see the distinction. This is why I feel it is all but pointless to discuss these things with you.

TJDave

04-05-2011, 01:55 PM

Now, after I more than adequately dealt with these two feeble arguments (nothing personal, so please don't take it that way), you come back with a new word that should replace both "redeemer" and "avenger" --this being your implied "vindicator". With all due respect, now you have cut off the branch from under you!

It IS personal and you have ZERO respect.

I consider Jewish texts as the ultimate expression of God's wisdom and venerate the sages (Jewish) who interpret them. Your dismissive comments are insulting and when spoken in earlier times resulted in persecution and murder of Jews.

Thankfully, we can no longer be bullied. You and your ilk have been marginalized.

hcap

04-05-2011, 02:28 PM

It IS personal and you have ZERO respect.

I consider Jewish texts as the ultimate expression of God's wisdom and venerate the sages (Jewish) who interpret them. Your dismissive comments are insulting and when spoken in earlier times resulted in persecution and murder of Jews.

Thankfully, we can no longer be bullied. You and your ilk have been marginalized.
Although I have discussed the record of Jewish persecution by Christians with box, and have pointed out that all mainstream Christians have denounced any sort of justification, box still believes Jews are to blame in the death of Christ.

In fact if you are too argumentative and disagree with his narrow biblical theories too much, doesn't take much to be labeled godless or the anti-Christ.

Don't even bring up carbon dating or other well established means of correlation with the historical or archaeological record.

lsbets

04-05-2011, 02:45 PM

Although I have discussed the record of Jewish persecution by Christians with box, and have pointed out that all mainstream Christians have denounced any sort of justification, box still believes Jews are to blame in the death of Christ.

In fact if you are too argumentative and disagree with his narrow biblical theories too much, doesn't take much to be labeled godless or the anti-Christ.

Don't even bring up carbon dating or other well established means of correlation with the historical or archaeological record.

Don't forget - if you do not believe in his jealous, spiteful, and insecure god, he says that you "hate God".

hcap

04-05-2011, 03:05 PM

I actually found the old thread where he argues early Jewish leaders responsibility for the death of Christ, and sort of deserved what they received at the hands of enthusiastic persecuting Christians.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=56967&page=14&pp=15&highlight=mather

And I am in no way responsible for the death of Jesus.

Correct. But your forefathers are.

OTM Al

04-05-2011, 03:24 PM

Don't forget - if you do not believe in his jealous, spiteful, and insecure god, he says that you "hate God".

Well, I thought I would keep things a little more calm by not mentioning that that "original" Babylonian story of Job that he kept brining up actually ends with the phrase "all praise to Marduk" but I guess I shouldn't have worried so much....

hcap

04-05-2011, 03:42 PM

OTM Al

04-05-2011, 04:02 PM

I pointed out extreme similarities between the earlier Egyptian story and myth of Horus and life of Christ. Box maintained that the OT contained "shadows" of the NT and somehow had influenced and even ORIGINATED that myth. Co-mingling of cultures and sharing of stories is not allowed.

I don't think I would say the "life" of Christ per se but rather the accounts of birth and death. The thing to understand about this is that to be divine in the ancient world required certain origin stories as well as death stories. The divine were set aside from mortals in the ancient world by certain miraculous events ascribed to their origins. Virgin birth is a very popular one. It's kind of an idiomatic way of saying that the individual has connections to the divine and is more than mortal. Such stories about Jesus would have been naturally adopted by the parts of his followers that believed he was divine and since that was the side that ultimately won out, these are the origin stories that were handed down to us. It was just the rules on such things. If he was divine, then there had to be such an indication of divinity.

I put that in opposition to the life of Christ which are the approximately three years we have documented by the Gospels (and other extant non NT sources)up to his crucifixion. That part was different.

hcap

04-05-2011, 06:51 PM

Many stories of the divine from many different peoples share what Jung and Joseph Campbell would call archetypes. Characters and the narratives of great religious traditions tend to have similar archetypes. I think that the idea of a savior and salvation is one of the most common. Are they exact, no but as I said earlier in this thread, the similarities are more interesting than the differences. The narrative of Horus is amazingly similar to that of the of Jesus as portrayed in the NT.

I do not believe we have accurate historical/archeological accounts of the origins any of old worlds great religions or their prophets. As of now that would include the account of the life of Jesus. However when new discoveries shed light on events surrounding the beginnings of a religion it brings the cultural and historical perspective forward. And perhaps this recent discovery will add to our understanding

But what we do have are teaching stories passed down that resonate within our psyche and draw us into those narratives. The long life of religions attest to their power. To me the most important thing are the symbols or allegories that have had sway over men for thousands of years.

As well as Horus and 1/2 dozen other stories from diverse cultures of a savior, the OT does share older symbol or a "good shepherd". So although I disagree with boxcar diatribes, there are major similarities between OT story of Noah and the flood and Moses leading the exodus. All very similar to that of Jesus. All share the concept of preserving the good and removing or the cleansing of the "chaff"

The heroic adventure or journey is sometimes also part of this particular narrative. And the quest itself appears in many different variations throughout history. From the Bhagavad Gītā to the legend of Arthur back to the Homers' Odyssey.

The resonating narratives are either built into the our psychology by years of social evolution or endowed within by a Creator-take your pick- So in addition to undeniable intermingling of peoples and cultures, the archetype may be a given shared resource. There is no doubt in my mind universal truths shared by all humans, i.e. compassion and empathy are great teachings whether taught to us by Moses, Jesus or God, or 100,000 years working and evolving in groups.

boxcar

04-05-2011, 07:12 PM

Why do you feel that these two activities are mutually exclusive?

And why do you almost always appeal to the one activity and not the other? One of us is an extremist, and I know it ain't me. :D I strongly suspect that you may know more about the bible than I do. However, I'm pretty confident that I know a lot more of the bible -- that is to say its actual contents -- what the core message of the book is.

Don't get me wrong: I don't have any aversion, per se, to extra-biblical works. In fact, a very large part of my digital library consists of reference works that are for the most part "unbiased" (although there's no such thing as pure neutrality, even in translations). Such works are very useful for study purposes and include such items as concordances, topical bibles, bible dictionaries, bible encyclopedias, handbooks, various word study aids, lexicons, interlinear bibles, etc.. But other works, while informative and educational, such as church history, OT history, NT history, bible commentaries, etc., I don't spend nearly as much time in because there are only so many hours in a day.

I have biblical reasons to support my approach to scripture. The bible is self-interpretative. An honest student of the word will never go far wrong by following the biblical template for sound interpretation laid down by Christ and his Apostles. There are literally hundreds of examples in the NT of either OT quotes or to where the writer alludes to an OT passage. (And while there may be more, I do know of at least one instance whereby Paul quotes in part some words in Luke's gospel, which would make for a pretty strong case for an early dating of that gospel, as an example.) But I digress...my point being that a student can glean a storehouse of valuable lessons in hermeneutics by studying how Christ and the Apostles commented on those passages, how they used them in the NT and how they interpreted those texts -- all in the context of New Covenant Theology. After all, a student of the word is only interested in answering two primary questions: What is the text saying and what does it mean? And after these two questions are answered, the third most important question to a Christian is: How do I apply it to my life? And as I stated earlier, one need not a Piled High & Dry to understand scripture.

The second way the bible is self-interpretative is that illumination or enlightenment of the word is a supernatural act. Man is so depraved, so sinful, so very [spiritually] dead that not only did God have to effectually call his people into his kingdom so that they could be saved through the new birth, which is solely accomplished through the operations of the Third Person of the Godhead (Jn 3:5-8), but those operations are continued in the soul of the born again saint for the Spirit's' Ministries of Sanctification and Illumination throughout the life of the believer. Stated differently, the Holy Spirit is the believer's infallible "commentator", just as Christ was when he walked with those disciples on the road to Emmaus (cf. 1Cor 2:12-14, 1Jn 2:20,27-28; Ps 119:18).

Even Jesus taught that no man should call another "rabbi" (teacher) because only "One is your Teacher" (Mat 23:8). Surely as The promised Prophet, he was the Teacher Extraordinaire. And the primary duty of a prophet is to forthtell God's word, i.e. teach and instruct. People constantly called Christ "Rabbi". And the crowds often marveled at his words.l And it was this same Jesus who promised to his disciples to send the Holy Spirit after he ascended to his Father.

But don't misunderstand me: I'm not dismissing formal study, or training in a seminary, or even the necessity for faithful church attendance, etc. All I'm saying is that God's Word and the Spirit's ministry of illumination are absolutely critical for true understanding of spiritual truth, whereas other sources of knowledge in the quest for spiritual truth, less so.

This why true believers spend so much time in the Word. And as a believer matures, he devotes more and more time to reading and studying scripture, and less time reading extra-biblical works (especially the non-reference type).

Several weeks ago at my church, a missionary showed a video of a people (whose name escapes me now) who lived deep in the interior of Indonesia. Many within this old, tribal culture had come to know the Lord. But the only scriptures they had were in some other language, which meant their pastor had to translate those into their native tongue whenever he preached or taught. They did this for quite awhile until the Missionary organization finally arranged, through some bible organization, to have the NT translated into this people's native tongue.

It was a very moving and emotional video to watch, as these poor, humble, uneducated, unsophisticated people unloaded the bible's off the plane, opened the cases, prayed, danced and rejoiced in the Lord for having received such a great gift. The joyful expressions on their tear-lined faces elicited the same emotional response from many of us watching the video. We could all see the great love they had for the Lord and how thankful they were for receiving such a great gift. They had prayed for this for some time, and they were overcome with gratitude and joy to the Lord for answered prayer.

The point to this story, that took place at a remote village deep in some jungle across the other side of the globe, is that these people, all during this time they waited for God to answer their prayers, grew and matured in the Lord with just bibles in a different tongue that needed to be translated to them. That's all they had. They didn't have a library filled with books that explained history, cultures, traditions, etc, etc. Heck...they probably didn't even have any reference works! God's eternal word transcends these temporal things. They're helpful study tools, but not critically important to growing and maturing in the Faith which, ironically, can only come through increased understanding of the word.

When the Lord sent Philip to witness to the Ethiopian in Acts, this royal court official of Candace was reading a passage out of Isaiah, with which he was struggling to grasp. He couldn't understand who was being talked about in that messianic passage. Philip had to explain it to him and we are told that the Evangelist, "beginning with that scripture", shared the "good news" of Jesus with him (Act 8:35).

I have a few reasons for relating this account to you because it's relevant to much of what I have been saying all along, as well as to what I'm saying now. First, the unbeliever cannot understand scripture on his own. (See again 1Cor 2:12ff). This Ethiopian was one of God's elect. So, God sent Philip to preach the gospel. And God opened the mind and heart of this black man so that he could respond positively to the message.

Secondly, Philip preached right out of the OT -- the only scriptures available to the 1st Century church and widely available, for the most part. Philip didn't have a bunch of extra-biblical works at hand to explain all the historical and cultural nuances of the times. He went armed only with the Sword of the Spirit and Word (Eph 1:7; Heb 4:12).

And all this brings me full circle back to what I've been trying to convey to you over the last few posts: The bible is Christocentric. Jesus said it was. Jesus occupied the central place in the OT. He is the central figure in the OT. He said in so many words, It's all about ME!"; but he did it in a way that glorified the One Who Sent Him.

Philip preached the gospel out of the OT. Paul preached the gospel out of the OT. Peter, Barnabas, James, John, etc. all preached the gospel out of the OT. If Christ isn't in the OT, guess what? Christianity is the most evil, malicious, murderous, vile, deceptive religion on this planet because all the "well-intentioned" followers", of this non-OT character, who have deceived untold millions of people since the 1st century are also responsible for millions and millions of deaths of their deaths as martyrs -- martyrs who have died for NOTHING! And Christ himself would have been responsible due to all his own lies about himself, claiming to have been everywhere in the OT. And it would have been his lies that started this avalanche of Lies in motion. For countless multitudes over all these centuries would have have died for a Messiah that isn't in the bible! For even to this day, Christ is still preached out of the OT! If Christ isn't in the OT, even Islam would make Christianity look like a religion spawned in Hell by comparison! The Christian Faith would probably be responsible for more unnecessary deaths of its own deceived followers in the world than all other religions combined!

I feel that any time I challenge you on your statements, you act as if I challenge your faith. It's not my intent, but perhaps you don't see the distinction. This is why I feel it is all but pointless to discuss these things with you.

I hate to pop your balloon, Al -- really I do -- but you have never challenged me or my faith! All you have done is object to my views on passages. Your "arguments" for your views have been weak at best. I think it is you who are uncomfortable replying to me. You're an Uncomfortable Skeptic. You haven't even bothered to challenge my arguments. Every time, I have produced more evidence for my take on Job 19 or refute one of your lame arguments, you just ignore them. You ignore them because your presuppositions won't allow you in any way, shape or form to believe that Christ could be in the OT. Fulfilled prophecies!? May it never be! God forbid!

So...unless you can come up with another alternate translation for the Hebrew "ga'al", then I think we have just about horse-whipped this poor pony into the dirt. (And neither one of us wants to prove if the other has more patience than Job. :lol: :lol: ) I really don't see any compelling reason to say much more about this Job passage. Of course, we could branch out and talk about the Problem of a Good God and Evil in the World. Or about "Why Do Bad Things Happen to Good People?" :D :D (I'm kidding. I'm kidding. I really am.)

But in closing, try to take my earlier advice to heart. Try studying the scriptures on your own. Remove your bible from the bookcase, then put the case under lock and key and then hide the key until after you have read through the entire bible on your own.

Ciao,
Boxcar

boxcar

04-05-2011, 11:34 PM

As well as Horus and 1/2 dozen other stories from diverse cultures of a savior, the OT does share older symbol or a "good shepherd". So although I disagree with boxcar diatribes, there are major similarities between OT story of Noah and the flood and Moses leading the exodus. All very similar to that of Jesus. All share the concept of preserving the good and removing or the cleansing of the "chaff"

Oh, so you're still nursing your "similarities" hangover, are you? How boring. From the bible, it's pretty easy to figure out how all these "similarities" sprung up all over the planet. Here's another little hint from Genesis: Not only did things turn South very quickly after the Fall, but things really sped up after the Flood or even more specifically at the judgment that took place at the Tower of Babel. Just some food for thought...

But 'cappy, "diatribe" me this: How many of those ancient "savior cultures" had their gods or leading religious figures command their followers to evangelize all the nations on the earth? How many gave their disciples proselytizing marching orders and predicted and promised them that in return for their faithful obedience the world would, consequentially, reward them with its hated and inflict great suffering, tribulation and persecution on them?

Please see if you can mine any similarities for me.

Boxcar

hcap

04-06-2011, 08:49 AM

hcap

04-06-2011, 09:21 AM

Buddha lived from 563 to 483 B.C

Similarities in the Lives of Jesus & Buddha

1. Both went to their temples at the age of twelve, where they are said to have astonished all with their wisdom. Jesus 30? /Buddha 29

2. Both were tempted by the "devil" at the start of their ministry

1. Satan said to Buddha ; "Go not forth to adopt a religious life but return to your kingdom, and in seven days you shall become emperor of the world, riding over the four continents." Moncure D. Conway, The Sacred Anthology

2. To Jesus he said ; "All these [kingdoms of the world] I will give you, if you fall down and worship me" (Matthew 4:9).

3. After healing a man born blind, Buddha said: "The disease of this man originates in his sinful actions in former times."

1. As Jesus passed by, he saw a man blind from his birth. And his disciples said to him: `Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?' " (John 9:1--2).

4. Both demanded that their disciples renounce all worldly possessions

5. "In the year 217 B.C. Buddhist missionaries were imprisoned for preaching; but an angel, genie or spirit came and opened the prison door, and liberated them."

1. "They arrested the apostles and put them in the common prison. But at night an angel of the Lord opened the prison doors and brought them out" {Acts 5:18--19}.

..................................................

Even earlier than Buddha...

Similarities between Judeo-Christianity and Hindu-Buddhist beliefs and Legends.

The birth of both Jesus of Nazareth and Krishna of Dwarka and their God-designed missions were foretold

Evil forces pursued both Christ and Krishna in vain

Christ is often depicted as a shepherd; Krishna was a cowherd

Both appeared at a critical time when their respective countries were in a torpid state

Both died of wounds caused by sharp weapons — Christ by nails and Krishna by an arrow

The teachings of both are very similar — both emphasize love and peace

As per legend He will appear again , as Kalki 'the avenger', riding a white horse , destined to destroy the present world .

* Revelation 19:11 "I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war. "

OTM Al

04-06-2011, 10:17 AM

boxcar

04-06-2011, 01:20 PM

Both before the NT. The Virgin birth story was very popular. These type of stories even appeared around two popular leaders not known foe the religiosity. A cult of Messiah developed about Alexander the Great, and a cult of Messiah also developed around Julius Cesar. Both stories claimed Virgin birth

More on the myth of Horus at least a few thousand years before the NT

http://www.oocities.org/nephilimnot/horus.html#The_Cult_of_Messiah_

.....Christian usage of the term Christ derives from Egypt. The application of the term Christ to Jesus derives from the Egyptian term Karast (covered in embalming oil) to describe Horus, Christ in classical Greek usage could mean covered in oil, and is a literal translation of Messiah "the anointed one". The word utilized in its original classic Greek and Jewish contexts refers to the office, or status of the person. Certainly not to their actually having oil on their body.

Horus was anointed by Anubis, who was regarded as the main anointer; this anointing made Horus into Horus karast, or Horus the anointed one , an epithet which is written in Egyptian documents as HR KRST. The embalmed/anointed Horus.

Egyptian Book of Evolutions, which pre-dates Genesis by many Centuries,
Something Osiris said

.. I it was who emitted Shu, and I it was who emitted Tefnut, and from being the ONE, god (or, the only god) I became three gods; the two other gods who came into being on this earth sprang from me

But does this "Egyptian Book of Evolutions" predate oral traditions from which Moses recorded the Creation and Flood accounts under divine inspiration?

And once again, you appeal to the polytheism of other cultures. That's it? That's you best shot? Nowhere in the bible will you find polytheism taught. There are no gods in Judaism or Christianity who "sprang" into existence. :rolleyes:

Deut 6:4-5
4 "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.
ESV

Isa 45:5
5 I am the Lord, and there is no other,
besides me there is no God;
ESV

Isa 45:14
14 Thus says the Lord:

...'Surely God is in you, and there is no other,
no god besides him.'"
ESV

Isa 45:21
21 Declare and present your case;
let them take counsel together!
Who told this long ago?
Who declared it of old?
Was it not I, the Lord?
And there is no other god besides me,
a righteous God and a Savior;
there is none besides me.
ESV

Isa 44:6
6 Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel
AND HIS Redeemer, the Lord of hosts:
"I am the first and I am the last;
besides me there is no god.
ESV

Rev 1:4-8
4 John to the seven churches that are in Asia:

Grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne, 5 and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth.

To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood 6 and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen. 7 Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen.

8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."

Rev 22:12-13
12 "Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay everyone for what he has done. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."
ESV

Trust me on this, 'cap: I haven't even scratched the surface.

As stated previously, all these "similarities" are are evolved perversions of the Truth, which is very understandable given what the bible teaches about fallen man's depraved nature. You're big on the theory of Evolution, right? So, you should appreciate this truth about the evolution of religion and how and why all these perversions and corruptions to Truth have occurred.

Boxcar

hcap

04-06-2011, 02:31 PM

But does this "Egyptian Book of Evolutions" predate oral traditions from which Moses recorded the Creation and Flood accounts under divine inspiration?
We have no archaeological record of the oral tradition of Genesis. Other than speculation and reconstruction. What is known is this:

2000 - 1850 BCE
The traditionally accepted lifetime of the Judeochristian/Islamic patriarchal figure Abraham. So the oral tradition might have started somewhere around this period. (There is no means of verifying the date of the biblical flood or the biblical date of Creation.)

Before 2000 BC were the two civilizations I referenced. The Hindu and Egyptian.

3228 - 3102 BCE
Traditionally accepted time of Krishna's life on Earth. And

2494 - 2345 BCE
The first of the oldest surviving religious texts, the Pyramid Texts, are composed in Ancient Egypt.

So I believe both the Hindu culture- story of Krishna- and the Egyptian civilization and story of Horus predates the OT and was way before the NT

See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_religion

boxcar

04-06-2011, 02:50 PM

Same circular logic, same willful ignorance.

Hey, how about we talk about the polytheistic remanants of Judaism as it remains in the Bible.. Boxy keeps telling me to read the Bible closely. When is the last time you (this is a general "you" Boxy) actually read what the first commandment actually says rather than simply assuming you know what it means? Ever wonder why the followers of Moses "reverted" so quickly to Ba'al worship when he left to get said commandments? (extra points for anyone who knows a) who Ba'al was and how he relates to Yahweh and b) the most famous historical figure named in memorial to him) I won't even get into the human sacrifice issues.

Fun stuff.....

I see you're feeling full of yourself today. But who are you to talk about my alleged "willful ignorance" when you have not been able to refute my interpretation of Job 19? Are you still searching for a third alternative to gal'al? Groping in the dark isn't such "fun stuff", is it? So, now to try to escape it, you're going to presume to challenge me with more of your nonsense? Really? I think your time would be better invested in searching for the Light (Jn 1:9) so that you can escape the darkness.

Moreover, you have not answered me about the problem I presented of Christ in the OT. Tell me, Al, how many thousands upon thousands, even during the first century of the Church, were willfully deceived by the preachers of the "good news" about a "good" person who was never in the Scriptures from which they preached? And the King of all Deceivers would have been this Jesus -- being the most self-deceived, despicable, malicious person to have ever walked the earth by claiming that the Scriptures were all about him. His lie would have been the foundation for all the other lies propagated by his followers. He would have been self-deceived, and in turn he deceived his disciples, and in turn their deception spread across the world like wildfire! And so, this LIE of all LIES -- this MOTHER of all LIES -- this ABOMINATION -- took on a Life of its own and is responsible for the loss of untold millions, if not billions by now, of lives throughout the centuries -- not to mention all the suffering and miseries that were inflicted upon the poor deceived surviving believers, as well! All these people suffered and died for what!? Tell me, Al, FOR WHAT!? For what, exactly? Could you explain this to me? Can you tell me how all their deaths were a good thing for them, their survivors and the rest of mankind? And how a "good" teacher, a "good" man, this self-appointed, self-righteous moralist could have allowed for this to happen? And he called himself the "Good Shepherd"!? Ditto for all those self-righteous, disciples who preached this "good news", so called.

It seems to me that this fella Jesus was doing a little projecting himself when he claimed that Satan was the "father of lies" (Jn 8:44)!

But it's even worse! To this day, people are still dying. Christians, to this very day, are still being put to death for believing the MOTHER of ALL LIES.

But it gets worse than this -- but this time for you. Did you know that there are numerous passages in the bible that predict that Christ's people would suffer and be martyred? I mean...time and time and time again, in various ways, it is prophesied that people would suffer and die due to their faith in a person who was preached and taught out of the OT scriptures, but was never there to begin with? (He was truly The Phantom of the OT!) How do you explain this fulfillment which started very early on with the stoning of Stephen? (And what gullible and easy mark he was! Do you know he cried out to his "Lord Jesus" to receive his spirit and to forgive his murderers -- to the very person responsible for his death! Acts 7:59-60). But really, Al, how do you explain this?

Well...if I were a faithful Skeptic (an oxymoron?), I'd say that Jesus and his disciples designed their Big Lie (i.e. Jesus was the "promised messiah" of the OT) so that all the destruction, misery and suffering that this lie would wreak for all believers throughout the centuries would quickly become a self-fulfilling prophecy that would be perpetuated throughout the centuries.
By the Master Deceiver commanding his disciples to go into all the nations to spread this Big Lie (the "good news"), that message would create animosity and hatred in the world against believers. And out of this hatred, the church would be persecuted. What do you think about this theory?

But...whatever you think, it's really kinda tough to talk about how "good" Jesus, his apostles and his disciples were and about how good their "good news" was, while at the same time turning a blind eye to all the misery, suffering, death and destruction this "good news" produced , and still continues to produce until this day, when they preached and still preach to this day the gospel message of Jesus out of the OT scriptures.

Boxcar

hcap

04-06-2011, 02:57 PM

http://www.historyofinformation.com/index.php?category=Religious+Texts+%2F+Religion

The Oldest Surviving Texts from the Hebrew Bible Circa 600 BCE

The larger of the two silver scrolls, discovered in 1979 at Ketef Hinnom, which have been deemed the oldest suriving texts from the Hebrew bible. (View Larger)
The larger of the two silver scrolls, discovered in 1979 at Ketef Hinnom, which have been deemed the oldest suriving texts from the Hebrew bible. (View Larger)

In 1979 two tiny silver scrolls, inscribed with portions of the well-known apotropaic Priestly Blessing of the Book of Numbers, and apparently once used as amulets, were found in one of a burial chambers at Ketef Hinnom, an archaeological site near Jerusalem.

.................................................. .........

The Oldest Known Religious Texts Circa 2,400 BCE – 2,300 BCE

A collection of ancient Egyptian religious texts from the time of the Old Kingdom, The Pyramid Texts are the oldest known religious texts. Written in Old Egyptian, they were carved on the walls and sarcophagi of the pyramids at Saqqara during the 5th and 6th Dynasties of the Old Kingdom. They provide the earliest comprehensive view of the way in which the ancient Egyptians understood the structure of the universe, the role of the gods, and the fate of human beings after death

TJDave

04-06-2011, 04:06 PM

all the destruction, misery and suffering that this lie would wreak for all believers throughout the centuries would quickly become a self-fulfilling prophecy that would be perpetuated throughout the centuries.
By the Master Deceiver commanding his disciples to go into all the nations to spread this Big Lie (the "good news"), that message would create animosity and hatred in the world against believers. And out of this hatred, the church would be persecuted. What do you think about this theory?

Destruction, misery, suffering, animosity and hatred... perpetrated against Christians...Millions martyred?

Who knew? :rolleyes:

I am reminded of the George Carlin line:

White people don't get the blues, they give them.

OTM Al

04-06-2011, 04:28 PM

I see you're feeling full of yourself today. But who are you to talk about my alleged "willful ignorance" when you have not been able to refute my interpretation of Job 19? Are you still searching for a third alternative to gal'al? Groping in the dark isn't such "fun stuff", is it? So, now to try to escape it, you're going to presume to challenge me with more of your nonsense? Really? I think your time would be better invested in searching for the Light (Jn 1:9) so that you can escape the darkness.

You gave nothing to refute. You gave a argument full of circular logic and non sequitars. Trying to refute you arguement would give credence to it, which I won't do. You lose all credibilty when you try to tell me that you understand these works and Jewish scholars do not. I even tried to be considerate of your faith, but you insulted me over that as well. This mish mash of scripture you throw in a blender and try to make sense of gives me a headache even attempting to follow.

Oh, since you can't figure out is why no polytheisim is preached in the Bible, here's a little help with that. It's because it was all written after the Jews went monotheistic. The one thing they couldn't hide though was commandment #1, or #2 depending on your tradition.

"You shall have no other gods before me"

This was read a couple times a year to the people unchanged over many years, so when written into book form, it could not be changed. The pact Moses had made was that since Yahweh had saved them, they would now worship only him, not the others any longer. See, it doesn't say there are not other gods. Others would claim that far later when monotheism had a firm hold. What it says is stop worshiping the other gods and worship only me. It was always there cleverly hidden in one of the very first things you learn in church....

boxcar

04-06-2011, 05:29 PM

We have no archaeological record of the oral tradition of Genesis. Other than speculation and reconstruction. What is known is this:

Perhaps due to the a little incident known as the Flood? Furthermore, your explanation begs the question: Where did Abraham get his info from? We have no record either of him or any of the patriarchs initiating this oral tradition. They recorded tradition that was passed down to them.

We do know, however, from Genesis that Enoch descended from the ungodly line of Cain (the "serpent's seed") and he might have been the only godly person on the planet at that time! (Talk about God having only a remnant!) Enoch was so righteous before God's eyes that he is the only OT saint who was "raptured" -- "caught up to God", never tasting death. (Gen 5:24). This could also explain why only three people who lived prior to the Flood are included in Hebrews 11.

The next righteous man to have walked the earth was Noah (Gen 6:9 who was also the "woman's seed", and who was fathered by the ungodly Lamech ("serpent's seed").

The point to this exercise, is to show that there were far more "seed of the serpent" on the earth (which is still the case today) than there were godly men (the "woman's seed"). This becomes very evident as you read why God judged all mankind in Genesis, save for EIGHT human beings (and not all them were righteous!) who he chose to save.

So, after Cain slew Abel, the decline of man escalated and became exceedingly steep. This allowed for the perversion of truth to continue -- right to the point where God basically said, "enough is enough"!

So I believe both the Hindu culture- story of Krishna- and the Egyptian civilization and story of Horus predates the OT and was way before the NT

As far as the date of the actual written record goes, you may be right. But human history predates the writing of Moses, as it does the writing of Job. Both of these, in all probability, have their basis in oral tradition.

The pagan perversions of the "virgin birth" might find their basis in Gen 3:15. And the perversion of monotheism (the Triunity of God) evolved into polytheism and this corruption of Truth might be sourced back to Gen 1:26, 3:22; 11:7, etc.

Talking about polytheism, which you constantly confuse for the Trinity, I see that you have now quickly abandoned this subject. That's too bad because the Trinity has nothing to do with WHAT God is, but with WHO God is. For example, Jesus called Peter "blessed" because he knew WHO Christ was. For Peter to have confessed that Jesus was the Son of God, he had to have believed this:

Luke 1:35-36
35 And the angel answered her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy— the Son of God.
ESV

It's precisely because of the true virgin birth that Jesus could be called the "Son of God". Since Jesus is the only begotten Son of the Father -- not created, but begotten, this means God can only beget like kind. This can be further seen because YWEH's name in the OT is Holy (Isa 57:15).

This is also why Jesus could say:

John 14:9-10
9 Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me?
ESV

What Jesus is teaching here is that the Father and the Son are ONE in their divine essence. This is why it's NOT possible to deny the Son and still think you believe in God. Anyone thinks he can deny the Son and still have the Father this is believing in an idol of their imagination. For again, Jesus said:

1 John 2:23
23 No one who denies the Son has the Father.
ESV

Jesus himself said the same thing but in differently:

John 5:23
23 that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.
ESV

Matt 10:40
40 "Whoever receives you receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me.
ESV

These things are simply not possible logically -- that is to deny the one but claim allegiance to the other. Nor is it logically possible to give honor to one, but dishonor to the other. Nor is it possible to receive one and not the other. It's also not possible to draw a perfect analogy in temporal reality with divine or eternal reality, regarding the Trinity. But here's one that's fair. We look at a banana. The banana has its peel on it. But is it any less of a banana without its peel? We might argue that it is, but none us really think of a banana in those terms. To us, a banana is a banana -- with or without its peel. However, the peel and the edible meat of the fruit serve different functions.. As such, both "aspects" to the one banana are necessary for the banana's existence.

Likewise, the Son is God, even though his Father God sent Him and was "separated" from him for a season. The Son did not become less divine because he took on human form and condescended to the limitations of Space and Time. The Father and Son are One in Divine Essence.

The Father, too, is God even though God the Son obeyed his Father and agreed to take on flesh and also become a Man (i.e. the Son of Man).

As explained when I did that series on the Trinity in the Universe several years ago, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are co-equal in every respect. However, scripture does reveal that all three persons in the Godhead have unique functions and relationships to each other.

Matt 11:27
All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.
ESV

Jesus could say this because No one has ever seen God (in his essence), save for God (the Son) who is at the Father's side (Jn 1:18). And let's not forget that Jesus proclaimed himself to be the great "I AM" -- the preexistent one -- the same One who spoke to Moses in the burning bush!

It would also follow logically that since one cannot deny the Son and also claim to be true believer in God that anyone who does this very thing would be called a liar"

1 John 2:22
22 Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ?
ESV

Anyway, 'cappy, the Trinity is as high as the Heavens, as your examples of polytheistic religions are in the lowest depths of Hell. This is why Christianity is also the only religion that can boast of its God as being a God of Love. God is, indeed, Love. This, too, could not logically be said apart form the existence of the Triune God; for love is an activity and requires an object. Since there was never a time when God wasn't Love, this means that that he was loving always -- there was never a time when he wasn't loving. In eternity, therefore, God was loving the persons of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Trinity itself fulfills the requirements of Love.

Boxcar

TJDave

04-06-2011, 05:45 PM

This was read a couple times a year to the people unchanged over many years, so when written into book form, it could not be changed. The pact Moses had made was that since Yahweh had saved them, they would now worship only him, not the others any longer. See, it doesn't say there are not other gods. Others would claim that far later when monotheism had a firm hold. What it says is stop worshiping the other gods and worship only me. It was always there cleverly hidden in one of the very first things you learn in church....

The commandment is traditionally supported in commentary as referring to "false gods" and is reinforced by the second commandment. Remember that previously in Genesis God had created the universe. Are we to believe he also created competition? ;)

The Israelites, with Aaron's help and thinking Moses was toast reverted to what they knew. At the time, Ba'al was the baddest boy around.

What is interesting is that monotheistic fervor led directly to Judaism's decline. Had there been multiple choices the Indians might not have strayed off the reservation.

I'm thinkin' the answer to your second question would be Hannibal.

boxcar

04-06-2011, 06:20 PM

You gave nothing to refute.

And you gave no argument to refute. But I obliged PA, remember? I did not bother with the Job passage because of you!

You gave a argument full of circular logic and non sequitars.

And what about you? Your "argument" was that the Jewish scholars say so, so it must be so? Okay...:rolleyes:

Trying to refute you arguement would give credence to it, which I won't do.

You won't because you can't! I used nothing but scripture to support my arguments and showed from both the immediate context and the larger context of other portions of revelation, as well, that "ga'al" could only mean "redeemer" according to its context and how the term was used.

You lose all credibilty when you try to tell me that you understand these works and Jewish scholars do not.

Were those "works", by the way, divinely inspired? And were these "scholars" infallible?

I even tried to be considerate of your faith, but you insulted me over that as well.

How? By deflating your balloon of self-flattery when you claimed that I somehow thought of you as "challenging" me or my faith? You haven't said one thing that remotely resembles a threat or a challenge.

This mish mash of scripture you throw in a blender and try to make sense of gives me a headache even attempting to follow.

But you would have no problems of regurgitating the "mish mash" of those scholarly "works", if you could, righjt? You probably didn't because that effort, too, would have given you an even bigger headache. :lol: :lol:

Oh, since you can't figure out is why no polytheisim is preached in the Bible, here's a little help with that. It's because it was all written after the Jews went monotheistic. The one thing they couldn't hide though was commandment #1, or #2 depending on your tradition.

So, you're saying that Job was polytheistic? And Noah? That there really are multiple gods in universe? :D :D (Never mind, don't answer. Don't go there.)

I never said I couldn't figure it out. Couldn't and not wanting to waste my time on your foolishness are two separate things.

But obviously, you have yet to figure out a way to come up with rational way to refute or answer my Jesus in the OT problem that I have been presenting to you. You still want to have it both ways, don't you? On the one hand, you pay gratuitous lip service to this Jesus because you think he was, after all is said and done, a pretty good Joe, right? He was a nice man. A good, harmless, benign, well-intentioned, religious teacher, right? But you also deny him. You deny who he is. And you deny what he taught about himself. You deny that he's in the OT. Therefore, this good man, you also make out to be a Liar of all Liars! He must be! How else can we explain it? And look at all the suffering and deaths he has caused all throughout these many centuries due to his Lies! His poor, self-deceived, gullible followers have been suffering and dying all this time -- for NOTHING!

And then we have all the prophecies about these sufferings and deaths that had their initial fulfillment in Stephen (first martyr) and are still being fulfilled to this very day. How do you explain this, Eternal Skeptic? Fulfilled Prophetic utterances in the bible? How can this be!? Of course, I left you a way out, Al. This Jesus guy could have been so evil, so malicious, so diabolical that he planned to exterminate much of mankind in this manner through the preaching of his "good news". Perhaps the Pharisees were right when they accused Jesus of being demon possessed. Maybe this Jesus was not sent from above, but was sent from below to deceive the whole world!

These are very messy, sticky problems, Al. I hope you get it sorted out before it's too late, and come to see your own contradictions in your world view.

"You shall have no other gods before me"

But you do -- your Jewish scholars in whom you place your implicit trust.

Jer 17:5
5 Thus says the Lord:
"Cursed is the man who trusts in man
and makes flesh his strength...
ESV

Boxcar

boxcar

04-06-2011, 07:14 PM

[QUOTE=TJDave]Destruction, misery, suffering, animosity and hatred... perpetrated against Christians...Millions martyred?

Who knew? :rolleyes:

Various writers in the bible did. It's loaded with chock full of predictions/promises about coming persecutions. That's why I'm saying: This must have been Jesus' diabolical plan right from the git go. I don't know of any other explanation -- unless of course, Jesus was "legally" insane (but did they have shrinks back then?). If so, we can't possibly hold the poor guy responsible for his fanatical rantings and beliefs that the scriptures of his day, that he so often appealed to, were all about him.

Boxcar

PaceAdvantage

04-07-2011, 01:27 AM

OTM Al

04-07-2011, 08:40 AM

OTM Al

04-07-2011, 12:42 PM

The commandment is traditionally supported in commentary as referring to "false gods" and is reinforced by the second commandment. Remember that previously in Genesis God had created the universe. Are we to believe he also created competition? ;)

The Israelites, with Aaron's help and thinking Moses was toast reverted to what they knew. At the time, Ba'al was the baddest boy around.

What is interesting is that monotheistic fervor led directly to Judaism's decline. Had there been multiple choices the Indians might not have strayed off the reservation.

I'm thinkin' the answer to your second question would be Hannibal.

That's a winner on the trivia question Dave. Hannibal mean "beloved of Ba'al" in Phoenecian, which of course was the language of Carthage, for whom Ba'al was the chief deity, having broken from Tyre where the chief deity was stil El, more later on that.

Ba'al is actually a title and not the original name of the deity. It simply means "lord" or "master". Thus the phrase "ba'al el" could mean Lord El or in our standard interpretation, Lord God. Hadad or Malquart would have been the proper name of who we refer to as Ba'al depending on what area in Leventine is under discussion. El was the father and creator deity (Hadad his offspring) and the one that seems to have merged with Yahweh while things were still polytheistic. El was thus likely the god of Abraham. This word appears often in the OT and we generally just take it to be a name of God now.

Interestingly many of the things ascribed to Yahweh were almost identical to those ascribed to Hadad, thus probably a reason for the vilification of Ba'al as the people moved into monotheism as Ba'al would be seen as a direct rival to Yahweh. El had a wife at one time as well, Asherah, who also got the ax during the move to monotheism. Makes bans on divorce rather interesting, doesn't it....

TJDave

04-07-2011, 05:10 PM

El was the father and creator deity (Hadad his offspring) and the one that seems to have merged with Yahweh while things were still polytheistic. El was thus likely the god of Abraham. This word appears often in the OT and we generally just take it to be a name of God now.

Are you speaking of Elohim?

In the sacrifice of Issac story Abraham calls God by his familial, sacred name...YHVH, commonly yet incorrectly pronounced as Yahweh.

Other than an intellectual exercise, which God or who's God makes little difference. The religious argument is the one God. Since Jews believe in monotheism it don't matter what you call him/her.

OTM Al

04-07-2011, 06:44 PM

Are you speaking of Elohim?

In the sacrifice of Issac story Abraham calls God by his familial, sacred name...YHVH, commonly yet incorrectly pronounced as Yahweh.

Other than an intellectual exercise, which God or who's God makes little difference. The religious argument is the one God. Since Jews believe in monotheism it don't matter what you call him/her.

Yes, that is the same though Elohim would conform to the plural form of El technically in Semitic root, though it is considered singular now.

Of course it doesn't matter other than intellectual exercise and discovery of the origins of things. El and Yahweh (however it should be pronounced, something we'll never know) were equated when monotheism became the rule. This is just so unique an event that I find it fascinating. I know of no other time in human history when something like this happened. Should not recognition of this event be affirming in faith rather than blasphemous, as some would have us think? My opinion anyway.

Anyway, glad you joined the discussion.

Tom

04-07-2011, 09:48 PM

Amen.
Go in peace.

boxcar

04-08-2011, 12:53 AM

Admittedly, I haven't been paying as much attention to this thread as I should...but with that said, isn't boxcar coming off as way more defensive than a man supposedly rock-solid confident in his faith should?

I get the feeling that boxcar IS threatened by Al, so much so he is throwing everything but the kitchen sink at him instead of having thoughtful discussion about what is actually being written.

A man confident in his faith and well-versed in his beliefs should have little problem holding court in an engaging and respectful manner. In fact, he should be INVITING any and all to challenge him. I don't sense this at all from boxcar. I sense a man who is going to throw at you exactly what he wants to throw at you, REGARDLESS of what is actually being said or discussed.

Am I warm? Or should I just keep my nose out of this?

Did you say, "warm"? You're as cold as a stiff who has been laid out in a morgue for the last few days. And if he hasn't been embalmed yet, you may want to keep your nose out of that fridge. :D

And you're an interesting specimen yourself, PA. First you criticize me because I didn't want to respond to Al's nonsense about Job 19, and you accused me of being smug and dismissive. Then after I reply with biblical arguments, you criticize me for information overload? :rolleyes:

Or if I had responded to Al's lame argument in post 53 in like manner to that post, would you not have accused me of inadequate defense? Or would such a strategy also have elicited another Christ Matthews' response out of you by sending tingles down your leg about me and praises for me that I was every bit as "thoughtful and thorough" as Al was?

But all joking aside, Peter told the Church to always be ready to give a defense ("apologia" being the Greek term for our "apologetics") to every man for the hope within them (1Pet 3:15). What I have been doing is defending the faith (my position on what Job 19:25,26 is saying). But you confuse my biblically-mandated defense as being "defensive" because you think I'm insecure in my Faith?. Interesting. I wonder if you would likewise consider defense attorneys as being "defensive" and insecure in their knowledge of law or their own abilities when they represent their clients in court and present their case their way, or do you think of them for what they really are -- defenders?

And then Paul told Timothy to study diligently to show himself approved of God -- a workman that need not be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth (2Tim 2:15). And, then, Jesus warned about the spiritual dangers for those who loved seeking the approval of men rather than of God (Jn 12:43). It is, therefore, a small thing for me to be "judged in your court", PA. The fact that you disapprove of my posts tells me that God will, in all likelihood, approve of what I written in defense of his Word; for what God loves, men hate. I can only hope that in the last day, I will hear those precious words from Christ, "Well done, good and faithful servant" (Mat 25:21), and to be found to have been a good steward of God's Word and of the knowledge he has granted me.

I have, to the best of my knowledge, faithfully followed the biblical template in presenting my defense. Jesus himself always appealed to the authority of the OT scriptures in his day (see my tag line, for example). And so have I. Paul during his missionary journeys was found constantly [ i]reasoning[/i] to his audiences out of the scriptures in presenting the gospel (again, out of the OT, cf. Act 17:2,11,17; 18:4,24,28; 19:8; 1Cor 15:3-4), and so have I. But I understand what your problem is: I didn't play the "game" the way you and Al wanted. I didn't resort to foolish, worldly speculations and arguments that would largely ignore biblical content.

But even when I tried to appeal to Al's common sense and reasoning by going outside the bible (although not entirely), the implications to what I stated completely eluded him. It was very obvious to me that he failed to "thoroughly" think through my stated facts. I told him that, of the 16 bible translations that I have, 15 of those works translated "ga'al" as "redeemer". (And this is easily verifiable online!) But he cared not a whit about that, even though he loves to boast of his "Jewish scholars" when he thinks it advances his case! My statement of fact had zero impact on him. What in the world was he thinking: That those 15 separate groups or committees of translators weren't scholars in the OT languages, and that those translations were works produced by recovering drug addicts in some rehab center, or some other such thing?

Or, again, how "thoroughly" did he think through his utterly foolish, ill-conceived comment about "capitalization", and use that as an argument against the "redeemer" translation? When did upper case letters or the lack thereof affect meanings of words? (It certainly doesn't on this forum!)

Or just how "thoroughly" and "thoughtfully" did he think through his initial claim that "ga'al" should have been translated "avenger"? He quickly abandoned that claim after I demonstrated how "ga'al" was used in the OT. After he backed the loser Avenger, he bet the Vindactor pony, and I easily dismissed that equally poor translation because God vindicated Job at the end of his testing for all his friends to see! (Al had a really tough time trying to back a winner here!) Then after that, he more recently has said that he won't reply anymore, lest he give credence to my arguments. Typical response from a Skeptic after he has run the gamut of his "scholars".

In fact, Al is so "thorough" and "thoughtful" (NOT!) that he never realized, until I brought it to his attention, that his "ice cold" skepticism toward Christian "dogma" (to borrow his term) BUT his "hot passion" for this "good" man Jesus can only produce a lukewarm attitude toward Christ, which is most unpleasing to the Lord (Rev 3:15,16). (Jesus clearly said in this passage that he would rather have people be hot or cold toward him, otherwise he will spew them out of his mouth.) While the philosophy of Skepticism, alone, is thoroughly self-defeating, it gets even worse when one tries to synthesize that skepticism with sugar-coated platitudes or thoughtless patronizing words about Christ; for the two are like oil and water. This is a duality that just doesn't work because it's irrational and, again, self-defeating. Al represents a classic example of someone wanting his cake while eating it, too. He wants to deny Christian orthodoxy, claiming that it's false, while simultaneously trying to affirm the goodness, virtue and morality of the Man who is the source of those very falsehoods, making him primarily and directly responsible for any and all bad consequences. And while even this, in and of itself, may not be considered a huge deal to many because over the centuries many men have made grandiose, extravagant, egotistical religious claims about themselves, it's nonetheless one thing to do these things when little or no harm results to anyone listening to those claims, even when taken seriously. But it's quite another when dire and deadly consequences follow in the wake of such claims, which would certainly be the case with historical Christianity and Church history if Al is right. By Jesus claiming to be in the OT scriptures, and endorsing these as being authoritative and divinely inspired, he has left himself no escape for the devastating consequences that his words have had on untold millions throughout all these many centuries. Jesus would make Attila the Hun, Nero, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Tse-Tung, Saddam Hussein -- all these and many more together -- look saintly next to him just by the sheer numbers of deaths Jesus' naive, deceived disciples have caused by spreading and perpetuating HIS lies over all these centuries. Yet, this man is the "good shepherd"? He's the "good teacher"? He's the loving, kind, gentle, forgiving, compassionate and whatever other niceties so many religious Skeptics like to toss about regarding this man Jesus? Really? Honestly? After causing so many unnecessary deaths? Absolutely mind-boggling!

The above text in Revelations, in addition to several other similar passages that come to mind, lead me to conclude confidently that it will be more tolerable for the LSBets of this world on Judgment Day than it will for the Als of it. At least LS, despite the absurdity of his belief about the existence of Christ, is an honest, genuine "cold-hearted" unbeliever. There's nothing lukewarm about LS's attitude toward Christ. He rejects him 100%! End of story. No platitudes. No patronizing. (I can even respect this!) But not so with Big Al. Al is the classic example of someone calling Evil Good, which he has done implicitly and unwittingly by thinking that Jesus is a "good" guy, despite all the unnecessary havoc, misery and evil he has wrought upon his followers through his false teachings, which his disciples to this day are still spreading around the earth.

But the beat with Al goes on: How "thorough" and "thoughtful" was Al when he forgot that the numerous prophecies about believers' tribulations, deaths, sufferings and miseries started its fulfillment with the martyrdom of Stephen and continues to this very day? What does that do to his prophecy theory? Those who deny the supernatural, who deny the miraculous and whose lives revolve around the temporal, the natural and the material cannot accept fulfilled prophecies, most especially because writers of scripture have claimed those prophetic utterances, and the rest of scripture, to be divinely inspired. You see, it's all connected. This is why to a skeptic Jesus can't possibly be in the OT either!

It would be bad enough if I had hurled one wrecking ball through Al's glass world of Skepticism, but to be caught in the vice of two closely associated Catch-22 dilemmas appears to have overwhelmed and tongue-tied him. Silence is all I get from him when I bring these dichotomies of his belief system to the fore -- when I expose them to the light. But Silence was a typical, biblical response by religious skeptics and unbelievers when confronted by Truth (Mk 3:4, 12:34; Mat 22:46; Lk 20:26,40)

But I must admit, PA, that I was somewhat surprised by one part of your post, to wit:

In fact, he should be INVITING any and all to challenge him.

Really? "I should"!? I didn't even want to engage in this discussion, remember? I know only too well what happens when a believer casts his pearls before swine (Mat 7:6). (Thank you for giving affirmation to this text!) Once again, there's no pleasing you. You have already accused me of being smug and arrogant. I can imagine what you would have called me if I had tossed down the gauntlet and proudly challenged any and all comers. I'm sure you would have thought of additional adjectives to describe your perception of me.

But when have I ever done such a thing, as you now suggest? When? In all the years I've been on this forum, I never have done this. Nor will I. It's simply not a biblical strategy. One would be very hard-pressed to find such a thing being done in the bible. To "challenge" a particular poster on something he or she has written is one thing; but to openly challenge everyone on a forum is something else again.

And this kind of complaint tells me that you don't have the first clue what is going on here. Do you think I think this a game? This is a game of wits? A game of one-upmanship? I might indulge in some game-playing and have a little fun with other topics from time to time, but not with the bible -- not with the Word of God. Whether you choose to believe this or not, people's eternal destinies hinge on what they believe in their heart of hearts when Death comes to claim them. Why do you think, for example, I have exhorted Al a couple of times in this thread to study the scriptures on his own, and to put aside all the books that talk about the bible, or to put aside the thoughts of what other people think the bible's message is? Did I do this just to hear myself talk? Or because I hate him or despise him? Or did you think this was a covert way of telling him how ignorant he was of the bible?
Or do you think: I get a kickback or a commission on every new bible that is bought in America or something? I mean really... Or did I exhort him out of a genuine concern for him?

And besides all this, what are you also implying with your foolishness and gratuitous insult, which I thought you'd be above: Are you implying there are too many lazy or dumb subscribers on the Off Topic forum that need to be shaken out of their trees of lethargy, complacency or indifference by "rabble rousers" like me? I always thought the fundamental, underlying assumption to participation in any given topic was one of individual choice? Have I missed something here? Have not people who were interested in contributing something write and post what was on their minds? I always thought this is how these kinds of forums worked. Live and learn, I guess...even after being online close to 30 years!

But in closing...if this is any consolation, any comfort to you...at least your above complaint appears to have been an original thought; for no one else on any forum at any time has ever suggested such a thing in all these years to me. And trust me on this: A lot of people have surely suggested many things to me. ;)

Boxcar

OTM Al

04-08-2011, 09:03 AM

boxcar

04-08-2011, 11:32 AM

Guess you have your answer.....

Yeah, he got an answer, but not nearly as "thorough" or "thoughtful" as it could have been; for I could have drawn a couple of very unflattering parallels between him and some characters in the bible. Meanwhile, you're still shy of two, though. But if I were of the mind, I could increase that number, too.

Boxcar

PaceAdvantage

04-08-2011, 05:34 PM

Yeah, he got an answer, but not nearly as "thorough" or "thoughtful" as it could have been; for I could have drawn a couple of very unflattering parallels between him and some characters in the bible.Now why would you go and do something ridiculous like that? This is exactly what I'm talking about...

boxcar

04-08-2011, 08:38 PM

Now why would you go and do something ridiculous like that? This is exactly what I'm talking about...

How would the truth be "ridiculous"? The parallels would have been perfect. But nonetheless I refrained, did I not? I was more respectful of you and courteous to you than you were to me.

Shalom,
Boxcar

PaceAdvantage

04-09-2011, 04:17 PM

How would the truth be "ridiculous"? The parallels would have been perfect. But nonetheless I refrained, did I not? I was more respectful of you and courteous to you than you were to me.

Shalom,
BoxcarYou're the last one who should be pointing the finger of respect and courtesy around here. While I know you get more than your fair share of names thrown at you, you are also one who is quick to fire off and call people names not only in return, but also as an opening salvo.

boxcar

04-09-2011, 06:21 PM

You're the last one who should be pointing the finger of respect and courtesy around here. While I know you get more than your fair share of names thrown at you, you are also one who is quick to fire off and call people names not only in return, but also as an opening salvo.

But you are the only always demanding it, aren't you? In the TOS, right? Should you not be the one setting the example on your own forum? And this isn't to say I haven't been guilty either.

And by the way I wasn't complaining, per se (the only exception being the universal challenge thingy). The absence of any constructive criticism in your response to me was not a shocker at all. As the citizen of the world that you are, I probably would have been bowled over if you had at least expressed some gratitude for the effort I made, regardless of your opinion of the content. Let me elaborate on this from a real world experience I had several months ago.

A bible student wrote a paper in college. And the gent and I got talking about it, and he asked me to read it because he wanted my opinion. Despite being pretty busy with my own things, I finally agreed to read his paper. I didn't want to, but as a favor to the young man, I did. After reading it carefully, I saw places in it where he could have improved the argument he was making. Some things he could have easily omitted, others he could have included and elaborated on those. But even so...even though I probably would have graded that paper a "C" if I were his professor, I was still grateful to the young man for thinking enough of me to solicit my opinion. And I thanked him for giving me the opportunity, even though I couldn't honestly sing the praises of his work, which I did, by the way, constructively criticize.

But no biggie. My argument for Job 19 was not a complete waste of time; for I certainly have gotten to know you better through this thread.

Boxcar

PaceAdvantage

04-10-2011, 12:13 AM

But no biggie. My argument for Job 19 was not a complete waste of time; for I certainly have gotten to know you better through this thread.

BoxcarActually, you haven't...and therein lies your mistake.

You have taken the little that I have written to you, and about you here in this thread, and blown it up to something that doesn't even begin to resemble original intent.

boxcar

04-10-2011, 05:18 PM

Actually, you haven't...and therein lies your mistake.

You have taken the little that I have written to you, and about you here in this thread, and blown it up to something that doesn't even begin to resemble original intent.

It's never how much one writes per se but what and how it's written. The "little", you have said, therefore, has nothing to do with your intent.

Boxcar

boxcar

04-11-2011, 12:31 AM

Oh, since you can't figure out is why no polytheisim is preached in the Bible, here's a little help with that. It's because it was all written after the Jews went monotheistic. The one thing they couldn't hide though was commandment #1, or #2 depending on your tradition.

"You shall have no other gods before me"

This was read a couple times a year to the people unchanged over many years, so when written into book form, it could not be changed. The pact Moses had made was that since Yahweh had saved them, they would now worship only him, not the others any longer. See, it doesn't say there are not other gods. Others would claim that far later when monotheism had a firm hold. What it says is stop worshiping the other gods and worship only me. It was always there cleverly hidden in one of the very first things you learn in church....

This post is so full of "misinformation" (to borrow another term from Al), I feel compelled to reply to it to set the record straight. Despite Al's implied conspiracy by the Church to conceal truth, it's only the [true] Church that is the pillar and support of God's truth (1Tim 3:15). Monothesism no more evolved from Polytheism than did monogamy evolve from polygamy. Monotheism devolved or degenerated into polytheism. Therefore, you have it all backwards, Al.

Al is right, however, in that polytheism is never "preached" (as in condoned or approved of) in the bible because there is only one God. Multiple gods have never existed except in the carnal, sinful, vain imaginations of Man, as I will prove soon. In fallen man's mind, an abundance of gods exist in one form or another! And this can easily be seen because the inner imaginations of the mind must invariably find their outward expressions through the further creations of physical idols. And this is still true to this day.

Exodus 20:3 is not implying the existence of any other genuine deities. The gods being talked of in the verse are false, (and in some cases demonic) gods -- but in any case gods that are not gods. All Moses was doing was using the language of the worldview and cultures of the ancient world, which assuredly was steeped in polytheism, to which his audience would be able to readily relate. A big hint are the opening words to the Decalogue:

Ex 20:2
2 "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
NASB

Moses reminds the people what their covenant God YHWH did for them in polytheistic Egypt. He was their powerful Redeemer! He redeemed them from slavery! And he redeemed them from a land of idolatry and wickedness. The Lord not only delivered the Hebrews from their physical chains but from their spiritual bondage as well -- bondage to a polytheistic religion to which they were exposed for 400 years! The Hebrews in Egypt were hardly pillars of virtue or righteousness. For 400 years they were exposed to the wicked culture of Egypt -- a culture that was steeped in polytheistic practices. I have little doubt they were greatly influenced by those religious practices. Spiritually speaking, in that "house of slavery" they were just as much in bondage to the sinful practices of the Eqyptians as they were to their physical chains (Rom 6:16). This would also explain how so many Hebrews were a people of spurious faith, and how they were so prone to quickly abandon their Redeemer YHWH in the Wilderness and at the foot of the mount, etc. Even earlier in Exodus we read:

Ex 12:12
12 'For I will go through the land of Egypt on that night, and will strike down all the first-born in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments — I am the Lord.
NASB

To think this passage, too, is teaching that there are genuine, multiple deities is to miss the force of the lesson. God executed great judgments upon the land of Egypt with his Ten Plagues, and all the gods (so called) of Egypt were powerless to stay the Mighty Arm of the Lord. What good were these gods of Pharaoh who could not save him from the Will and Power of the YHWH!? Were these really gods? However, as stated earlier, I think the "gods" being talked about in this text, also, are demonic in nature, which would make them real spirit beings -- but certainly not genuine deities! In the account of the Ten Plagues itself, there is mention made of Pharaoh's "magicians, sorcerers and wise men" (Ex 7:11; 8:19; 9:11), which are always closely associated with demonic spirits or the underworld. (See also Act 16:16-18.)

Insofar as these gods, who men have conjured up in their minds ever since the beginning, Paul explains this is the reason why God's wrath is revealed from heaven against such men. All men, who are not true worshipers of YHWH, even to this day, are idolaters! This passage should be read very carefully:

Rom 1:18-25
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
NASB

Or "creature" in v. 25 can also be interpreted "creation". Same thing.

Paul in this section of the Epistle is crafting a formal argument for how God can justly execute judgment upon the whole world -- on both Jews and Gentiles -- on those who had the Law of Moses and those who didn't. He begins by explaining the universal phenomenon of idolatry -- which is the worship of anything or anyone other than the one true God, since idolatry is a heart attitude. Also, there is not a polytheistic religion out there (certainly not in ancient times and even in Paul's day!) whose adherents did not create physical idols with which to express their hidden, futile and foolish speculations! And this all began at the Creation! The Fall says it All! Did Adam and Eve honor God by disobeying him after they bit into the fruit? Did Cain honor God by rejecting his blood atonement remedy for sin? And didn't they all "know" God? And soon after that the whole earth was filled with people whose hearts were darkened and whose minds were given over to foolish speculations, for God saved only eight in the Ark. In fact, we are told that every intent of the thoughts of man's heart was evil continually prior to the Flood (Gen 6:5). And after the Flood, Man was judged again at the Tower of Babel. This is what I've been saying to 'cap all along in this thread: Fallen Man, from the beginning, has perverted Truth and rejected the One and Only True God, and replaced YHWH with gods of his vain imagination. If there is one thing that fallen, religious people do extremely well, it's that they excel at making God in their image -- at doing God makeovers! Therefore, it isn't what Al is trying to get us to believe -- which is polytheism evolved into monotheism. The fact is that all the "seed of the serpent" from the beginning have been suppressing the truth in unrighteousness, and this in turn has led darkened hearts and futile imaginations create gods over all these many centuries that really aren't gods at all.

Further, the source to all false religion can be traced back to its biblical source easily enough. The origin can be traced back to the First Fall -- the Fall of Satan. There are two key passages that talk about this Fall in poetic language -- the first is in Isa 14:3ff. It is fascinating to read the language of "bondage" or "slavery" associated with the Adversary. In one place it talks about how the scepter of rulers used to "strike the peoples in fury with unceasing strokes" and how nations were "subdued in anger and unrestrained persecution" (14:6). Then later in this passage, the five "I wills" of Satan are recorded with the last one being the most prideful and arrogant of all -- "I will make myself like the Most High" (v. 14). Later on in this passage, Satan is pictured in graphic imagery as being cast down to the pit of Hell and its NT parallel passage can be read in Revelations 20.

Then in Ezekiel 28, we read about the astounding and indescribable beauty of Satan before he fell. To be sure, it was this great beauty that proved to be his undoing because his heart became "lifted up" and proud and his "wisdom became corrupted by reason of his splendor (28:17). Because of his pride, God cast him down as "profane" from his holy mountain (v. 16). Jesus himself said that he beheld Satan being cast down out of heaven to fall like lightning (Lk 10:18).

Just as the Evil One wanted to be "like the Most High", this is the very temptation he used on Eve to get her to sin. In his temptation he got Eve to believe that God had an evil ulterior motive for giving the command and was withholding something good from them by forbidding them to eat the fruit. He told Eve that God knew that in the day she ate of it that her eyes would be open and the she would know Good and Evil and be like God. And also that God was lying about the promise of death upon disobedience (Gen 3:5).

After the Fall, the Evil One had to change his tactics. Since the Fall ruined mankind and Adam, Eve and their posterity knew they didn't become like God after all, the only thing left for Satan to do is tempt man to become the creators of God. There really was no other strategy for him, save for Satanic worship itself. These were the only two alternatives. He could get people to worship him or get people to create the Creator in their image. And to this day men are still creating god(s) in their image, and to this day there are Satan worshipers. And this is precisely what polytheistic religious systems have done historically.

Earlier in this thread I provided several OT passages to Hcap that teach that there is only one God -- that there are no gods before or after him -- that he's the First and the the Last, etc. Those prooftexts harmonize nicely with the above Romans passage, as do these: Jer 2:11; 5:7; 16:20; Isa 37:19; 2Ki 19:18. But one of my favorite passages on this subject is where Elijah taunts and mocks Baal and his 450 false prophets who Elijah was putting to the test -- to see which was the true god -- YHWH or Baal.

1 Kings 18:25-29
25 So Elijah said to the prophets of Baal, "Choose one ox for yourselves and prepare it first for you are many, and call on the name of your god, but put no fire under it." 26 Then they took the ox which was given them and they prepared it and called on the name of Baal from morning until noon saying, "O Baal, answer us." But there was no voice and no one answered. And they leaped about the altar which they made. 27 And it came about at noon, that Elijah mocked them and said, "Call out with a loud voice, for he is a god; either he is occupied or gone aside, or is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and needs to be awakened." 28 So they cried with a loud voice and cut themselves according to their custom with swords and lances until the blood gushed out on them. 29 And it came about when midday was past, that they raved until the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice; but there was no voice, no one answered, and no one paid attention.
NASB

Conversely, when Elijah called down fire from heaven to consume the drenched oxen, it was a done deal. No problema for YHWH (18:30ff). Plus the 450 false prophets of Baal didn't fare very well either.

Moreover, the covenant, personal name of God YHWH is used long before God established the Mosaic Covenant with Moses. It was used in the Garden before and after the Fall. It was used in Genesis 4 to tell us when men started to "call upon the name of YHWH". It was used in Noah,s day. It was used by Job and the patriarchs, etc. And it's always "the name" singular. "The Lord" singular.

In conclusion, Gen 20:3 is not teaching that there are actually multiple deities in the cosmos. As Dave said earlier, his "commentators" correctly interpret the text as meaning "false gods". These are the kinds of gods that failed to stay YHWH's hand against the Egyptians, for example. I come to the same conclusion, too, but not because someone else told me how I should interpret the text, save for the Spirit of YHWH, that is. The "gods" in this passage are simply the products of the vain reasonings of darkened hearts and the futile, foolish speculations of depraved minds, as Paul essentially said. And it's been this way since the beginning and will continue to the end of the age.

Boxcar

OTM Al

04-11-2011, 09:04 AM

boxcar

04-11-2011, 12:55 PM

No one can say you don't think about things, but despite the large amount you present, the vast majority is irrelevant to the issue. The statement was that the people who became known as the Jews were once polytheisitic. The change to monotheism happened before the writing on the books we call the Old Testament, 400 to 500 years before. So of course there is no direct reference to polytheism. What is left are indirect references, one of which I have already pointed out residing in the Commandments, from long standing laws and traditions that exisited back to that time and thus had to be maintained, probably often without even knowing the origins. Others though include the odd set of prohibitions in the law. Things such as a ban on tattos or the sowing of mixed seeds were all aassociated with the worship of the other gods of the pantheon. If they truly believed these other gods did not exist, why then the ban?

To answer this last question, again -- read Rom 1:18ff. Also, just because someone may believe that something exists doesn't make it so. And vice versa, for that matter. In fact, even Paul in that passage isn't saying that the human race didn't believe these things that he wrote about! To the contrary! He's saying they did because mankind willfully "exchanged the glory of God for an image in the form of corruptible man..." (Man making God in his image! Man performing God makeovers!) Does not scripture also tell us everywhere that man is self-deceived? Do you think that self-deceived people don't believe their own lies? If they didn't, then there wouldn't be any such thing as self-deception, would there?

And this explains why the First Commandment is worded as it is, and why Moses, under divine inspiration, prefaced the Decalogue with the reminder to the Hebrews that the commandments to follow are from the same Lord who delivered them from the "house of slavery" in Egypt and judged their gods in the process. The Hebrews, after 400 years of bondage, would have had more than a passing familiarity with the Egyptian gods, their religious practices, etc. Many of them, over all those centuries, might have even witnessed "black arts" spectacles performed by the sorcerers and magicians in Egypt, etc.

And regarding my "circular arguments", so called, they are no more circular than yours. While you appeal to your extra-biblical authorities and, thus, say "it must be so"; likewise, I appeal to the authority of holy writ (as Jesus and the apostles did), since it claims to be divinely inspired and is the revealed Truth of God. In all my arguments I have presented, there are no inconsistencies, as one would logically expect from a body of literature that is the product of One Mind and should be, therefore, internally consistent with itself throughout.

By denying this event, you miss the real miracle of the covenant Moses is making when he brings the Commandments to the people. This is the shift from the remanents of polytheism to a full monotheism, to a full acceptance of God as father and creator. As far as I know, a unique event in human history.

I'm not denying the event! I'm denying that YHWH, through Moses, was acknowledging the actual existence of other gods. He was acknowledging the existence of false gods -- the existence of gods that exist only in the self-deceived hearts of man. And this interpretation fits the immediate context of the text as well, as the larger context of the entire bible.

And the real miracle of the Mosaic Covenant was that God was going to use his holy Law as a "constitution" of sorts to establish his covenant nation in the earth. Of all the peoples in the earth, only Israel was chosen by God. The real miracle was that God was bringing to fruition his promises to Abraham through the Mosaic Covenant. The Mosaic Covenant was an important stepping stone to the ultimate fulfillment of the promises God made to Abraham, which are currently being realized in Christ's New Covenant -- the same covenant God promised to make with Israel in the OT (Jer 31:30ff, Lk 22:20, etc.)

Boxcar

OTM Al

04-11-2011, 02:43 PM

TJDave

04-11-2011, 03:00 PM

Monothesism no more evolved from Polytheism than did monogamy evolve from polygamy. Monotheism devolved or degenerated into polytheism.

Actually, it's in the text. Rachael steals her father's God/s... Genesis 31.

Additionally, there are multiple examples in Mishnah Torah, Talmud, Jewish legend and other sources. FI, the legend that Abraham's father was an idol maker is part of Jewish and Islamic lore.

That you, or I would argue the primacy of monotheism from a believer's perspective doesn't deny the historical narrative. People practiced polytheism prior to the writing of the Hebrew testament...and well into mid-millennium CE.

OTM Al

04-11-2011, 03:19 PM

Actually, it's in the text. Rachael steals her father's God/s... Genesis 31.

Additionally, there are multiple examples in Mishnah Torah, Talmud, Jewish legend and other sources. FI, the legend that Abraham's father was an idol maker is part of Jewish and Islamic lore.

That you, or I would argue the primacy of monotheism from a believer's perspective doesn't deny the historical narrative. People practiced polytheism prior to the writing of the Hebrew testament...and well into mid-millennium CE.

Very interesting Dave. I am admittedly not well versed in Jewish legend but I guess I should not be surprised that such things would still be in there.

TJDave

04-11-2011, 04:15 PM

OTM Al

04-11-2011, 04:28 PM

Paul himself claimed to be Jewish...circumcised and followed the commandments.

Irrelevancy is a separate issue.

Yeah, but it would be of the sort of a straight conversion into the movement following Jesus. It of course took some time for the movement to split away from Judaisim, so during his life considering himself Jewish would make sense, though it is likely he would not have been considered Jewish by the leaders of that religion. I guess I could have said that better, in that I was meaning he wasn't raised into the Judaism of the times and thus was not as fully versed in its traditions as others we read about in the New testament, for instance.

boxcar

04-11-2011, 04:50 PM

Actually, it's in the text. Rachael steals her father's God/s... Genesis 31.

So what? The whole world was steeped in polytheism. What is your point, exactly? Good evolved into Evil. Not the other way around, for God looked upon his creation and saw that is was very good (Gen 1:31). Paul's argument in Romans 1 gives affirmation to this. What Paul is arguing is that mankind exchanged the Truth for a Lie. It's not the other way around. Good doesn't evolve from Evil. Truth doesn't evolve from Lies. After the Fall, all Truth and Good quickly became corrupted. Paul has it right, as does the Genesis creation account itself.

That you, or I would argue the primacy of monotheism from a believer's perspective doesn't deny the historical narrative. People practiced polytheism prior to the writing of the Hebrew testament...and well into mid-millennium CE.

But I would argue that the Woman, Abel, Seth, Noah and his sons and their wives (the remnant of believers) practiced monotheism alongside their polytheistic relatives who were the "serpent's seed". Since Eve was one of God's elect, it cannot be logically argued that polytheism was the true, God-sanctioned belief and practice. Even when we get to Gen 4, we read after Seth fathered Enosh, men began calling on the name of YHWH. Of course, polytheism very soon dominated the religion of mankind. This is evident from the pre-Flood account, too, and the primary reason for that divine judgment upon the whole earth.

Boxcar

TJDave

04-11-2011, 04:55 PM

I was meaning he wasn't raised into the Judaism of the times and thus was not as fully versed in its traditions

That is contrary to what Paul claimed. Born and circumcised as a Jew and a rabbinic orthodox believer. For the times, I don't know how more Jewish one could be.

boxcar

04-11-2011, 05:31 PM

I could argue that using a quotation of a letter of Paul is irrelevant because

a) Paul was not Jewish nor ever was and thus would not even be fully aware of the extent of Judaisim of the common individual, let alone what knowledge was held by the leaders of the faith

Did I have you pegged right or what!? I said previously that you might know more about the bible than I do, but I was certain that you did not possess very much knowledge of it.

You are truly ignorant of scripture. Paul was very Jewish -- so much so that he was a Pharisee who was a son of Pharisees (Act 26:5; Phil 3:5)! Why do you think he persecuted the church before his conversion (Act 22:7)!?

b) and even if he was and did have that knowledge, they did not even likely remember the events of 1300 years before, except in the scripture handed down to them, which was written some 400-500 years after that point. He knew nothing beyond what was accepted at the time.

Of course, he had that knowledge; for all scripture is inspired of God (2Tim 3:16). Was it a difficult thing for God to have revealed these truths to Paul?
Are we talking about the Creator of the universe or Baal here -- the god who couldn't deliver the goods in 1 Kings 18? (Of course, I know you can't buy into divine revelation -- but that's that presuppositional baggage is your problem.)

Further, as I just pointed out to TJ, Paul's argument harmonizes with the Creation account. God created everything "very good" (Gen 1:31). Man, therefore, took his knowledge of God and the Truth and exchanged it for a Lie. Did not Adam and Eve do this when they disobeyed? Did they not exchange the truth of God for the lie of the Serpent!?. Seems to me Paul has it exactly right!

And her posterity after her could only continue in their path due to their sin nature! The principle that a bad tree cannot bear good fruit applies here and is consistent with Jesus' teaching. After the fall, Man's nature became corrupted and it was all downhill after that, as evidenced, also by Cain's murder of his brother. All of these things are consistent with Paul's argument!

I could also argue that you have no idea what circular reasoning is.

You could probably argue a lot of things, but the bible isn't one of them.

Instead I simply propose to agree to disagree because I know you will not accept what I say, nor will I accept what I see as extreme revisionism on your part.

:lol: :lol: The history of the bible is "extreme revisionism"? :lol: :lol: Okay...whatever.

Boxcar

boxcar

04-11-2011, 05:57 PM

That is contrary to what Paul claimed. Born and circumcised as a Jew and a rabbinic orthodox believer. For the times, I don't know how more Jewish one could be.

:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: See: Miracles do happen! We're finally on the same page.

Paul was more than an "orthodox believer". He studied at the feet of a rabbinic legend of his day -- Gamaliel (Act 22:3), who was a brilliant, learned scholar. In fact, he was the founder of the more liberal school of two main ones in his day -- the other being Shammai. He was also a member of the vaunted and respected Sanhedrin. In fact, Gamaliel was largely responsible for getting the Sanhedrin to cut Peter and his companions loose after the Jews had imprisoned them for preaching the Gospel (Act 5:33-39).

Paul must have come from a wealthy family to have been able to afford sitting under someone like Gamaliel. I also say this because Paul was born a Roman citizen, which probably means his parents bought their citizenship. And Roman citizenship did not come cheap (Act 22:25-28).

Boxcar

TJDave

04-11-2011, 07:31 PM

:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: See: Miracles do happen! We're finally on the same page.

As long as you hold to the theology of supersessionism, we will never be on the same page.

Paul was more than an "orthodox believer". He studied at the feet of a rabbinic legend of his day -- Gamaliel (Act 22:3), who was a brilliant, learned scholar. In fact, he was the founder of the more liberal school of two main ones in his day -- the other being Shammai.

Highly suspect. Gamaliel is listed as a minor contributor to Talmudic law. The two rabbinic schools were Hillel and Shammai. However, in the grand scheme of things it's no longer of importance. Since Christians no longer exercise any control over my life and liberty it makes no difference what you, or I believe.

boxcar

04-11-2011, 08:06 PM

As long as you hold to the theology of supersessionism, we will never be on the same page.

So, you subscribe to the Law, do you? Since you have deemed yourself unworthy to participate in the new covenant prophesied by Jeremiah and instituted by Christ, do you observe the Law of Moses? In all respects, to some degree or not at all?

Boxcar

TJDave

04-11-2011, 09:16 PM

Since you have deemed yourself unworthy to participate in the new covenant
Boxcar

Hardly. The Mosaic covenant is just fine with me and mine.

To paraphrase another poster:

Your meanness is showing.

OTM Al

04-11-2011, 10:09 PM

That is contrary to what Paul claimed. Born and circumcised as a Jew and a rabbinic orthodox believer. For the times, I don't know how more Jewish one could be.

Well, don't know what I was thinking on that one. Complete brain lock I guess. The question now is who was I thinking of????

boxcar

04-11-2011, 10:40 PM

Hardly. The Mosaic covenant is just fine with me and mine.

To paraphrase another poster:

Your meanness is showing.

I'm not any meaner than Paul himself when he employed the term "unworthy" when addressing other Jews who also refused to believe the gospel (Act 13:46).

But now more to the point since, as a practitioner of Judaism, you seem to think that you're obedient to the covenant. I'm going to quote a passage from a Book of the Law, and then I'm going to ask you a question to which I'd like you to give very careful thought before answering. But if you're unsure on how to reply, I would also encourage you to seek out some trusted, respected rabbi and pose the question to him, as well. Here is the passage:

Lev 17:11
'For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.'
NASB

The Jews ceased offering the sacrifices required by the Law in 70 A.D. after the Temple was razed, Jerusalem was destroyed and your people were scattered among the nations. Ever since that time, how have Jews been able to think that they have had their sins forgiven in the absence of blood sacrifices which make atonement for sins and in the absence of Levitical priests who are supposed to intercede on behalf of the people to make those sacrifices, all of which are mandated under the Law of Moses? How do practitioners of Judaism today justify breaking the Covenant of Moses, while also supposing their sins are forgiven?

Boxcar

TJDave

04-11-2011, 11:28 PM

I'm going to quote a passage from a Book of the Law, and then I'm going to ask you a question to which I'd like you to give very careful thought before answering.

You defame my religion, insult its commentators, question my faith... then ask for my participation?

A Dale Carnegie graduate, you're not. :rolleyes:

boxcar

04-12-2011, 12:50 AM

You defame my religion, insult its commentators, question my faith... then ask for my participation?

A Dale Carnegie graduate, you're not. :rolleyes:

But a student of the Holy Scriptures I am, thanks be to God!

My question to you was fair since you claimed loyalty to the Mosaic Covenant supposing that the Law, upon which that covenant is based, is going to save you? Yet, you can't answer me how the Law of Moses, from which I quoted, is going to save covenant breakers even though you appeal to that very Law? How very odd, since blood atonement runs from Gen 3:15 through Revelations.

First, God slew innocent animals and used their skins to cover the nakedness, as well as the guilt of our first parents. After that Abel offered up acceptable blood sacrifices to God. Noah did likewise after the Flood (Gen 8:28). Then we saw where Job was the family priest and offered sacrifices to God on behalf of his family, as did his three friends offer sacricies. Then we can read where our father Abraham offered up blood sacrifices to God which God himself provided in place of Isaac (Gen 22:11ff.) In fact, all our patriarchs did. Then with Moses, God ratified his covenant through the ceremonial laws and the Levitical priesthood which require blood sacrifices. And then 2,000 years ago God sent his only begotten Son into the world --the spotless Lamb of God -- so that he would institute the everlasting New Covenant through his shed his blood on the cross for his people, so that all who believe -- Jews and Gentiles alike (for they are now one in the Lord, as there is no partiality with God) -- are covered by the blood of his atonement. Yet you, a practicing Jew, who has appealed to the Covenant of Moses, cannot tell me how your sins are covered, apart from blood atonement? Utterly amazing.

I would to God that by the name of my Father Abraham that I would provoke you to jealousy. For even Moses wrote in his Law:

Deut 32:21
'They have made Me jealous with what is not God;
They have provoked Me to anger with their idols.
So I will make them jealous with those who are not a people;
I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation,
NASB

Boxcar

TJDave

04-12-2011, 01:19 AM

you claimed loyalty to the Mosaic Covenant supposing that the Law, upon which that covenant is based, is going to save you?

Save me???

Save me from what?

hcap

04-12-2011, 04:51 AM

One of the historical problems with literal fundamentalism of boxcar is the denial of salvation to non Christians. Recently most of modern Christianity has moved away from the literal. A narrow literal view of salvation is contrary to a growing attitude among most Christians, and contrary to Judaism. The Seven Laws of Noah allows non Jews and all of humankind who live according to these laws as a righteous gentile, a place in the world to come (Olam Haba). So when a Christian tells a Jew Jesus is the only way, it reflects a poor understanding of the Jewish perspective and OT. If early Jews are blamed for the death of Christ-as box has done-it is particular insulting.

OTM Al

04-12-2011, 07:30 AM

Save me???

Save me from what?

It certainly saves you from the foolishness he is spouting. Generally the only use an evangelical has for Jews is the hope that they will rebuild the temple so all the hooey they believe and made up in the late 19th-early 20th century is in the Apocalypse of John will come to pass (yes, that is a revisionism to which I refered). Usually they don't tend to be so openly hateful though. Boxy is an exception even for his sect I guess.

boxcar

04-12-2011, 11:17 AM

boxcar

04-12-2011, 11:39 AM

It certainly saves you from the foolishness he is spouting. Generally the only use an evangelical has for Jews is the hope that they will rebuild the temple so all the hooey they believe and made up in the late 19th-early 20th century is in the Apocalypse of John will come to pass (yes, that is a revisionism to which I refered). Usually they don't tend to be so openly hateful though. Boxy is an exception even for his sect I guess.

Yep, I am an exception. I do not subscribe to the popular Eschatology that teaches that God has two chosen peoples -- corporate Israel and the Church. Israel broke the Old Covenant, which is why the Jews incurred the punishment of God and were driven out of their land in 70 A.D., as prophesied by Christ. The Old Covenant has been made obsolete by the everlasting New Covenant.

Heb 8:13
13 When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.
NASB

Furthermore, have you never read?

Matt 9:16-17
16 No one puts a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for the patch tears away from the garment, and a worse tear is made. 17 Neither is new wine put into old wineskins. If it is, the skins burst and the wine is spilled and the skins are destroyed. But new wine is put into fresh wineskins, and so both are preserved."
ESV

And you you accuse me of being hateful for speaking the truth? And I suppose if I spoke the lies of the world, you would praise me for my love?

Boxcar

boxcar

04-12-2011, 11:50 AM

Save me???

Save me from what?

Are you suggesting me that sin is not spoken of in your Law? Seriously? Explain to me, then, what Yom Kippur is all about -- the most important holiday on the Jewish calendar. Or do you have no sin?

Boxcar

lsbets

04-12-2011, 12:15 PM

Explain to me, then, what Yom Kippur is all about -- the most important holiday on the Jewish calendar.
Boxcar

Not quite. Most scholars would rank it second behind the sabbath.

OTM Al

04-12-2011, 12:42 PM

And you you accuse me of being hateful for speaking the truth? And I suppose if I spoke the lies of the world, you would praise me for my love?

Boxcar

No, I accuse you for being hateful because you mix and match unrelated scripture to make yourself feel superior without understanding what it is actually saying and using it to condemn your fellow man. Sadly, this is a common mistake for those who believe in literal modern interpretation without having the least bit of knowledge of the culture of the people of the time that actually wrote these things. Fortunately, you and those like you don't have the power to make the world in your own image.

TJDave

04-12-2011, 01:04 PM

The testimony of scripture lays the blame, not me.

And you espouse it.

It's the Nuremberg defense. And...

It won't save you.

boxcar

04-12-2011, 01:45 PM

And you espouse it.

It's the Nuremberg defense. And...

It won't save you.

I espouse the truth, nothing else. Just remember: Save for Luke, it was Jews who wrote the NT, and so we have Jews bearing witness against their own people! Therefore, I will never need to be saved for bearing witness to the testimony of Scripture. In fact, you can't even accuse me (at least with a straight face) of being anti-Semitic since I believe all those Jewish writers, as well in my thoroughly Jewish Messiah!

But I'm still waiting to hear either about your sinlessness or what Yom Kippur is all about since you appear to believe you're in no need of salvation.

Boxcar

PaceAdvantage

04-12-2011, 01:47 PM

you appear to believe you're in no need of salvation.Why do you make such a giant leap in logic? Nothing he stated indicated anything of the sort.

TJDave

04-12-2011, 04:39 PM

boxcar

04-12-2011, 05:11 PM

No, I accuse you for being hateful because you mix and match unrelated scripture to make yourself feel superior without understanding what it is actually saying and using it to condemn your fellow man.

If my "mixing and matching" hasn't been of the truth, you would have been able to point to all the inconsistencies in my arguments by now; for truly I would have tripped over myself in many of those by now. Your failure to be able to do this testifies against your own inferior knowledge of scripture, as well as to the ignorance of what little you think you do know. And in addition to all this, you should be the last one in this thread to speak about anyone's lack of understanding, when you have never understood the duality (internal contradictions) within your own religious skepticism and that this duality defies any understanding because it is irrational, illogical and absurd. In fact, the two contradictions I pointed to are apparently too much of a challenge for your "enlightened" religious, skeptical mind, for your silence is still deafening.

And I'm not even close to being as condemning as Stephen was when he ended his eloquent and historically-based sermon to his fellow Jews with this razor-sharp rebuke:

Acts 7:51-53
51 "You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did. 52 "Which one of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who had previously announced the coming of the Righteous One, whose betrayers and murderers you have now become; 53 you who received the law as ordained by angels, and yet did not keep it."
NASB

This so angered the Jews that they stoned him -- with Paul witnessing the whole event, yet. These white-washed hypocrites could not stand to be confronted with their own sins. I bet if you have ever read this long passage in its entirely, you have probably nodded in approval to the reaction of these Christ-hating Jews! Am I warm?

My rebukes have been mild by comparison and have been designed to provoke to a holy jealousy and to move people to investigate the Scriptures for themselves.

But with further regard to my supposed lack of understanding of scripture and my "questionable" hermeneutics, spoken by one who seems to think of himself as so well-informed on the bible's content, I would be remiss if I didn't point out to you, your own dullness which is so real I think I could cut it with a knife!. Permit to explain.

A few days ago, I pointed out to you that the Fall of Satan was relevant to the Fall of Man. I quoted scripture that showed that Satan's ultimate sin of his prideful heart was that he wanted to be like God. This was a major clue (among other evidences) that I used to refute your nonsense that monotheism evolved from polytheism.

Then I gave a second huge clue by pointing to very similar language which Satan used to push Eve over the edge -- to get her to finally disobey God. Let's look at that language again:

Gen 3:4-5
4 And the serpent said to the woman, "You surely shall not die! 5 "For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
NASB

What you have overlooked in this passage and the one in Isaiah 14 is that in the latter passage, Satan wanted to be God. He wanted God to move over on his throne, so that he could take his place right next to him. He thought there was room in the cosmos for TWO GODS! (Can you spell polytheism? And can you understand that this was the desire of the Evil One's heart?) After he was cast out of heaven and down to the earth for being profane, he used those very same evil desires of his prideful heart to tempt Eve! He promised her that if she would just bite into the forbidden fruit that she would be just like God -- she would be God's co-God in a manner of speaking. She would be co-deity because she would know everything God knows. The temptation itself was polytheistic at its core! And then after Adam bit into the fruit, I have no doubt they both thought they would be in for a huge life-changing, transformational promotion from mere creature status to god status by the magical qualities of that fruit.

Therefore, it can be rightfully said from the scriptures that the sinful desire for polytheism by Satan, and the subsequent and equally as sinful and false promise of polytheism extended to Eve by him existed from the beginning; but this is a far cry from saying that monotheism evolved from polytheistic religious practices, which is not at all supported in the Genesis record. In fact, the practice of polytheism isn't actually mentioned until Gen 31:30. This isn't to say that this perversion of true worship to the one true God didn't occur prior to this, such as before the Flood since man's heart is described as being incredibly evil, but all I'm saying is that we can't argue from that from silence. And there doesn't appear to have been any hint of polytheistic practices by Adam or Eve after they fell or by Cain, Abel, Seth, etc. And this would seem to make sense since Adam and Eve would have passed on their sad story to their posterity on how utterly deceived they were for believing Satan's lie -- his promise of godhood! That story probably stuck with a few generations before that truth, too, was corrupted.

Paul's argument in Rom 1:18ff, therefore, is entirely consistent with the Genesis record of the Fall and my interpretation thereof -- for it's crystal clear that he had the Fall in his mind when he wrote --"for since the creation of the world". And no one knew God better than our first parents! And no one worshiped the creature better than our first parents! And no exchanged the glory of God for corruptible things better than our first parents. And no one exchanged the the truth of God for a lie better than our first parents, etc., etc., etc.

So, yes, continue to try to marginalize my God-given insights into scripture with your lame retorts about how I lack understanding, how comparing scripture with scripture is an illegitimate way to interpret within the context of A BOOK, how mean-spirited I am, yada, yada, yada. All you're doing is projecting all your many inadequacies upon me. For someone who thinks he has been so enlightened by the "higher critics", how could you have missed what was really going on during the two Falls? And trust me: Idolatrous Polytheism is still alive and well in this 21st century; and if you don't understand how, feel free to ask. I'll explain it to you from the Word. It's still the dominant world religion, as it was in ancient history.

Boxcar

boxcar

04-12-2011, 05:13 PM

Why do you make such a giant leap in logic? Nothing he stated indicated anything of the sort.

Did you miss his 127?

Boxcar

PaceAdvantage

04-12-2011, 05:25 PM

Of course I didn't miss it...that's part of what prompted my reply.

boxcar

04-12-2011, 06:20 PM

Ludicrous... Considering that personal salvation is a Christian concept foreign to classic Judaism. When Christians lecture about heaven and hell they assume Jews to be on the same page, theologically speaking. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Dead wrong! The whole idea of "redemption" itself is inextricably bound up with "salvation" in the OT. I cannot believe that you would say such a thing, especially if you're a practicing Jew. YHWH is very often spoken of as "savior" in the OT. This hearkens back to what I've been saying all along: All doctrines find their origin in the OT. Bar none! To the best of my knowledge, there is not one single doctrine that is not carried over from the OT to the NT.

While the the concept of "savior" in the OT is frequently used in the context of corporate Israel because the nation did have a covenant relationship with God, there are also times when this concept clearly applies to individuals, as well. David, as King, in the Psalms, for example, often pleaded for "salvation" in the corporate context because Israel was surrounded by flesh and blood enemies bent on Israel's destruction. (However, David often cried out for his own personal deliverance, as well!) Conversely, Job is a great example of an individual looking for his salvation on the day when he would meet his Redeemer "at the last" face to face here on earth at the Resurrection.

Also, to deny that YHWH is a savior is to deny that he is also the Judge of all the earth. You would also have to deny that YHWH never judged Israel and Judah (quite harshly, I might add) for their apostasies and their spiritual harlotries.

And if Jews were not in need of a personal savior, what was the need for all the Ceremonial aspects to the Law of Moses? Why the Priesthood? Why the necessity for blood sacrifices, etc., etc.?

Ps 106:21
21 They forgot God their Savior,
Who had done great things in Egypt,
NASB

Isa 19:20
20 And it will become a sign and a witness to the Lord of hosts in the land of Egypt; for they will cry to the Lord because of oppressors, and He will send them a Savior and a Champion, and He will deliver them.
NASB

Note "deliverance" being an important aspect to "redemption".

Isa 43:3
3 "For I am the Lord your God,
The Holy One of Israel, your Savior; I have given Egypt as your ransom Cush and Seba in your place.
NASB

"Ransom", too, is an important aspect

Isa 43:11-12
1 "I, even I, am the Lord;
And there is no savior besides Me.
12 "It is I who have declared and saved and proclaimed,
NASB

Isa 45:15
5 Truly, Thou art a God who hides Himself,
O God of Israel, Savior!
NASB

Isa 45:21
And there is no other God besides Me,
A righteous God and a Savior;
There is none except Me.
NASB

Isa 49:26
And all flesh will know that I, the Lord, am your Savior,
And your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob."
NASB

Isa 60:16
Then you will know that I, the Lord, am your Savior,
And your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob.
NASB

"Redeemer" and "Savior" go hand in glove.

Isa 63:8-10
8 For He said, "Surely, they are My people,
Sons who will not deal falsely."
So He became their Savior.
9 In all their affliction He was afflicted,
And the angel of His presence saved them;
In His love and in His mercy He redeemed them;
And He lifted them and carried them all the days of old.
10 But they rebelled
And grieved His Holy Spirit;
Therefore, He turned Himself to become their enemy,
He fought against them.
NASB

Hos 13:4-5

4 Yet I have been the Lord your God
Since the land of Egypt;
And you were not to know any god except Me,
For there is no savior besides Me.
5 I cared for you in the wilderness,
In the land of drought.
NASB

Ps 6:4-5
4 Return, O Lord, rescue my soul;
Save me because of Thy lovingkindness.
5 For there is no mention of Thee in death;
In Sheol who will give Thee thanks?
NASB

Above is a personal cry for salvation.

Ps 31:16-17
16 Make Thy face to shine upon Thy servant;
Save me in Thy lovingkindness.
17 Let me not be put to shame, O Lord, for I call upon Thee;
Let the wicked be put to shame, let them be silent in Sheol.
NASB

Ps 76:8-9
8 Thou didst cause judgment to be heard from heaven;
The earth feared, and was still,
9 When God arose to judgment,
To save all the humble of the earth.
NASB

Here, God is portrayed as the savior of the world, clearly impled by the last phrase, since all the humble upon the earth must include Jews and Gentiles alike.

Ps 103:2-4
2 Bless the Lord, O my soul,
And forget none of His benefits;
3 Who pardons all your iniquities;
Who heals all your diseases;
4 Who redeems your life from the pit;
Who crowns you with lovingkindness and compassion;
NASB

Again, personal redemption here is in view. And the last verse could have just as easily read "who saves your life from the pit". It would not have changed the meaning one iota.

Isa 38:17-20
17 "Lo, for my own welfare I had great bitterness;
It is Thou who hast kept my soul from the pit of nothingness,
For Thou hast cast all my sins behind Thy back.
18 "For Sheol cannot thank Thee,
Death cannot praise Thee;
Those who go down to the pit cannot hope for Thy faithfulness.
19 "It is the living who give thanks to Thee, as I do today;
A father tells his sons about Thy faithfulness.
20 "The Lord will surely save me;
So we will play my songs on stringed instruments
All the days of our life at the house of the Lord."
NASB

Personal salvation is in view.

Num 16:30
30 But if the Lord brings about an entirely new thing and the ground opens its mouth and swallows them up with all that is theirs, and they descend alive into Sheol, then you will understand that these men have spurned the Lord."
NASB

Just as YHWH saves those who are his, likewise he judges and condemns those who aren't.

Deut 32:22
22 For a fire is kindled in My anger,
And burns to the lowest part of Sheol,
And consumes the earth with its yield,
And sets on fire the foundations of the mountains.
NASB

Sheol was the underworld, where before the advent of Christ, both the saved and lost were sent -- in different compartments, evidently. And this concept seems to be taught in Jesus's story of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Lk 16:20ff.) But after the death of Christ, he led Sheol's "captives" (the redeemed OT saints to whom he preached and revealed himself after his death but prior to his resurrection), cf. Lk 4:18; Eph 4:8.

Job 24:19
9 "Drought and heat consume the snow waters,
So does Sheol those who have sinned.
NASB

Job clearly has in mind the judgment and condemnation of individuals who have sinned, which would harmonize nicely with the idea that individuals who trusted in YHWH would also be saved.

Ps 9:17
7 The wicked will return to Sheol,
Even all the nations who forget God.
NASB

Again, it's only the wicked who will return to Sheol

Ps 49:15
15 But God will redeem my soul from the power of Sheol;
For He will receive me.
NASB

Prov 15:24
4 The path of life leads upward for the wise,
That he may keep away from Sheol below.
NASB

Individuals clearly in view here.

Isa 5:14
14 Therefore, Sheol has enlarged its throat and opened its mouth without measure;
And Jerusalem's splendor, her multitude, her din of revelry, and the jubilant within her, descend into it.
NASB

National (corporate) judgment is in view here.

Isa 14:9
9 "Sheol from beneath is excited over you to meet you when you come;
It arouses for you the spirits of the dead, all the leaders of the earth;
It raises all the kings of the nations from their thrones.
NASB

This talking about an individual creature of God -- Satan.

It boggles my mind, TJ, how you could possibly miss these kinds of passages, and many, many more like them in the OT and come away with the idea of that personal salvation, judgment and condemnation isn't in the OT.

Boxcar

boxcar

04-12-2011, 06:22 PM

Of course I didn't miss it...that's part of what prompted my reply.

Then what part of 127 didn't you understand? Why don't you quote it for us and give us your interpretation?

Boxcar
P.S. You might also try reading and understanding what he said in 138. Then give us your interpretation of 127 and if you're up to it 138, too.

PaceAdvantage

04-12-2011, 06:36 PM

Then what part of 127 didn't you understand? Why don't you quote it for us and give us your interpretation?

Boxcar
P.S. You might also try reading and understanding what he said in 138. Then give us your interpretation of 127 and if you're up to it 138, too.Whether I am right or wrong in any one instance is immaterial to the overall point I have been trying to make about the way you come off here.

I'm not here to debate scripture with you. And that's not what I have been doing in this thread.

lsbets

04-12-2011, 07:07 PM

It seems like a good time to remind all that Boxcar asserted earlier in this thread that Job was hanging out with dinosaurs ala Land of the Lost. That's his reading of scripture- the Flintstones.

boxcar

04-12-2011, 07:54 PM

Whether I am right or wrong in any one instance is immaterial to the overall point I have been trying to make about the way you come off here.

I'm not here to debate scripture with you. And that's not what I have been doing in this thread.

Typical nonsense. You want it both ways. Now you change your tune to remark about my "tone". Yet, earlier you distinctly referred to my "giant leap in logic". So, which is it? My tone or my logic?

Your duplicity is starting to blatantly show, and even more since the logic of mine you questioned earlier had nothing do with any text of scripture.

Also, with respect to scripture, you had no problem commenting on and supporting Al's "thoughtful" and "thorough" take on Job 19, did you? More duplicity.

You're getting sloppy, PA. Maybe you should start keeping better records of what you write.

Boxcar

boxcar

04-12-2011, 07:59 PM

It seems like a good time to remind all that Boxcar asserted earlier in this thread that Job was hanging out with dinosaurs ala Land of the Lost. That's his reading of scripture- the Flintstones.

Hey, Fred...in the Land of the Blind, the one-eyed man is king. I have zero doubt that you're commenting on those Job passages without ever having read them for yourself, which makes you a blind drive-by poster.

Boxcar

Greyfox

04-12-2011, 08:06 PM

Typical nonsense. You want it both ways. Now you change your tune to remark about my "tone".
Boxcar

Independent of the content you are presenting and the beliefs that you hold, which I respect, you seem to be coming across in this thread Boxcar as very driven and obsessive. Disagreeing with PA is one thing, but calling what he said as "typical nonsense" is pushing the envelope. He does provide you with a forum in which to air your views. For that be thankful.

lsbets

04-12-2011, 08:19 PM

Hey, Fred...in the Land of the Blind, the one-eyed man is king. I have zero doubt that you're commenting on those Job passages without ever having read them for yourself, which makes you a blind drive-by poster.

Boxcar

Yeah, because those Job passages clearly say that dinosaurs lived at the same time as man. You're without a doubt the preeminent biblical scholar of our time. :faint: :faint:

boxcar

04-12-2011, 08:40 PM

Independent of the content you are presenting and the beliefs that you hold, which I respect, you seem to be coming across in this thread Boxcar as very driven and obsessive. Disagreeing with PA is one thing, but calling what he said as "typical nonsense" is pushing the envelope. He does provide you with a forum in which to air your views. For that be thankful.

I am. And I have often thanked him and sung the praises of this forum in the past. But that aside because that's an entirely different matter, when he is clearly being duplicitous, I will call him on it as I see it, as quickly as I would anyone else on this forum.

As far as being "driven" or "obsessive", I'm only responding to people's posts. I'm like Daniel in a fashion -- surrounded by voracious lions in the den - a den full of skeptics and unbelievers looking to devour a "dumb, biased, uninformed, unenlightened, backward, fundamentalist" Christian. But just as those lions never attacked the prophet, likewise the "lions" in this thread have not attacked me with any good arguments, rebuttals or constructive criticisms about the content of my posts. But they haven't been short on personal whinings, complaints or gratuitous insults -- all typical nonsense, too.

Boxcar

boxcar

04-12-2011, 08:45 PM

Yeah, because those Job passages clearly say that dinosaurs lived at the same time as man. You're without a doubt the preeminent biblical scholar of our time. :faint: :faint:

How would you know what they say when you have never read the passages?

And if I'm the "preeminent biblical scholar" of the day, would that make you a leading candidate for preeminent drive-by, cheap-shot poster award of the year? Just asking...

Boxcar

lsbets

04-12-2011, 09:47 PM

How would you know what they say when you have never read the passages?

And if I'm the "preeminent biblical scholar" of the day, would that make you a leading candidate for preeminent drive-by, cheap-shot poster award of the year? Just asking...

Boxcar

Could you show me where I have stated that I never read it? Didn't think do. You swing and miss again, yet you will say no one has countered anything you've said. You're sounding worse than Hcap when he evangelizes global warming.

You cannot expect to be taken seriously when you say men and dinosaurs lived together. Sorry, it just makes you sound like a total rube.

boxcar

04-12-2011, 10:44 PM

Could you show me where I have stated that I never read it? Didn't think do. You swing and miss again, yet you will say no one has countered anything you've said. You're sounding worse than Hcap when he evangelizes global warming.

You cannot expect to be taken seriously when you say men and dinosaurs lived together. Sorry, it just makes you sound like a total rube.

I know you haven't because you have never offered any alternative explanations. You had none initially with your first drive-by, and now even though that ship sailed a few days ago, you're still as intellectually vacuous on the passages now as you were then. Therefore, YOU haven't "countered" anything.

Boxcar

Greyfox

04-12-2011, 11:18 PM

As far as being "driven" or "obsessive", I'm only responding to people's posts. Boxcar

I admire your commitment to Christ.
I admire, without question, your knowledge of the Bible.
Nobody here would, or should, question that, in my opinion.
To debate your knowledge of the Bible would be a fool's mission.

But interpretations are always open to discussion of any text.
You know that well.
You are excellent in presenting the examples of your arguments. Bar none.
But, if I can suggest some ideas:

1. Your long explanations, including multiple examples, are too much for most visitors to read. Your audience is gone. Maybe one or two examples would be better appreciated.
(We know you know your stuff. Do we agree with you?
Not necessarily. But you are entitled to your beliefs.)

2. With your knowledge of Christianity, there is a need for empathy and tolerance that you likely have, but is not completely apparent, or conveyed in your posts.
(The most recent example was in your recent reply to PA who has a lot more to do than just this thread.)

At any rate, I suspect you are a good Christian and wish you well,

Greyfox

PaceAdvantage

04-12-2011, 11:27 PM

Typical nonsense. You want it both ways. Now you change your tune to remark about my "tone". Yet, earlier you distinctly referred to my "giant leap in logic". So, which is it? My tone or my logic?

Your duplicity is starting to blatantly show, and even more since the logic of mine you questioned earlier had nothing do with any text of scripture.

Also, with respect to scripture, you had no problem commenting on and supporting Al's "thoughtful" and "thorough" take on Job 19, did you? More duplicity.

You're getting sloppy, PA. Maybe you should start keeping better records of what you write.

BoxcarBaloney. Your leaps in logic ARE ALL PART of your overall tone. One big show of condescension. You think you know it all, and it shows. I get it. That's why I'm here commenting. You will note I don't get into any discussions of scripture. I leave that to experts like you. :faint:

And just because I commented that Al's reply was thoughtful and thorough, without any personal jabs (and I am referring to that SPECIFIC REPLY, because I know you'll come back at me and show me a time or two Al shot a jab back at you), I was certainly not commenting on scripture or content. It was all about overall TONE, once again. My common theme here...

Why is this all so hard for you to comprehend?

It's not me being sloppy. It's you reading what you want to read, despite what is actually written.

boxcar

04-13-2011, 01:19 AM

Not quite. Most scholars would rank it second behind the sabbath.

And at the terrible risk of being called mean, condescending, a know-it-all, and all those other good things, you don't mind, LS, if someone who knows what he's talking about corrects you, do you? "The sabbath" occurs once a week every week. But I wasn't talking about weekly sabbaths. I was referring to one holiday or holy day known as Yom Kippur, which is considered to be, at minimum, one of the two High Holy Days of the Year on the Jewish calendar. Some Jews consider this to be their most sacred Holy Day; while others consider it to be the second most important.

Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement) is one of two Jewish High Holy Days. The first High Holy Day is Rosh Hashanah (the Jewish New Year). Yom Kippur falls ten days after Rosh Hashanah on the 10th of Tishrei, which is a Hebrew month that correlates with September-October on the secular calendar. The purpose of Yom Kippur is to bring about reconciliation between people and between individuals and God. According to Jewish tradition, it is also the day when God decides the fate of each human being.

http://judaism.about.com/od/holidays/a/yomkippur.htm

Yom Kippur is the holiest day of the Jewish year, and provides prophetic insight regarding the Second Coming of Mashiach, the restoration of national Israel, and the final judgment of the world. It is also a day that reveals the High-Priestly work of the Mashiach Yeshua as our Kohen Gadol (High Priest) after the order of Malki-Tzedek (Hebrews 5:10, 6:20).

http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Holidays/Fall_Holidays/Yom_Kippur/yom_kippur.html

Yom Kippur is the "Day of Atonement" and refers to the annual Jewish observance of fasting, prayer and repentance. This is considered to be the holiest day in the Jewish calendar. In three separate passages in the Torah, the Jewish people are told, "the tenth day of the seventh month is the Day of Atonement. It shall be a sacred occasion for you: You shall practice self-denial."(Leviticus 23:27). Fasting is seen as fulfilling this biblical commandment. The Yom Kippur fast also enables us to put aside our physical desires and to concentrate on our spiritual needs through prayer, repentance and self-improvement. It is customary in the days before Yom Kippur for Jews to seek out friends and family whom they have wronged and personally ask for their forgiveness.

http://urj.org/holidays/highholidays/yomkippur/

Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, is the most sacred of the Jewish holidays, the "Sabbath of Sabbaths."

By Yom Kippur the 40 days of repentance, that begin with the first of Elul, have passed. On Rosh Hashanah G-d has judged most of mankind and has recorded his judgement in the Book of Life. But he has given a 10 day reprieve.

On Yom Kippur the Book of Life is closed and sealed. Those that have repented for their sins are granted a good and happy New Year.

Since Yom Kippur is the day to ask forgiveness for promises broken to G-d, the day before is reserved for asking forgiveness for broken promises between people, as G-d cannot forgive broken promises between people.

http://www.holidays.net/highholydays/yom.htm

I appreciate the opportunity you have provided for a teachable moment. :D

And I'm certainly looking forward to your opinions on those little beasties in Job. That would be really interesting -- not to mention fun. :lol: :lol:

Boxcar

TJDave

04-13-2011, 02:26 AM

And at the terrible risk of being called mean, condescending, a know-it-all, and all those other good things, you don't mind, LS, if someone who knows what he's talking about corrects you, do you? "The sabbath" occurs once a week every week. But I wasn't talking about weekly sabbaths. I was referring to one holiday or holy day known as Yom Kippur, which is considered to be, at minimum, one of the two High Holy Days of the Year on the Jewish calendar. Some Jews consider this to be their most sacred Holy Day; while others consider it to be the second most important.

You should stick with something you know, like meanness, arrogance and condescension.

The Sabbath IS the most important Jewish Holiday, by far.

It is the first of the God's POSITIVE commandments:

Observe the Sabbath day and keep it holy

The first holiday God establishes:

God blessed the seventh day, and made it holy

In Jewish ritual, whenever any holiday coincides with the Sabbath...The Sabbath takes precedent.

Violate Yom Kippur and be cut off from the congregation...Violate the Sabbath and the penalty was death.

lsbets

04-13-2011, 07:48 AM

You should stick with something you know, like meanness, arrogance and condescension.

The Sabbath IS the most important Jewish Holiday, by far.

It is the first of the God's POSITIVE commandments:

Observe the Sabbath day and keep it holy

The first holiday God establishes:

God blessed the seventh day, and made it holy

In Jewish ritual, whenever any holiday coincides with the Sabbath...The Sabbath takes precedent.

Violate Yom Kippur and be cut off from the congregation...Violate the Sabbath and the penalty was death.

Dave do you really expect anything you wrote to matter at all to Box? He knows your religion better than you do. Didn't you learn about the land of the lost as a lad? If you can't counter his argument that Job hung out with dinosaurs, then you don't know anything. The dude is as far off the reservation as any cultist you will ever encounter. Ignorance masked by arrogance is not a pretty combination.

hcap

04-13-2011, 09:04 AM

One of the historical problems with literal fundamentalism of boxcar is the denial of salvation to non Christians.
Ludicrous... Considering that personal salvation is a Christian concept foreign to classic Judaism. When Christians lecture about heaven and hell they assume Jews to be on the same page, theologically speaking. Nothing could be further from the truth.Dead wrong! The whole idea of "redemption" itself is inextricably bound up with "salvation" in the OT. I cannot believe that you would say such a thing, especially if you're a practicing Jew. YHWH is very often spoken of as "savior" in the OT. This hearkens back to what I've been saying all along: All doctrines find their origin in the OT. Bar none! To the best of my knowledge, there is not one single doctrine that is not carried over from the OT to the NT.

Hey box it is historical fact. Fudies have an entrance exam and limited space available in the hereafter.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_savn.htm

Very Conservative Protestant Theologians:
Most Fundamentalists and many other Evangelicals continue the Restrictivist beliefs taught by traditional Christianity. They believe that each verse in the Bible is without error (as originally written). They are compelled to follow the writings of Paul and the author of the Gospel of John. Those authors appear to have written consistently that only believers reach Heaven. Non-believers will go to Hell. One result of this belief is the list that the Southern Baptist Convention occasionally prepares. It estimates the percentages of people in various states of the US who will eventually go to heaven. Their data are based on the number of Southern Baptist members, and the numbers of members of other denominations in each state. From these data, they are able to estimate the percentage in each state who are "saved."
....."This hearkens back to what I've been saying all along: All doctrines find their origin in the OT. "

...Only if you ignore historical timeliness and archaeology. You repeatably use “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits.

A good case can be made as to how this applies to "wolves" who profess intolerance, mean-spiritedness along with obvious ignorance of reality.

BTW, Paleontology does not include a Flintstones anthology

OTM Al

04-13-2011, 09:37 AM

As far as being "driven" or "obsessive", I'm only responding to people's posts. I'm like Daniel in a fashion -- surrounded by voracious lions in the den - a den full of skeptics and unbelievers looking to devour a "dumb, biased, uninformed, unenlightened, backward, fundamentalist" Christian. But just as those lions never attacked the prophet, likewise the "lions" in this thread have not attacked me with any good arguments, rebuttals or constructive criticisms about the content of my posts. But they haven't been short on personal whinings, complaints or gratuitous insults -- all typical nonsense, too.

Boxcar

Guess we should have figured it was only a matter of time until the martyr complex reared it's head. Of course you must discount any arguments against your statements because the construct you have created is a house of cards. One movement anywhere on your part causes the collapse of the whole thing for you. It's why everything must be a certain way and everything is judged in huge extremes. I find it sad that anyone would treat religion in this way as to me it means that the individual has completely missed the point.

boxcar

04-13-2011, 01:04 PM

You should stick with something you know, like meanness, arrogance and condescension.

The Sabbath IS the most important Jewish Holiday, by far.

It is the first of the God's POSITIVE commandments:

Observe the Sabbath day and keep it holy

The first holiday God establishes:

God blessed the seventh day, and made it holy

In Jewish ritual, whenever any holiday coincides with the Sabbath...The Sabbath takes precedent.

Violate Yom Kippur and be cut off from the congregation...Violate the Sabbath and the penalty was death.

But there's lots of Jews out there who obviously would disagree with you per the links I posted. From their perspective, it is a HIGH HOLY DAY (one of two in the calendar) -- and in many cases THE day, whereas the weekly sabbaths are not considered by many Jews to in the same category as the two "high holy days".

Boxcar
P.S. You forgot one in your opening sentence -- smugness. :rolleyes:

boxcar

04-13-2011, 01:07 PM

Guess we should have figured it was only a matter of time until the martyr complex reared it's head.[/i]

Your ignorance of the bible is still showing. Daniel was never martyred. This is how I was able to draw the analogy, the logic of which totally escaped you.

[quote]Of course you must discount any arguments against your statements because the construct you have created is a house of cards. One movement anywhere on your part causes the collapse of the whole thing for you. It's why everything must be a certain way and everything is judged in huge extremes. I find it sad that anyone would treat religion in this way as to me it means that the individual has completely missed the point.

Then demolishing my "house of cards" should be very easy work for you, shouldn't it?

Boxcar

boxcar

04-13-2011, 01:18 PM

Dave do you really expect anything you wrote to matter at all to Box? He knows your religion better than you do. Didn't you learn about the land of the lost as a lad? If you can't counter his argument that Job hung out with dinosaurs, then you don't know anything. The dude is as far off the reservation as any cultist you will ever encounter. Ignorance masked by arrogance is not a pretty combination.

You think worldly wisdom is a bad combo, eh? Try pondering real wisdom:

Prov 1:22, 24-27
22 "How long, O naive ones, will you love simplicity?
And scoffers delight themselves in scoffing,
And fools hate knowledge?
24 "Because I called, and you refused;
I stretched out my hand, and no one paid attention;
25 And you neglected all my counsel,
And did not want my reproof;
26 I will even laugh at your calamity;
I will mock when your dread comes,
27 When your dread comes like a storm,
And your calamity comes on like a whirlwind,
When distress and anguish come on you.
NASB

Boxcar

boxcar

04-13-2011, 01:26 PM

Baloney. Your leaps in logic ARE ALL PART of your overall tone. One big show of condescension. You think you know it all, and it shows. I get it. That's why I'm here commenting. You will note I don't get into any discussions of scripture. I leave that to experts like you. :faint:

And just because I commented that Al's reply was thoughtful and thorough, without any personal jabs (and I am referring to that SPECIFIC REPLY, because I know you'll come back at me and show me a time or two Al shot a jab back at you), I was certainly not commenting on scripture or content. It was all about overall TONE, once again. My common theme here...

Why is this all so hard for you to comprehend?

It's not me being sloppy. It's you reading what you want to read, despite what is actually written.

Oh, wow! Logic and Tone just got married and became one flesh by a miracle of PA. I'm lost for words....(almost)....but wait..wait....they're coming to me.. slowly. Here they are:

Box 142:1-6.50

1 Then I answered unto PA, and said,

2 "Now I know that Thou canst do all things,
And that no purpose of Thine can be thwarted
Because Thou ownest this joint and all the posts thereof.
3 'Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?'
"Therefore I have declared that which I did not understand,
Things too wonderful for me, which I did not know."
4 'Hear, now, and I will speak;
I will ask Thee, and do Thou instruct me.'
5 "I have heard of Thee by the hearing of the ear
Long before I found this place
But now my eye sees the beauty of your incomprehensible wisdom ;
6 Therefore I retract,
And I repent in dust and ashes."
The Scholars Version :lol: :lol:

Boxcar
P.S. And just for good measure tonight after I cook my Italian meal, I solemnly promise to give myself 100 lashes with a scourge of wet noodles as further proof of my repentance. :lol: :lol:

OTM Al

04-13-2011, 01:31 PM

[QUOTE=OTM Al]Guess we should have figured it was only a matter of time until the martyr complex reared it's head.[/i]

Your ignorance of the bible is still showing. Daniel was never martyred. This is how I was able to draw the analogy, the logic of which totally escaped you.

Then demolishing my "house of cards" should be very easy work for you, shouldn't it?

Boxcar

I didn't say Daniel was martyred. I said that your martyr complex was showing. You = the brave biblical hero beset on all sides. Rest of the world = the lions ie. the whole world against righteous you. Martyr complex.

You love this attention. Act as if it makes you even more holy, fighting all the "evil" in the world. Just another reason why you coming in on these discussion destroys them. It is not my business to demolish your house of cards, nor did I say it was. You will do that on your own eventually.

boxcar

04-13-2011, 01:47 PM

Hey box it is historical fact. Fudies have an entrance exam and limited space available in the hereafter.

....."This hearkens back to what I've been saying all along: All doctrines find their origin in the OT. "

...Only if you ignore historical timeliness and archaeology. You repeatably use “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits.

A good case can be made as to how this applies to "wolves" who profess intolerance, mean-spiritedness along with obvious ignorance of reality.

That's odd...because quite often on this forum I have drawn analogies between Special Revelation and Natural Revelation (reality as we all know it) to show how God's truth is in harmony, yet no one has ever been able to refute one of them, including the series of posts I wrote drawing the exact parallels between the Trinity and the TriUniverse.

As far as that big T word goes (tolerance), it's found in one form only once in the entire bible. Tolerance is a humanistic idea because under the name thereof, man has license to sin and to approve of the sins of others. This is why this concept is virtually foreign to the bible.

Rom 1:26-32
26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

It doesn't look too good here for same sex lovers, does it? But not to fret because there is no partiality with God. He will give equal time to other sins, as well

28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 and, although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
NASB

Methinks Tolerance itself will be judged on the last day.

As far as my "mean-spiritedness" goes, see my recent post to PA.

Boxcar

boxcar

04-13-2011, 03:59 PM

I admire your commitment to Christ.
I admire, without question, your knowledge of the Bible.
Nobody here would, or should, question that, in my opinion.
To debate your knowledge of the Bible would be a fool's mission.

But interpretations are always open to discussion of any text.
You know that well.
You are excellent in presenting the examples of your arguments. Bar none.
But, if I can suggest some ideas:

1. Your long explanations, including multiple examples, are too much for most visitors to read. Your audience is gone. Maybe one or two examples would be better appreciated.
(We know you know your stuff. Do we agree with you?
Not necessarily. But you are entitled to your beliefs.)

2. With your knowledge of Christianity, there is a need for empathy and tolerance that you likely have, but is not completely apparent, or conveyed in your posts.
(The most recent example was in your recent reply to PA who has a lot more to do than just this thread.)

At any rate, I suspect you are a good Christian and wish you well,

Greyfox

Wow! All isn't lost. I have one friend. :jump: :jump:

Seriously, though, thank your for your kind words. As far as my knowledge of scripture is concerned, I have nothing that I haven't received. And I have no understanding that hasn't been imparted by the Holy Spirit. And, yes, my knowledge excels that of the participants on this forum (keeping in mind most subscribers are lurkers). So, when it comes right down to it, this isn't saying very much, is it? But my knowledge is lacking compared to some Christians I know, and they can easily make me feel ashamed and guilty for not being a better student of the Word.

Interpretation is always a problem when approaching scripture. But I think I apply sound hermeneutical principles borrowed from the NT writers and Jesus. My approach, in fact, is biblical, therefore. Save for word study aids and other reference works (since I'm not schooled in the original languages), I rarely go outside of scripture to interpret scripture. I have found this approach to keep me on the straight and narrow, since whatever interpretation I come away with for any given passage, it must harmonize with the rest of scripture.

And your advice is good. Although when I craft an argument, I try to bring to bear upon it at least the most directly relevant texts to bring some force to the argument. For example, when I showed TJ that the idea of personal salvation is indeed taught in the OT, I had to bring those OT passages that use different terms that are practically synonymous with "salvation", such as deliverance, redeemer, ransom, savior, etc.

But I think I'm just about ready to shake the dust off my sandals in terms of this thread. It's really not wise to cast pearls before swine. There isn't detractor of mine in this thread who has an honest bone in his body.

Thanks, again, Greyfox, for your kind sentiments.

Boxcar

hcap

04-14-2011, 06:17 AM

That's odd...because quite often on this forum I have drawn analogies between Special Revelation and Natural Revelation (reality as we all know it) to show how God's truth is in harmony, yet no one has ever been able to refute one of them, including the series of posts I wrote drawing the exact parallels between the Trinity and the TriUniverse.

As far as that big T word goes (tolerance), it's found in one form only once in the entire bible. Tolerance is a humanistic idea because under the name thereof, man has license to sin and to approve of the sins of others. This is why this concept is virtually foreign to the bible.

Methinks Tolerance itself will be judged on the last day.

As far as my "mean-spiritedness" goes, see my recent post to PA.Yes Natural revelation may be what YOU really need. That assumes you are willing to admit reason ans evidence into your little world. But you refuse to engage in any reasonable conversation using evidence or reason. You fit the facts to your small version of God and the bible. Anyone in this day and age who believes man and dinosaurs co-existed has zero understanding of the natural world.

Amazing that a self professed Christian has no room for the "humanitarian" concept of tolerance. A dead giveaway that you have little understanding of your own inner psychology and explains why humility is missing. If you were truly aware of what "sin" really is you would understand that you must witness your own "sin" to feel empathy, compassion, humility and tolerance towards others.

Tolerance is not a word count in the bible. The intellect creating "biblical" connections ad nauseum is missing the mark. Angels dancing on the head of a pin is meaningless without conscience.

boxcar

04-14-2011, 03:15 PM

Yes Natural revelation may be what YOU really need. That assumes you are willing to admit reason ans evidence into your little world. But you refuse to engage in any reasonable conversation using evidence or reason. You fit the facts to your small version of God and the bible. Anyone in this day and age who believes man and dinosaurs co-existed has zero understanding of the natural world.

Amazing that a self professed Christian has no room for the "humanitarian" concept of tolerance. A dead giveaway that you have little understanding of your own inner psychology and explains why humility is missing. If you were truly aware of what "sin" really is you would understand that you must witness your own "sin" to feel empathy, compassion, humility and tolerance towards others.

Tolerance is not a word count in the bible. The intellect creating "biblical" connections ad nauseum is missing the mark. Angels dancing on the head of a pin is meaningless without conscience.

Wow! So, now you depart from your love of consensuses and tell me that "tolerance" isn't a word count in the bible because the bible's consensus works against you? And then your turn right around and discount the "intellect" when man's mind is talked about quite a bit in the bible!?

Even the Almighty invites men to come reason with him when he invites sinners to come reason with him (Isa 1:18-19). Don't we reasons with our minds?

And reasoning from the OT scriptures with Jews in their synagogues and in the temple on his missionary journeys is what Paul very often did.

Great emphasis is placed on the minds of believers and unbelievers alike, as well as the importance of knowing God's mind. This makes perfectly good sense because we process information first through the mind -- with our intellect. How we process this information determines what effect it will have in our heart -- which is the seat of the Mind, Will and Emotions. And in turn, what proceeds out of that heart will govern our behavior. This is far too big of a subject to discuss here, but suffice it to say there are numerous scriptures that teach the importance of man's mind and its dominant role in spiritual matters. Regarding believers we can learn much from these passages: Mk 12:30; Lk 10:27; Rom 7:23-25; 8:6,7; 12:2; 1Cor 2:16; 14:14; Eph 4:23; Php 4:8; Heb 10:16, etc.

With respect to unbelievers' minds, Rom 1:28; 8:6,7; Eph 2:13; 4:17; Col 1:21; 2:18; 1Tim 6:5, etc.

And regarding God's mind: Rom 11:34; 1Cor 2:16, etc.

The highlighted scriptures are particularly instructive and reveal the dominant role the mind plays in man's spirituality. For example, 1Cor 2:16 talks about believers having the "mind of Christ". Nowhere in scripture does it ever talk about us having the heart of Christ or the emotions or passions of Christ. After a a person becomes "born again", the transformation of the mind begins through the Spirit's ongoing work of sanctification. Believers start to process information and the reality around them very differently.

As for Tolerance, it is a false god. If Tolerance were legit, Jesus would have taught that "wide is the way that leaves to life and many are those who travel on it and narrow is the path that leads to destruction and few are those who walk in it." But he didn't, did he?

Or did Jesus teach, All religions are the Way, and All lead to Life and all are equally the Truth. Or did he instruct very differently? Was his view far more narrow and restrictive? Where was Jesus' religious tolerance?

When the hypocritical Pharisees brought a woman before Christ who they accused of adultery, and Jesus forgave her sins, did he tell her afterward to go try to live the best life she could from now on, or work diligently on cleaning up her life? Or did he tell, her "From now on sin no more"? If the latter, how much tolerance did Jesus have for sin?

Or when God approached Cain to inquire about the reason for his anger and revealed to Cain that "sin is crouching at the door and its desire is for you", did God then add, "do the best you can to get a handle on it"? Or did he tell Cain, "but you must master it"? Tolerant? Understanding?

Or before God sent his covenant people Israel into the Land of Canaan, did he advise his people, through Moses, to make nice to all the heathen, polytheistic nations therein and to practice diplomacy and strive to assimilate into their idolatrous cultures? Or did he tell the Israelites just the opposite: That they must show no favor to or make any treaties with the peoples of those nations, that they must destroy them and defeat them, that their sons and daughters must not intermarry with these idolatrous people lest they come under the influence of their polytheism, that they must go into the land and utterly destroy their altars, smash their sacred pillars, hew down their Asherim and burn their graven images with fire? And that if Israel failed to obey these marching orders from their eternal King, his anger would be kindled against them and he would destroy them for their disobedience!? (Deut 7:1-5). Wow! The King of kings and Lord of lords wasn't exactly the consummate diplomat was he? And YHWH was as religiously intolerant as Christ, wasn't he? (Forgive my redundancy.)

(An aside: This solemn promise by YHWH that he would punish the Hebrews if they disobeyed him is the first of many prophecies that God has historically fulfilled with the apostate, idolatrous nation of Israel, as he used Assyria and Babylon as his instruments of justice and wrath upon the wicked nation.)

It's precisely because Tolerance isn't taught anywhere in the bible that people won't come to the Savior to be saved! The world is filled with TJs, who essentially ask, "saved from what"? If the scriptures taught tolerance, there would be a lot more Christians in the world because the bible would be embracing Humanism with all its viscerally-based arguments for Tolerance.

Finally, the Cross of Christ itself bears witness to God's intolerance. If God's attitude or sentiments toward sinners in the world and their sins was one of which was more or less of indifference, whereby he "winks" at sin or gives it a "nod" with his head, then why was the drastic and extreme remedy of the Cross necessary? What a radical solution when all God had to to do is be a little bit more tolerant of his fallen creatures. All God would have had to do is tell mankind, "do the best you can, I can sympathize with your and if your good works outweigh the bad ones on my scales of justice, you're in like Flint". But this isn't God's standard for acceptance! He demands Perfect Righteousness! This is an impossible bar for anyone to hurdle, which is why the Cross was necessary.

So, 'cap, I have a lot more going for my argument against the idol of Tolerance than a mere "word count" -- although one would still reasonably and logically think that if tolerance were a major theme in the bible, that we'd expect to see it taught virtually everywhere. But we don't! As you yourself have already conceded, 'cap, Tolerance is a "humanitarian concept". You have nailed it perfectly, therefore you make my whole argument, thank you! Tolerance is not a divine concept or divinely-mandated, which is why, as a Christian, I can't buy into it. What is so hard to understand about this?

Boxcar

OTM Al

04-14-2011, 03:59 PM

Interesting article about an Evangelical preacher that's a little different.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2065080,00.html

hcap

04-14-2011, 05:03 PM

Box, if you took reason and intellect seriously, you would use it where applicable. Reason says men and dinosaur did not o-exist.

I guess tolerance is to liberal for you?

TJDave

04-14-2011, 05:26 PM

Interesting article about an Evangelical preacher that's a little different.

Any guess as to how this is going to go over? :rolleyes:

boxcar

04-14-2011, 07:34 PM

Box, if you took reason and intellect seriously, you would use it where applicable. Reason says men and dinosaur did not o-exist.

I guess tolerance is to liberal for you?

No, Reason, says that scientists formed their assumptions outside Special Revelation and, therefore, came to wrong conclusions. Garbage in, garbage out...

Great biblical examples of this, by the way, can be seen in passages like Mat 22:29ff and Jn 5:39ff. In both cases, the readers of scripture missed the mark because they were blinded by the carnal presuppositions they brought to bear upon scripture. In fact, in John, Christ told the the Jews who desired to murder him (v.18), that he wouldn't even accuse them even though they refused his witness and the witness of the Father, but instead Moses would accuse them because he wrote of him! Amazing passage! So, in these two examples, Eternal Truth was perverted (or misinterpreted, misunderstood, falsely concluded) because carnal presuppositions were in all likelihood added to the text. This violated the the Truth Formula which is: Nothing But Truth + The Whole Truth = Truth

Of course, Truth or Facts can also be perverted or corrupted by omission. It's called Lying by Omission. Since all truth is God's Truth, most scientists have missed the mark sorely because they have left his revealed Truth out of their scientific equations and formulas and theories, etc. Science, then, has based its faulty conclusions on a large stack of half-truths. They have only looked at Temporal Reality, completely dismissing Ultimate Reality (Spiritual/Eternal Reality -- THE Reality behind the Temporal), so it was never possible for scientists to know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth when they relegated Special Revelation to the garbage heap. Can't expect to omit some of Whole Truth and still arrive at the Truth. Paul describes perfectly what these two realities are:

2 Cor 4:18
18 while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal.
NASB

Half truths doth not make the whole truth. Science clearly denied God (the Unseen and Ultimate Reality) and his revealed truth when they formulated their theories.

Meanwhile, though, have you destroyed the altar, yet, to your god Tolerance?

Boxcar

boxcar

04-14-2011, 07:43 PM

Any guess as to how this is going to go over? :rolleyes:

None from this corner. Permit to quote someone greater than Bell:

Gal 1:6-10
6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you, and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed. 10 For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ.
NASB

Methinks Mr. Bell is probably striving to tickle the ears of men. 7,000 religious people filling the pews every Sunday probably pays him a very handsome salary.

Boxcar

DRIVEWAY

04-14-2011, 08:09 PM

Box, if you took reason and intellect seriously, you would use it where applicable. Reason says men and dinosaur did not o-exist.

I guess tolerance is to liberal for you?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/dinosaurs.asp

Does the Boxcarious still roam the earth?:confused:

hcap

04-15-2011, 04:59 AM

No, Reason, says that scientists formed their assumptions outside Special Revelation and, therefore, came to wrong conclusions. Garbage in, garbage out...

Reason has given us a way to verify how things work. We can predict cause and effect at least on the Newtonian or the "Local" scale of phenomena around us. The very small and very large is not at all clear. But many sciences deal with the "local" quite successfully. To the point where accurate descriptions of prior events can describe accurate outcomes. Science can enhance what you call natural revelation. And need not be at odds with spirituality.

boxcar

04-15-2011, 01:51 PM

Reason has given us a way to verify how things work. We can predict cause and effect at least on the Newtonian or the "Local" scale of phenomena around us. The very small and very large is not at all clear. But many sciences deal with the "local" quite successfully. To the point where accurate descriptions of prior events can describe accurate outcomes. Science can enhance what you call natural revelation. And need not be at odds with spirituality.

But...you can't "reason" your way to The Truth unless you have Nothing But and the Whole Truth. There's no way of getting around this, 'cap -- unless you have Nothing added and Nothing taken away. It's impossible.

For example, there would be no way anyone would be able to make sense out of -- to get to the bottom of -- to really understand -- to reason our way to -- what Gen 3:15 means or even begin to fathom the profound and fundamental importance of its place in scripture relative to everything that follows behind it, unless we had that large body of truth behind it to shed light on its true meaning. (Likewise, if we were to remove this passage from scripture -- remove this piece from the puzzle of Eternal Truth, all that follows would not make any sense either!) When it comes right down to it, this text is the soteriological foundation upon which all revelation that progressively follows is built. It tells us very early on that the very nature human history is soteriological and that the Sovereign Creator himself is directing that history. (This is why Evangelicals call this the "protoevangelium" or the First Gospel.)

While it is true that we can sometimes reach reasonable and logical conclusions apart from having all the pieces to the puzzle of Eternal Reality (much the way a good detective can piece together some key clues) , this all too often is not the case when it comes to the Seen Temporal Reality. This is for two reasons: First, the Eternal is foundational to the Temporal.
The Unseen Eternal Things are what drive the Seen Temporal Things. The Eternal is the force behind the Temporal. The Eternal existed before the Temporal and will exist after it. The Eternal is the Alpha and the Omega, with the Temporal being a mere insert that is fading and passing away and nothing more than a tiny blip on the Unseen's radar screen. Taking away the Eternal, in an attempt to make sense out of the Temporal, would be analogous to someone removing both his eyes out of its sockets but still boasting he has 20/20 vision! Why do you think fallen, unregenerate men, in the bible, are called blind!? But it's even worse: We all leave our mother's womb in that spiritual condition!

It logically follows from what I have just said, therefore, that while it's often possible to reach reasonable and logical conclusions on the basis of having some of the pieces to the puzzle of Eternal Reality since the Unseen Eternal is the preeminent reality, the opposite is not true with Temporal Reality! It's virtually impossible to reach proper conclusions about Temporal Reality (most especially looking for answers to the complex) because when we take away the Unseen Eternal we're missing a lot more than just a few pieces to the puzzle! We are, indeed, like blind men groping in the dark, trying to feel our way around Temporal Reality in the hopes that we'll be able to make some sense out of that which flowed from the Unseen Eternal. We must never forget that it's the Seen Temporal that is the "begotten" of the Unseen Eternal. I demonstrated this when I did my series on the Trinity and the Universe. I showed how the Universe itself is a TriUnity and how all three of its major components and, in turn, all three of their elements reflected the relationship and logical functions of the Three Persons in the Godhead; and while each component and element were separate from each of the others, yet they were one because each one's existence depended on the other! While it is true that the Universe is not God, nonetheless his creation reflects his glory, as Paul so poignantly pointed out in Romans 1.

What you don't want to understand is that scientists come into this world born as blind as the rest of us. They are not gods. They, like all fallen men, are subjects to the "god of this world"; for he has blinded their minds (2Cor 4:3). While they have done a lot of good for mankind, their knowledge and their conclusions are always in a state of flux and uncertainty because the foundation of their knowledge is on shifting sands. They even know that at the end of day, they truly understand very little about our world.

As the prophet put it about these end times, "...many will go back and forth, and knowledge will increase" (Dan 12:4). Sadly, he wasn't referring to true knowledge.

Boxcar

Greyfox

04-15-2011, 03:19 PM

While they have done a lot of good for mankind, their knowledge and their conclusions are always in a state of flux and uncertainty because the foundation of their knowledge is on shifting sands. They even know that at the end of day, they truly understand very little about our world.

:ThmbUp: Agreed. Most scientists would have a hard time disputing that.
Your observation reminds me of what the late Henry Ford once said:

"I cannot discover that anyone knows enough to say definitely what is and what is not possible."

Most scientists though would say that on what the best evidence that they can determine, the earth is many billions of years old.
That you choose to believe it isn't is quite fine by me.
I can't disprove your belief and no one else on the board can either.
Accepting either premise takes some type of "faith."
I think that I can agree with the scientists and yet not be at odds with the major messages in the scriptures.

ArlJim78

04-15-2011, 03:34 PM

Scientific methods are a far better tool for estimating the age of the earth than any scripture. Is there really any doubt about that?

boxcar

04-15-2011, 04:57 PM

:ThmbUp: Agreed. Most scientists would have a hard time disputing that.
Your observation reminds me of what the late Henry Ford once said:

"I cannot discover that anyone knows enough to say definitely what is and what is not possible."

Most scientists though would say that on what the best evidence that they can determine, the earth is many billions of years old.
That you choose to believe it isn't is quite fine by me.
I can't disprove your belief and no one else on the board can either.
Accepting either premise takes some type of "faith."
I think that I can agree with the scientists and yet not be at odds with the major messages in the scriptures.

Please read my reply to Jim. The "scientific method" is not a license to ignore the Truth Formula. Since science has done so, this amounts go garbage in, garbage out.

Boxcar

boxcar

04-15-2011, 05:00 PM

Scientific methods are a far better tool for estimating the age of the earth than any scripture. Is there really any doubt about that?

I'm very skeptical of their "better tool" and their "scientific methods because most scientists didn't take into account that God created the universe in a mature, fully developed state, which is obvious from the creation account in Genesis. The universe was created with the "appearance of age", which I have explained to 'cap on other occasions. This is why there is a conflict between scripture and the "scientific methods". Science completely ignores The First Cause, i.e. the Unseen Eternal Reality. Science simply cannot ignore the preeminent reality (the Eternal, which is the First Cause behind all the other Temporal Causes) and at the same time expect from their methods that are loaded with half truths to arrive at factual/truthful conclusions. Faulty assumptions, based on these half truths cannot possibly lead to Truth. Science focused its attention entirely on Natural Revelation while rejecting Special Revelation in its entirety.

Again, the Truth Formula: Truth = Nothing But Truth + The Whole Truth. Nothing added, nothing subtracted. Science did not adhere to this formula. Science has left us with a very biased, subjective version of their truth based upon their biased assumptions of only Temporal Reality.

Boxcar

hcap

04-15-2011, 05:42 PM

Once again....

"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits"

Science is not attempting to answer all philosophical questions in estimating the age of the universe or date the age of dinosaurs vs man. It provides tangibles, testable answers to those specific questions.

It is not the realm of scripture to determine whether or not specific scientific procedures and physical evidence is true or false. Fundies fail miserably today in that regard and the church has a sordid history of denying the advances of science, only to play catch up in the modern era. Eventually enlightened church fathers began to realize there is no conflict between what religion attempts to answer and what science attempts to answer.

The proof is in the pudding. Accurate repeatable, testable reasonable explanations of cause and effect is the "fruit" that springs from the valid tree of scientific inquiry.

Half baked theories about the universe only appearing old but in fact young and created all at one time, flies in the face of THE EVIDENCE and is embarrassingly feeble "fruit" springing from a narrow literal interpretation of scripture. Not a valid "tree" or means of empirical inquiry.

lsbets

04-15-2011, 07:09 PM

The appearance of age theory. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

When reality and truth don't match your dogma, make up some crazy shit so it fits.

ArlJim78

04-15-2011, 07:12 PM

I'm very skeptical of their "better tool" and their "scientific methods because most scientists didn't take into account that God created the universe in a mature, fully developed state, which is obvious from the creation account in Genesis.
I don't participate much in threads like this one, because as far as religion goes I can't get past first base. For example, your idea that scientists should take into account what is written in Genesis, it makes no sense to me why they would do such a thing. Genesis is a story in a very old book, assuming it's a factual account is something I could never do, and is far from obvious. Talk about faulty assumptions, well there you go. Thats a perfect example of a faulty assumption.

What one can observe, measure, calculate or rationally deduce does not depend on whether or not one takes into account the story of Genesis.

None of us know much about this world, and never will. With that said, our best tools for learning anything about it are logic, deductive reasoning, and the scientific method. Selectively applying particular passages or parables from a specific old book, and then claiming that it leads to the discovery of "truth" doesn't cut it with me.

Greyfox

04-15-2011, 08:07 PM

Please read my reply to Jim. The "scientific method" is not a license to ignore the Truth Formula. Since science has done so, this amounts go garbage in, garbage out.

Boxcar

But arguably someone, perhaps an agnostic or atheist scientist, would advance the same argument re: scriptures.
Which ever side you take, or an integration of both, involves "faith."
Neither can offer definitive proofs, except from a "faith" perspective.

You are correct in that science doesn't take into account The First Cause.
Aquinas postulated that as well...though science was in it's infancy relatively speaking.

Greyfox

04-15-2011, 08:14 PM

What one can observe, measure, calculate or rationally deduce does not depend on whether or not one takes into account the story of Genesis.

None of us know much about this world, and never will. With that said, our best tools for learning anything about it are logic, deductive reasoning, and the scientific method.

Quite true to a point. But even the eminent scientist Isaac Newton believed that the Bible was loaded with "cryptic" information that could be very helpful in developing scientific advances.

Greyfox

04-15-2011, 08:20 PM

Eventually enlightened church fathers began to realize there is no conflict between what religion attempts to answer and what science attempts to answer.

.

Yes. The well-renowned Jesuit Priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was very able to integrate religion and science in The Phenomenon of Man and other works.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Teilhard_de_Chardin

hcap

04-15-2011, 08:35 PM

Which ever side you take, or an integration of both, involves "faith."
Neither can offer definitive proofs, except from a "faith" perspective.

Doe walking require a belief that if you place one foot after another you will get from point a to b? There is a huge difference between a reasonable "belief" in walking and a "belief" in humans flapping their arms and flying. A scientist tries not to pretend he can fly

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

BTW, I am an admirer of de Chardin

Greyfox

04-15-2011, 08:46 PM

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

True.
But 1 man believes the universe is 6 thousand years old.
Another man believes the universe is 13 billion years old.
I can't prove either are right or wrong. Both claims are
"extraordinary."
Perhaps, if space is warped, as scientists are telling us that it is,
what we know of space, time and distance may not be what we see.
For me, the universe is old, perhaps very very old.

hcap

04-15-2011, 09:04 PM

Multiple lines of evidence support an older universe. Radioactive dating, astronomical measurements, and plate tectonics to name a few.

Boxcar is the one with the extraordinary claims.

OTM Al

04-15-2011, 09:15 PM

boxcar

04-15-2011, 11:12 PM

Once again....

"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits"

If you're going to quote scripture, at least try to make sure they're relative to the discussion. I'm not the one leading people down the primrose path Naturalism whereby men worship the creation ("primordial soup") rather than the Creator (again, see Rom 1:18ff.)

Science is not attempting to answer all philosophical questions in estimating the age of the universe or date the age of dinosaurs vs man. It provides tangibles, testable answers to those specific questions.

But...since the goal of science to be able to say, Okay, this thing is fact, or that thing is truth", then it's incumbent upon science to embrace both realities. Half truths doth not make the truth.

It is not the realm of scripture to determine whether or not specific scientific procedures and physical evidence is true or false. Fundies fail miserably today in that regard and the church has a sordid history of denying the advances of science, only to play catch up in the modern era. Eventually enlightened church fathers began to realize there is no conflict between what religion attempts to answer and what science attempts to answer.

Your arrogance is showing, and this one of the sins listed in Rom 1:18ff. So, thank you for affirming scripture. I would counter that it's the moral duty of Man to listen to God's revelation. Man is not a god, although he likes to think he is. If man were honest and unbiased, he would examine both realities.

The proof is in the pudding. Accurate repeatable, testable reasonable explanations of cause and effect is the "fruit" that springs from the valid tree of scientific inquiry.

The "proof" is all based on faulty assumptions -- half baked theories.

Half baked theories about the universe only appearing old but in fact young and created all at one time, flies in the face of THE EVIDENCE and is embarrassingly feeble "fruit" springing from a narrow literal interpretation of scripture. Not a valid "tree" or means of empirical inquiry.

Your science only examined part of the evidence -- only that within Temporal Reality. Not only this but your science so-called begs the question big time, for it does not want to touch the question of First Causes or more accurately Uncaused Causes. Science can't tell us how Nothing begat Something. Therefore, you science is weak, feeble, vain and useless. - Paul spoke well of this kind of science:

1 Tim 6:20-21
20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith...
KJV

Also, haven't you read that nothing is impossible with God (Mat 19:26)? Or that no one can thwart God purposes and that God can do all things (Job 42:2)? Or haven't you heard that the Potter has the right over his clay (Rom 9:21)?

At least with the scriptures, eternal truths never need frequent updatings to correct for errors as is the case with fallen man's "science".

Boxcar

boxcar

04-15-2011, 11:15 PM

Doe walking require a belief that if you place one foot after another you will get from point a to b? There is a huge difference between a reasonable "belief" in walking and a "belief" in humans flapping their arms and flying. A scientist tries not to pretend he can fly

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

BTW, I am an admirer of de Chardin

No, instead, scientists like to worship the god of omnipotent Father Time and other entities in God's creation.

Boxcar

boxcar

04-15-2011, 11:22 PM

Yes. The well-renowned Jesuit Priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was very able to integrate religion and science in The Phenomenon of Man and other works.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Teilhard_de_Chardin

Syncretism proved to the downfall of covenant-breaking Israel when the nation attempted to integrate monotheism with polytheism into their culture and religion. Likewise, it will prove to be the downfall of today's Church.

If there was no creation, then there was no Fall. If no Fall, then no sin. If no sin, then no need for salvation. Then we can all join hands with the TJs of the world and ask just as incredulously, "saved from what"?

Boxcar

boxcar

04-15-2011, 11:28 PM

It's part of the house of cards. If the earth is not 6000 some odd years old, then something in the Bible has been shown not to be true. This would cause a giant contradiction in his belief structure that everything in the Bible is literal truth and the cards would come tumbling down. Therefore he must stick with this in the face of all evidence to the contrary. Willfull ignorance.

Talking about "willful ignorance", how are you doing with your own house of cards? Are you still trying to work out your own two huge contradictions within your religious skepticism?

Boxcar

hcap

04-16-2011, 05:30 AM

"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits"

If you're going to quote scripture, at least try to make sure they're relative to the discussion. IMr Wolf, the religious and spiritual fruit you want others to sample is a tasteless dish grown in a tiny garden.

Everything you post depends on circular arguments. Whenever anyone asks you for one piece corroborating evidence external to the bible you blubber and fold like AL's house of cards. You refuse to acknowledge the cultural influences that helped shape the bible and refuse to allow any external extra-biblical sources into your tiny world of literalism. A paranoid schizophrenic can be very content within a self created universe but that universe may have no connection to the world outside. Most people seek some sort of reality check to avoid delusional conclusions.

Whenever I ask you to provide a reality check, you can only use biblical passage to support biblical passage. Never an external reference. I have asked you this before: can you even make a philosophical argument without ONE biblical quote?

A priori philosophical arguments make the assumption that there is at least one given assumption that may be self evident. But if ALL supporting clauses in your larger contention are ALL a priori you are wasting everyone's time.

Can we have one external reference supporting your "appearance of age" theory of the universe?

OTM Al

04-16-2011, 07:38 AM

Talking about "willful ignorance", how are you doing with your own house of cards? Are you still trying to work out your own two huge contradictions within your religious skepticism?

Boxcar

This is the second time you have claimed I have two problems but I'm not sure where you defined these things. By the way, don't look up at the night sky. Most of what you are seeing happened a lot more than 6000 years ago....

hcap

04-16-2011, 11:23 AM

All depends upon what a star is. Could be holes in a celestial dome. I am not sure box has moved past the earth being the center of the universe.

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/images/greek_cosmos.jpg

Geocentrism is supported by biblical passages.

Isaiah 66:1

.... Thus saith the Lord: Heaven is my throne, and the earth my footstool.

Chronicles 16:30

... Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.

............................................

22 June 1633. The Church condemnation of Galileo

"The proposition that the Earth is not the centre of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith "

boxcar

04-16-2011, 01:57 PM

Mr Wolf, the religious and spiritual fruit you want others to sample is a tasteless dish grown in a tiny garden.

Everything you post depends on circular arguments. Whenever anyone asks you for one piece corroborating evidence external to the bible you blubber and fold like AL's house of cards.

Why do I need to go outside the bible? The witness of scripture is true. Unlike man, God cannot lie, as it is written:

Rom 3:4
4 May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, as it is written,

"That Thou mightest be justified in Thy words,
And mightest prevail when Thou art judged."
NASB

And it's impossible for God to lie (Heb 6:18). Further, God can swear by no one greater than himself (Heb 6:13).

Who are you to sit in judgment of God and his Word?

If scripture were a mere a hodgepodge of disconnected, disjointed, unrelated stories or myths or whatever you think it is it would be very easy thing for you to prove God a liar. Do you know that without too much trouble, I can demonstrate how the messianic prophecy in Gen 3:15 has been fulfilled, particularly pertaining to how God has sovereignly worked out the enmity he promised to place between the two seeds in human history -- from Genesis to Revelation? Yes, this enmity runs from Genesis to Revelation and I can lay out that very long string of evidence from within the bible! Consistency and harmony are valuable traits when examining propositional truth claims.

But even when I have gone outside Special Revelation and appealed to Natural Revelation to demonstrate the perfect harmony between the two, you have ignored those arguments and have remained silent. You double-minded hypocrite! Well did Jesus speak of people like you:

Matt 11:16-21
16 "But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market places, who call out to the other children, 17 and say,' We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not mourn.' 18 "For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, 'He has a demon!' 19 "The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax-gatherers and sinners!' Yet wisdom is vindicated by her deeds."

20 Then He began to reproach the cities in which most of His miracles were done, because they did not repent.
NASB

He describing you, 'cap, to tee! You always want to have it both ways!

Whenever I ask you to provide a reality check, you can only use biblical passage to support biblical passage. Never an external reference. I have asked you this before: can you even make a philosophical argument without ONE biblical quote?

And if I didn't then you would accuse me of making things up. You can't stand me using scripture to support my arguments because the Word is Truth and is, therefore, internally consistent with itself. Something you are not!

A priori philosophical arguments make the assumption that there is at least one given assumption that may be self evident.

There is, but because you are blind you cannot see. Because you are blind, you suppress the evidence in unrighteousness. Behold your spiritually sick condition again:

Rom 1:18-21
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
NASB

Here's another outside-the-bible reality check for you: You could be likened to an alcoholic who always wants another drink. He cannot get enough. And when someone tells him that he doesn't need any more and that he has a drinking problem and should seek professional help, he goes into deep denial. He swears that he's not the one with problem at all! That all is well with him! But because he's is blind to his problem, he becomes further intoxicated and his alcoholism remains.

This is you! You're always sipping on the world's wine of passion, immoralities, lies and false knowledge, and you're constantly inebriated on these mixed drinks, never having a sober spiritual moment in your life. But you can't recognize this about yourself, anymore than the alcoholic can see his problem. Likewise, it is taught.

John 9:41
41 Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, 'We see,' your sin remains.
NASB

Can we have one external reference supporting your "appearance of age" theory of the universe?

Just what kind of evidence did you expect God to leave? Do you think he would have been a sloppy craftsman or artist? You want evidence? Listen to the prophet:

Jer 32:17
17 'Ah Lord God! Behold, Thou hast made the heavens and the earth by Thy great power and by Thine outstretched arm! Nothing is too difficult for Thee,
NASB

What is easier to believe: The above passage or that Nothing begat Something? Why would it have been so difficult for the Creator to have created his universe in a mature, fully developed state?

Boxcar

boxcar

04-16-2011, 02:01 PM

boxcar

04-16-2011, 03:37 PM

This is the second time you have claimed I have two problems but I'm not sure where you defined these things. By the way, don't look up at the night sky. Most of what you are seeing happened a lot more than 6000 years ago....

Ahh...poor Al. I see that you have been stricken with S.A.D. :( :( -- Selective Amnesia Disorder. My condolences.

Now I can only hope that your condition doesn't become even more acute by becoming more widespread. But you'll start to know if things are worsening if you begin forgetting that the right shoe doesn't go on the left foot, nor the left shoe on the right one. Or...when you have to stock up on loads of Depends. :lol: :lol:

Boxcar

hcap

04-16-2011, 05:01 PM

Why do I need to go outside the bible? The witness of scripture is true. Unlike man, God cannot lie, as it is written.....God is not the one lying. Your portrayal of God paints a picture of a grand deceiver that creates a universe of a certain age and tricks us into believing it is much older. Why? Why would God create half lives of radioactive elements, the science of plate tectonics, the means to measure the speed of light? More importantly what is the point of God creating man's reasoning ability to understand the forces and laws behind such phenomena and all other scientific methods for dating the universe?

OTM Al

04-16-2011, 05:36 PM

Ahh...poor Al. I see that you have been stricken with S.A.D. :( :( -- Selective Amnesia Disorder. My condolences.

Now I can only hope that your condition doesn't become even more acute by becoming more widespread. But you'll start to know if things are worsening if you begin forgetting that the right shoe doesn't go on the left foot, nor the left shoe on the right one. Or...when you have to stock up on loads of Depends. :lol: :lol:

Boxcar

So this is, as usual, all you have left? Well, I'm sure in your mind you had a point, but I saw nothing in the mess you posted. I guess one of my faults is believing in the findings of science. I suggest if you find fault with science you throw your computer in the garbage becuase clearly there is no way it could work as science is incapable of answering any important questions. Might as well throw away your cell phone and TV if you have them as well. Electricity is likely a fraudulant claim as well. In the end after you drop all the things science has provided you that you have so selectively accepted, you will be left with living under a rock, but then that is little different than now, so you should be just fine.

boxcar

04-16-2011, 10:24 PM

So this is, as usual, all you have left? Well, I'm sure in your mind you had a point, but I saw nothing in the mess you posted. I guess one of my faults is believing in the findings of science. I suggest if you find fault with science you throw your computer in the garbage becuase clearly there is no way it could work as science is incapable of answering any important questions. Might as well throw away your cell phone and TV if you have them as well. Electricity is likely a fraudulant claim as well. In the end after you drop all the things science has provided you that you have so selectively accepted, you will be left with living under a rock, but then that is little different than now, so you should be just fine.

All straw man arguments. I never said science was incapable of knowing anything. What I have essentially said is that on complex issues pertaining to questions about life, science must examine both Realities if their quest for truth is an honest one, otherwise science will come up short -- very short. Now...if Science argues that Temporal Reality is their only responsibility because they're only capable of taking a self-defeating position that is either atheistic or agnostic on the Metaphysical, that's okay, too -- BUT...then they can't turn around and tell us that that their version of the truth on Temporal Reality is Dogma and that Science is Man's Holy Grail.

Since you brought up a rock, when are you going to crawl out from hiding under yours and address the duality issues I raised with you in 78, 85, 91 and 99? If you do, don't forget to wear eye protection for light exposure and spray underarms for mold. :lol: :lol:

Boxcar

boxcar

04-16-2011, 10:35 PM

God is not the one lying. Your portrayal of God paints a picture of a grand deceiver that creates a universe of a certain age and tricks us into believing it is much older. Why? Why would God create half lives of radioactive elements, the science of plate tectonics, the means to measure the speed of light? More importantly what is the point of God creating man's reasoning ability to understand the forces and laws behind such phenomena and all other scientific methods for dating the universe?

Because God intended for man to follow the follow the Truth Formula if he wants to apprehend the truth? How's that for starters? Also, their is no conflict between Special Revelation and Natural Revelation -- only a Grand Paradox, and scripture is loaded with those. And why couldn't God use that paradox of his own creation as a moral test for Man? On another occasion, I've shown you how God has tested man and will test us, and I provided biblical examples.

'cap, we've been down this path before. This is old charted territory. You just don't like where it takes you. Hang it up, already.

Boxcar

Greyfox

04-16-2011, 11:27 PM

You mean YOU take those passages literally?
Boxcar

Boxcar... You raise a very interesting point here.
How does one differentiate when to take biblical passages literally versus
to look for deeper meanings or associations??

hcap

04-17-2011, 04:04 AM

I never said science was incapable of knowing anything. What I have essentially said is that on complex issues pertaining to questions about life, science must examine both Realities if their quest for truth is an honest one, otherwise science will come up short -- very short. Now...if Science argues that Temporal Reality is their only responsibility because they're only capable of taking a self-defeating position that is either atheistic or agnostic on the Metaphysical, that's okay, too -- BUT...then they can't turn around and tell us that that their version of the truth on Temporal Reality is Dogma and that Science is Man's Holy Grail.Ok, tell us what truths science "knows" that you find acceptable? Feel free to pick and choose. Careful not to upset your teetering house of cards. I doubt you can

OTM Al

04-17-2011, 08:01 AM

All straw man arguments. I never said science was incapable of knowing anything. What I have essentially said is that on complex issues pertaining to questions about life, science must examine both Realities if their quest for truth is an honest one, otherwise science will come up short -- very short. Now...if Science argues that Temporal Reality is their only responsibility because they're only capable of taking a self-defeating position that is either atheistic or agnostic on the Metaphysical, that's okay, too -- BUT...then they can't turn around and tell us that that their version of the truth on Temporal Reality is Dogma and that Science is Man's Holy Grail.

Since you brought up a rock, when are you going to crawl out from hiding under yours and address the duality issues I raised with you in 78, 85, 91 and 99? If you do, don't forget to wear eye protection for light exposure and spray underarms for mold. :lol: :lol:

Boxcar

You are selectively choosing what to believe and disbelieve then. Science is science. Everything flows from the same method. The same method that makes your computer work is what tells us the universe is billions of years old. Playing pick and choose makes you look more the fool than you have already.

As for your questions, I have reread (painfully) those posts. Why reply? I already told you what that word meant in it's context. You refuse to accept that the author was using legal language, a common practice in many cultures in the area at the time this was written, even in works of poetry. You can't grasp this because you find the culture of the writers of those books irrelevant. You refuse to understand idioms that were common place then but don't work too well when you try to translate them literally. You think all you need is a modern Bible in which past translators have done all they can to put Jesus into the OT even when he wasn't really there.

ArlJim78

04-17-2011, 11:13 AM

gillb

04-17-2011, 11:49 AM

Hello:

You folks should read Professor Barrie Wilsons' ( York University) recent
book. " How Jesus became Christian".
It will clear up a lot of current misunderstanding.

melvaruth

Greyfox

04-17-2011, 12:13 PM

Hello:

You folks should read Professor Barrie Wilsons' ( York University) recent
book. " How Jesus became Christian".
It will clear up a lot of current misunderstanding.

melvaruth

I haven't read it, but here is a review of the concepts at:

http://www.compassionatespirit.com/How-Jesus-Became-Christian.htm

Here's another review of that book as well.

http://www.jesusdynasty.com/blog/2008/05/04/how-jesus-became-christian/

hcap

04-17-2011, 12:26 PM

Because God intended for man to follow the follow the Truth Formula if he wants to apprehend the truth? How's that for starters? Also, their is no conflict between Special Revelation and Natural Revelation -- only a Grand Paradox, and scripture is loaded with those. And why couldn't God use that paradox of his own creation as a moral test for Man? On another occasion, I've shown you how God has tested man and will test us, and I provided biblical examples.Since you have very little understanding of the simplest laws and processes of nature you cannot correlate what you call natural revelation with what you call special revelation. In order to discuss science intelligently one must have a rudimentary understanding of what science actually is.

All you know is that science contradicts your little narrow world and because you cannot debate the specifics of WHY and HOW, the scientific method screws up your house of cards--you resort to sophistry.

"their is no conflict between Special Revelation and Natural Revelation -- only a Grand Paradox, and scripture is loaded with those. And why couldn't God use that paradox of his own creation as a moral test for Man? On another occasion"

This simply a smokescreen to evade straightforward questioning of your appearance of age babble. Paradox IS contradiction unless you can reconcile the contradictory clauses of your proposition. Bishop Ussher dating the creation of the world at world at 4000 BC, and the simple scientific evidence accessible to any school child dating the age of quartz, are definitely in conflict. Do you believe both are true?

BTW, your song and dance of God creating a false appearance of reality is applicable to any thing one may disagrees with. What if God created a false school of Christian Fundamentalism to specifically test you? How would you know? You would only have one false biblical passage to support other false biblical passages. Sophistry is a philosophical dead.

boxcar

04-17-2011, 10:13 PM

Boxcar... You raise a very interesting point here.
How does one differentiate when to take biblical passages literally versus
to look for deeper meanings or associations??

With sound hermeneutical principles AND...AND...AND...operating on the assumption that the bible is what is claims to be -- the infallible, inspired word of God -- that the bible is in fact One book authored by One mind and having One large context and having One Central Character and telling One story. I don't approach the bible the way skeptics do. Their presuppositions are the exact opposite of mine, which is why it's so easy to trip them up in contradictions.

Again, I borrow my hermenutics from the guys closest to the events -- from Jesus and the Apostles. If my interpretation of any given passage is wrong...it's going to be inconsistent with some other passage that is relative to it. If my interpretation is on the mark, then it won't be. Everything will be consistent. Did I not demonstrate how I use my hermeneutical principles with my interpretation of Job 19:25-26? My interpretation of that passage harmonizes beautifully with a large body of other passages. Is not consistency a necessary ingredient to reaching Truth?

Boxcar

boxcar

04-17-2011, 10:17 PM

You are selectively choosing what to believe and disbelieve then. Science is science. Everything flows from the same method. The same method that makes your computer work is what tells us the universe is billions of years old. Playing pick and choose makes you look more the fool than you have already.

As for your questions, I have reread (painfully) those posts. Why reply? I already told you what that word meant in it's context. You refuse to accept that the author was using legal language, a common practice in many cultures in the area at the time this was written, even in works of poetry. You can't grasp this because you find the culture of the writers of those books irrelevant. You refuse to understand idioms that were common place then but don't work too well when you try to translate them literally. You think all you need is a modern Bible in which past translators have done all they can to put Jesus into the OT even when he wasn't really there.

I wasn't talking about the Job 19 passage. I was talking about the two dilemmas I raised about what you think about Christ and Christian orthodoxy and about fulfilled prophecy. But you knew that. You're just STILL ducking the issue after all these days. Good for you. Keep hiding under that rock.

Boxcar

boxcar

04-17-2011, 10:26 PM

boxcar

04-17-2011, 10:48 PM

Since you have very little understanding of the simplest laws and processes of nature you cannot correlate what you call natural revelation with what you call special revelation. In order to discuss science intelligently one must have a rudimentary understanding of what science actually is.

All you know is that science contradicts your little narrow world and because you cannot debate the specifics of WHY and HOW, the scientific method screws up your house of cards--you resort to sophistry.

"their is no conflict between Special Revelation and Natural Revelation -- only a Grand Paradox, and scripture is loaded with those. And why couldn't God use that paradox of his own creation as a moral test for Man? On another occasion"

This simply a smokescreen to evade straightforward questioning of your appearance of age babble. Paradox IS contradiction unless you can reconcile the contradictory clauses of your proposition. Bishop Ussher dating the creation of the world at world at 4000 BC, and the simple scientific evidence accessible to any school child dating the age of quartz, are definitely in conflict. Do you believe both are true?

BTW, your song and dance of God creating a false appearance of reality is applicable to any thing one may disagrees with. What if God created a false school of Christian Fundamentalism to specifically test you? How would you know? You would only have one false biblical passage to support other false biblical passages. Sophistry is a philosophical dead.

Paradox is not contradiction unless you can prove it. In this case you won't be able to. Here's why: You glibly call God a deceiver (which is what Satan implied to Eve by the way), failing to understand man's fallibility and finiteness. Since God reveals to us in the bible what he did and science observes something different because it's using naturalistic assumptions in an attempt to understand the supernatural acts of God, then how is God the liar? Explain this to me. God is at fault because He didn't create Man to be like God, having all knowledge? Is this the bottom line?

Do you have any doubt that you are of the "serpent's seed"?

Boxcar

boxcar

04-17-2011, 11:02 PM

Hello:

You folks should read Professor Barrie Wilsons' ( York University) recent
book. " How Jesus became Christian".
It will clear up a lot of current misunderstanding.

melvaruth

Hey, if you have this prof's email addy, tell him to read Gal 1:6-10. But since he seems to have it for Paul, tell him to also read about how Jesus did truly institute something new -- as in the New Covenant which he ratified with his blood (Lk 22:20, Heb 8:6-13; 9:17; 12:24; 13:20). I left out the Pauline passages, since he doesn't seem to like Paul very much. Most unbelievers don't, by the way.

Boxcar
P.S. While you're at it, tell the Prof that this is the same new covenant prophesied about in Jer 31:31. I'm sure he'll get a kick out this. :D

hcap

04-18-2011, 05:54 AM

..........................
Paradox is not contradiction unless you can prove it.

You are the one the called your absurd appearance of age theory a "Grand Paradox"after I pointed out it contains two opposing views.

1-You could not justify the creationist young earth supposition that man and dinosaur co-existed. There is zero scientific data.

2-Knowing you can't debate empirically, you then rationalize the young earth theory further and claim the earth is indeed young but God created it appearing very old to all our senses and measuring abilities. Why should I have to prove what you yourself defined as a paradox is in conflict?

The burden of proof is in your ballpark. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

In this case you won't be able to. Here's why: You glibly call God a deceiver (which is what Satan implied to Eve by the way), failing to understand man's fallibility and finiteness.

No I called YOUR VERSION OF GOD a deceiver. He must be to partake in the appearance of age debacle. Why would he create 1/2 lives of radioactive elements greater than a few thousand years? He could have left dinosaur bones un-petrified as well. Or only displaying the the same degree of decay as human fossils.

Since God reveals to us in the bible what he did and science observes something different because it's using naturalistic assumptions in an attempt to understand the supernatural acts of God, then how is God the liar? Explain this to me. God is at fault because He didn't create Man to be like God, having all knowledge? Is this the bottom line?

There is absolutely nothing supernatural about measuring the earths age. Divining rods are not uses. "Naturalistic" assumptions are simply along the lines that gravity exists. Radioactivity exists. Plate tectonics exist. The speed of light exists. And all may be measured accurately. What is wrong? All are observable, testable and the all may be applied successfully to foresee cause and effect

Do you have any doubt that you are of the "serpent's seed"?

You forgot anti-God, and anti-Christ

Boxcar

OTM Al

04-18-2011, 06:13 AM

I wasn't talking about the Job 19 passage. I was talking about the two dilemmas I raised about what you think about Christ and Christian orthodoxy and about fulfilled prophecy. But you knew that. You're just STILL ducking the issue after all these days. Good for you. Keep hiding under that rock.

Boxcar

I'm not retracing your mounds of nonsense to find these supposedly key questions buried in them, if they are in fact there. Prophecy in ancient times was a dicey thing. You had to fulfill it to be divine, but if you were judged to be divine, then you could be force fit into the prophecy. I've pointed out on the past how certain prophecy fulfillment was written, but clearly never happened. I'm not rehashing this again. Needless to say but many of the connections you make are spurious and your belief that the Bible is one unified work is beyond ridiculous. Which Bible would that be? There seems to be a few different versions out there.

hcap

04-18-2011, 06:20 AM

You keep ducking the issues that you yourself raise. You conveniently forgot these 2 questions. First I asked which truth in science you do accept after you said you don't object to all of science....
Ok, tell us what truths science "knows" that you find acceptable? Feel free to pick and choose. Careful not to upset your teetering house of cards. I doubt you can
I then askrd you how your sophist argument about the appearance of age bull is not applicable to ANY 1/2 baked theory.
BTW, your song and dance of God creating a false appearance of reality is applicable to any thing one may disagrees with. What if God created a false school of Christian Fundamentalism to specifically test you? How would you know? You would only have one false biblical passage to support other false biblical passages. Sophistry is a philosophical dead.

boxcar

04-18-2011, 01:57 PM

I'm not retracing your mounds of nonsense to find these supposedly key questions buried in them, if they are in fact there. Prophecy in ancient times was a dicey thing. You had to fulfill it to be divine, but if you were judged to be divine, then you could be force fit into the prophecy. I've pointed out on the past how certain prophecy fulfillment was written, but clearly never happened. I'm not rehashing this again. Needless to say but many of the connections you make are spurious and your belief that the Bible is one unified work is beyond ridiculous. Which Bible would that be? There seems to be a few different versions out there.

I understand. All the enemies of the cross of Christ believe the same way you do about scripture (Phil 3:18). You're in "great" company. And you know how Misery loves lots of Company, right?

Boxcar

boxcar

04-18-2011, 02:03 PM

No I called YOUR VERSION OF GOD a deceiver. He must be to partake in the appearance of age debacle. Why would he create 1/2 lives of radioactive elements greater than a few thousand years? He could have left dinosaur bones un-petrified as well. Or only displaying the the same degree of decay as human fossils.

But my "version" isn't. That's my point! How can "my version" of God be a deceiver? Has he not revealed to us that creation is a supernatural act? Therefore, if man willfully ignores that revelation and uses a 50-story high stack of naturalistic assumptions to try to explain the supernatural acts, how can you make that claim about God or even "my version" of God? Once again, you want it both ways. But you're so self-deceived you can't see your own double-mindedness.

Or if Genesis 1 weren't there and there was no record of Origins, but everything else in the bible remained, including how God's justice is grounded in his holiness and righteousness, what would you say when you stand before Him on judgment day and he declares you to be a blasphemer and idolater because you worshiped the creation instead of the Creator? Would you not incredulously retort immediately about how unjust and unfair he is because nowhere in his book did he tell mankind that he created the heavens and earth by the power of his word? Would you not accuse him to his face of Lying by Omission!? Of withholding critically important facts by which he is now using as a basis for his unrighteous judgment upon you!?

And if the above were the case, but Christians still held to a supernatural creation and a relatively young earth in spite of no biblical evidence of the same, would you not also ridicule them for believing in myths or fairy tales because the thing in which they believe is not written in God's word? You would surely scoff and jeer at them because there's nothing in the bible to substantiate their belief! Once again, you want it both ways. You mock Christians for believing what's in the bible and then you would assuredly scoff at us for believing something that wasn't! Likewise, you accuse "my version" of God as being a deceiver in spite of his revelation of a supernatural creation by which man attempts to explain with his naturalistic assumptions and models, as you would also if he condemned you on judgment day for holding to blasphemous and idolatrous beliefs about him solely on the basis of what he hasn't revealed to mankind!

The same thing applies to your disdain for my hermeneutics -- for how I interpret scripture. You mock me for my "narrow, literal" interpretations (which itself is a straw man argument!), but if Gen 1:1 actually read: "In the beginning, God stirred the primordial soup with his finger so that through the long ages life would eventually emerge", would you not hold to a pretty darn literal interpretation to this text since it fits in with your materialistic world view? And if "young earth" Christians railed against you for holding to such a literal interpretation, would you not ridicule them for not believing the "plain language" and for allegorizing the account to make it say that it teaches a young earth, supernatural creation?

With you, everything is "yes, yes and no, no" at the same time (2Cor 1:17)! Every man is indeed a liar (Rom 3:4)!

And no, I know what you are. I did not forget, for you will never let me. You are indeed antichrist and, therefore, of the "serpent's seed", as it is written:

1 John 2:22
22 Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.
NASB

Boxcar

OTM Al

04-18-2011, 02:05 PM

TJDave

04-18-2011, 02:27 PM

An "enemy of the cross of Christ"? That's a first on me. I guess that's your black and white way of condemning me.

His version of God IS.

Why do you not understand this? ;)

boxcar

04-18-2011, 03:05 PM

An "enemy of the cross of Christ"? That's a first on me. I guess that's your black and white way of condemning me. Frankly, being condemned by one such as you is a great compliment. It means I am not a small minded hater of my fellow man.

It wouldn't have been a first, if you had known your bible. But I'm not the one condemning. You, too, have considered yourself unworthy of God's great gift, therefore, you condemn yourself with your own unbelief.

And as far as my "small" mind, it is is only as wide as Christ's -- and no wider! It is no wonder at all that Christ taught that the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and many are those who travel upon it. Surely, the gate would have be wide and way would have to be broad in order to accommodate all your fellow open-minded, worldly citizens with their worldly garbage.

Thank you for helping me to better understand Mat 7:13 and for giving affirmation to my Lord's words.

Boxcar

OTM Al

04-18-2011, 03:17 PM

It wouldn't have been a first, if you had known your bible. But I'm not the one condemning. You, too, have considered yourself unworthy of God's great gift, therefore, you condemn yourself with your own unbelief.

And as far as my "small" mind, it is is only as wide as Christ's -- and no wider! It is no wonder at all that Christ taught that the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and many are those who travel upon it. Surely, the gate would have be wide and way would have to be broad in order to accommodate all your fellow open-minded, worldly citizens with their worldly garbage.

Thank you for helping me to better understand Mat 7:13 and for giving affirmation to my Lord's words.

Boxcar

Wow, even comparing yourself to Jesus. Well maybe your mind is just as wide as his, though I would take the under on that one, but what I am sure is that you share nothing of what was in his mind with him. This I state as an assumption, however, as I would never be so arrogant to believe that I understand all that he was about.

I also love the move of saying you are not condemning, but condemning all the same. A real classic. Well, enjoy your beloved 20th century death cult. Raise up your cross and book as idols. I'll focus on the positive nature of the message.

boxcar

04-18-2011, 03:42 PM

Wow, even comparing yourself to Jesus. Well maybe your mind is just as wide as his, though I would take the under on that one, but what I am sure is that you share nothing of what was in his mind with him. This I state as an assumption, however, as I would never be so arrogant to believe that I understand all that he was about.

This is the understatement of the year! You know nothing of Christ, especially WHO he is.

As far as comparing myself to Christ, you obviously also haven't read that his disciples are to imitate him (1Cor 4:16; 1Thes 1:6, etc.). And true Christians have the "mind of Christ" (1Cor 2:16).

I also love the move of saying you are not condemning, but condemning all the same. A real classic. Well, enjoy your beloved 20th century death cult. Raise up your cross and book as idols. I'll focus on the positive nature of the message.

That "classic" move was also right of scripture (Act 13:46). And by now mocking the cross, do you not confirm my earlier observation that you are it's enemy!? And would you mock it if you truly understood "the message"?

Jude 18
18 that they were saying to you, "In the last time there shall be mockers, following after their own ungodly lusts."
NASB

But in the end, who will mock who?

Prov 1:26
26 I will even laugh at your calamity;
I will mock when your dread comes,
NASB

Boxcar

OTM Al

04-18-2011, 05:04 PM

This is the understatement of the year! You know nothing of Christ, especially WHO he is.

As far as comparing myself to Christ, you obviously also haven't read that his disciples are to imitate him (1Cor 4:16; 1Thes 1:6, etc.). And true Christians have the "mind of Christ" (1Cor 2:16).

That "classic" move was also right of scripture (Act 13:46). And by now mocking the cross, do you not confirm my earlier observation that you are it's enemy!? And would you mock it if you truly understood "the message"?

Jude 18
18 that they were saying to you, "In the last time there shall be mockers, following after their own ungodly lusts."
NASB

But in the end, who will mock who?

Prov 1:26
26 I will even laugh at your calamity;
I will mock when your dread comes,
NASB

Boxcar

Approval of mocking the misfortunes of your fellow man now? Very Christian. Clearly the intent of Jesus. Why don't you cite where Jesus told his followers to mock the those suffering misfortunes? What vile hatred you come up with. Please go on though. Keep revealing yourself to the world.

hcap

04-18-2011, 05:45 PM

But my "version" isn't. That's my point! How can "my version" of God be a deceiver? Has he not revealed to us that creation is a supernatural act? Therefore, if man willfully ignores that revelation and uses a 50-story high stack of naturalistic assumptions to try to explain the supernatural acts, how can you make that claim about God or even "my version" of God?

We all make "materialistic assumptions" about the universe from the moment we awake till the moment we sleep. Materialistic assumptions help you cross the street without getting your ass plowed. You brew your java with materialistic assumptions. And the real funny thing is we all learn about how the world works constantly from building one assumption upon another. There is no evil in being aware of natural processes. Things in the phenomenal world should be counted. Mathematics is not evil.

I will remind you of the Hibdu story about the
elephant.

"A group of blind men (or men in the dark) touch an elephant to learn what it is like. Each one feels a different part, but only one part, such as the side or the tusk. They then compare notes and learn that they are in complete disagreement".

There is nothing wrong with counting the toes on the elephants' foot or weighing the trunk. The problem is one of not seeing the forest for the trees. Holding to stubbornly to ones own tiny version of the larger reality is missing the mark. Science, poetry, art, religion are all complimentary keys to the whole. As long as you are able to see the commonality of all the parts.

Now please answer the 2 questions I asked if you dare. I am beginning to think you have boxed yourself in and cannot use any reasonable arguments unless they be circular and include a dozen or more biblical passages.

Once again....

Ok, tell us what truths science "knows" that you find acceptable? Feel free to pick and choose. Careful not to upset your teetering house of cards. I doubt you can

.................................................. ..........

BTW, your song and dance of God creating a false appearance of reality is applicable to any thing one may disagrees with. What if God created a false school of Christian Fundamentalism to specifically test you? How would you know? You would only have one false biblical passage to support other false biblical passages. Sophistry is a philosophical dead end

boxcar

04-18-2011, 07:39 PM

Approval of mocking the misfortunes of your fellow man now? Very Christian. Clearly the intent of Jesus. Why don't you cite where Jesus told his followers to mock the those suffering misfortunes? What vile hatred you come up with. Please go on though. Keep revealing yourself to the world.

Clearly it was his intent, since Jesus was the Word made flesh (Jn 1:14).

And who is doing the mocking in that Proverbs passage is Jesus, since Solomon is personalizing Wisdom. And Jesus is the Wisdom of God (1 Cor 1:24; Eph 3:8ff). And Wisdom is mocking because fools did not listen to her beckoning so that they would be spared the judgments of God.

Boxcar

boxcar

04-18-2011, 08:17 PM

We all make "materialistic assumptions" about the universe from the moment we awake till the moment we sleep. Materialistic assumptions help you cross the street without getting your ass plowed.

Yes, but how many of us daily make these mundane assumptions and claim we're making sense of how the universe and all life got here? Bad analogy.
I drive nearly every day based on the "science" of man, yet along with a gazillion of other drivers, that activity doesn't exactly excite my interest in unraveling the deep mysteries of the universe and life! Nor do I have to in order to drive! Nor did the guy for that matter who invented the internal combustible engine, etc. :rolleyes:

I will remind you of the Hibdu story about the
elephant.[/quote]

:lol: :lol: :lol: Oh, no, not again!

There is nothing wrong with counting the toes on the elephants' foot or weighing the trunk. The problem is one of not seeing the forest for the trees. Holding to stubbornly to ones own tiny version of the larger reality is missing the mark. Science, poetry, art, religion are all complimentary keys to the whole. As long as you are able to see the commonality of all the parts.

Yeah...well, preach that to the scientists who leave out God from their scientific equations.

Now please answer the 2 questions I asked if you dare. I am beginning to think you have boxed yourself in and cannot use any reasonable arguments unless they be circular and include a dozen or more biblical passages.

Once again....

I have defended my position. I will not engage in foolish speculations with you. I gave you four reasonable justifications behind my "apparent age" theory.

The Genesis account can only leave us with this reasonable conclusion. The universe and all life was created in a mature, fully developed state.

God had the right, as the Potter, to create and mold the clay as he wants.

God revealed to mankind that he created ex nihilo, therefore, no one can accuse him of deception. (Men choose to ignore the bible and the supernatural at their own peril!) The only way God could be accused of deception is if he didn't reveal this and yet judged men on the basis of what Paul wrote in Rom 1:18ff. God, then, would have lied by omission.

Scripture records that God tests Man; therefore, how he created could very well be a moral test to see if man's heart is drawn more to the creation or to the Creator. (Paul says in Rom 1 that it's far more often the former.)

Ps 33:6
6 By the word of the Lord the heavens were made,
And by the breath of His mouth all their host.
NASB

Heb 11:3
3 By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.
NASB

Go your way, 'cap, to build your altar to the creation.

Boxcar

boxcar

04-18-2011, 08:35 PM

where do you find scientists talking about truth, dogma, or Mans Holy Grail?
any scientist that does so is a fraud. Science is about theories, not truths. Theories that are open to review and inspection by others. They are supposed to be challenged and often fall somewhat short under some conditions. dogmas belong to religion, not science.

I want to pursue this subject a little further with you; for your post had an incredulous tone to it, as though I was the one erecting a straw man. But not only haven't I raised one, but I will take my observation to the next level and show you how scientists, too, bring their own religious and/or political agendas to bear upon their sacred theories. (Again, I challenge you to test Hcap on this issue of scientific "facts" to see how vigorously and adamantly he will defend scientific "theories" when they agree with his world view, of course.)

Charles Darwin was the guy who really brought the theory of Evolution to the fore, and he did this by stealing it from others. So, coming right out of the chute, Darwin has a moral problem. Also, he was hardly an objective, unbiased investigator. Darwin started off as a "believer" but his life later betrayed that his faith was spurious. In fact, he even studied to become a clergyman.

Based on James Hutton's dictum that all natural processes have continued as they were from the beginning (2 Peter 3:4), or 'uniformitarianism', Lyell's book presented Darwin with the time frame of vast geological ages needed to make his theory of natural selection as the mechanism of evolution 'work'. One of Darwin's biographers calls Charles's reading of this book his 'point of departure from orthodoxy'.

And when Lyell died in 1875, Darwin said, “I never forget that almost everything which I have done in science I owe to the study of his great works.”

Darwin shortly after wrote:

“I had gradually come by this time, [i.e. 1836 to 1839] to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos or the beliefs of any barbarian.”

Then whatever faith he had at that time degenerated into:

Having abandoned the Old Testament, Darwin then renounced the Gospels. This loss of belief was based on several factors, including his rejection of miracles: "the more we know of the fixed laws of nature, the more incredible do miracles become"; his rejection of the credibility of the Gospel writers: "the men of that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible to us"; his rejection of the Gospel chronology: "the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events"; and his rejection of the Gospel events: "they differ in many important details, far too important, as it seemed to me, to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eye-witnesses."

Summing up the above, he wrote, “by such reflections as these... I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation.”

Of course, the death of his young daughter was also very instrumental in him losing faith. Darwin at this point had a huge axe to grind against God. Advancing his theory of evolution was his way of spitting in God's face -- a way of telling God that he wasn't necessary.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/darwin.html

Aldous Huxley, a leading Evolution proponent, also had his antiChristian agenda:

I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; and consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics. He is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do. For myself, as no doubt for most of my friends, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom. The supporters of this system claimed that it embodied the meaning - the Christian meaning, they insisted - of the world. There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people and justifying ourselves in our erotic revolt: we would deny that the world had any meaning whatever.

http://www.facingthechallenge.org/huxley.php

Sir Julian Huxley also dismissed God. Consideration of the supernatural was not necessary to the Theory -- which is very religious at its core, when all is said and done! This Huxley, too, had his antiGod bias.

Consider the following oft-repeated quote from Sir Julian Huxley, who, until his recent death, was perhaps the world's leading spokesperson for evolution and who, from his position as head of UNESCO at the United Nations, did much to unite the world under an evolutionary, humanistic banner.

Darwin pointed out that no supernatural designer was needed; since natural selection could account for any known form of life, there was no room for a supernatural agency in its evolution ... we can dismiss entirely all ideas of a supernatural overriding mind being responsible for the evolutionary process.[1]

And jumping back to Darwin for a moment, read this excerpt from the Encyclopedia Brittanica:

Darwin did two things: He showed that evolution was a fact contradicting literal interpretations of Scriptural legends of creation and that its cause, natural selection, was automatic with no room for divine guidance or design.[3]

So, at minimum it appears the Brittanica believes that Darwin prove the FACT of Evolution. And "fact" is synonymous with truth! When someone swears in court to tell the Truth, the Whole Truth and Nothing But the Truth -- he is saying he will present the FACTS.

Another professor of Evolution Theory understood perfectly the profound religious implications to Darwinism:

Furthermore, if evolution is true, the entire Christian faith is a sham. Dr. William Provine, Professor of History and Biology at Cornell University and author of many anti-creation articles, wrote recently that Darwin recognized:

... if natural selection explained adaptations, and evolution by descent were true, then the argument from design was dead and all that went with it, namely: 1) the existence of a personal God, 2) free will, 3) life after death, 4) immutable moral laws, and 5) ultimate meaning in life.[4]

Here's another professor of Evolution who could not make sense out of the world from a biblical perspective, which is not surprising at all because men come into this world spiritually blind from the womb:

In a May 22, 1860 letter to Professor Asa Gray of Harvard, propagator of evolution on the American continent, Darwin wrote, evidently to answer Gray's advocacy of "theistic" evolution:

I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence (or goodness) on all sides of us. There seems to me to be too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the ichneumonidae (parasites) with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed [parenthesis added].

http://www.icr.org/article/natural-selection-versus-supernatural-design/

So, what Evolution does is strongly encourage its advocates and disciples to abandon God (after all, who needs unnecessary baggage to lug around in life?) -- but that missing baggage will leave a world view vacuum, which must be filled. No one on this planet, save for certifiable head cases (possibly), walks around believing Nothing and in Nothing. More often than not, the Creation worshipers (talked about in Rom 1:18ff) will turn to the Faith of Human Secularism, which has been judicially declared a religion, by the way, in a Supreme Court decision. And Human Secularists are hell-bent on pushing God out of all public discourse.

Many people do not realize that the teaching of evolution propagates an anti-biblical religion. The first two tenets of the Humanist Manifesto II (1973), signed by many prominent evolutionists, are:

1. Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.

2. Humanism believes that Man is a part of nature and has emerged as a result of a continuous process.

This is exactly what evolution teaches. Many humanist leaders are quite open about using the public schools to proselytize their faith. This might surprise some parents who think the schools are supposed to be free of religious indoctrination, but this quote makes it clear:

I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level - preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new - the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism...

It will undoubtedly be a long, arduous, painful struggle replete with much sorrow and many tears, but humanism will emerge triumphant. It must if the family of humankind is to survive. (10)

Oh, yes..."the divinity in all" garbage. Doesn't this kinda sound like, we can all be gods if we just strive hard enough to ignite that "spark" which resides in us all? Can we all spell polytheism? Remember how Satan fell and what his temptation was to Eve? "Nothing really new under the sun", is there -- as the Preacher said? I tell you a truth: In Hell, there won't be any problem for its population finding their sparks!

http://www.creationists.org/atheists.html

But all the above is just the mere, tiny tip of the iceberg. The National Academy of Sciences is the High Priest of Evolution, and while it likes to portray itself as this great paragon of neutrality, the scientific method, etc., this is the farthest thing from the truth. Here are a few interesting quotes from its membership:

Another important point to consider about the NAS scientists is that for at least 93% of the scientists who are members, evolutionism is their world view, their religion. No matter how much they pretend to deny this, it is still the truth. Here are several quotes from leading evolutionists that provide some insight into this thinking. We don't know if any of them are or were NAS members, but it is important that students and parents are aware of, and properly understand, that many evolutionary scientists harbor the goals of spreading humanism and atheism through evolutionary indoctrination. Given the rabidly anti-science (against honest science) and anti-Christian nature of the NAS, it's not much of a stretch to suspect that this kind of thinking could be prevalent in the NAS membership. If it is, it is highly unlikely they'd openly admit to it en masse.

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, and in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so-stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
Richard Lewontin (1)

Did you catch this: "Materialism is an absolute"! As in...absolute truth!? Hmm...

And here's a guy who really gets it. Read this very carefully:

"Atheism is science’s natural ally. Atheism is the philosophy, both moral and ethical, most perfectly suited for a scientific civilization. If we work for the American Atheists today, Atheism will be ready to fill the void of Christianity’s demise when science and evolution triumph. Without a doubt humans and civilization are in sore need of the intellectual cleanness and mental health of atheism. Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing!"G. Richard Bozarth (2)

This is pretty much what I told Greyfox earlier when he wanted to know why Evolution and the Bible can't just get along. But they simply can't hold hands, kiss, make out and have intercourse because all they would produce are demons from Hell! It's not possible. Light cannot fellowship with Darkness. No more than Righteousness and Lawlessness can walk together. Or any more than Christ can be in harmony with Baal (2Cor 6:14-15).

And then finally, even the venerated Dr. Richard Dawkins had to admit he had second thoughts:

“Now, as I say, when it is put to me that science or some particular part of science, like evolutionary theory, is just a religion like any other, I usually deny it with indignation. But I’ve begun to wonder whether perhaps that’s the wrong tactic. Perhaps the right tactic is to accept the charge gratefully and demand equal time for science in religious education classes." (6) Dr. Richard Dawkins

http://www.creationists.org/response-to-nas-science-evolution-creationism-book.html

But all these things come as no surprise to me in the least. This is what a Christian would expect to find in this dark, forlorn, fallen world. All these sentiments and quotes validate the teaching in Gen 3:15 (not to mention a host of other passages). There are only two kinds of people in the world when it comes to spirituality -- the "woman's seed" (believers) and the "serpent's seed" (unbelievers) and God Almighty himself has set us at war with one another! He has set the ENMITY between us until the end of the age. And this enmity (spiritual warfare) is what is driving human history to its predetermined end! Even Jesus himself alluded to this war when he told his listeners on the Mount that he didn't come into the world to bring peace, but he came bearing a sword -- to set a son against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, and that indeed a man's enemies would be the very members of his own household (Mat 10:34-37). And all men, including scientists, arrive in this world as natural born enemies of God. All men come into the world as being spiritually dead -- separated from the life of God, alienated from him -- hostile toward him. This is man's natural disposition.

Jim, make no mistake about this: Evolution is regarded as the gospel truth. It's considered to be irrefutable fact. Another "settled issue", if you will. And Evolution is a religion that requires a great deal of faith. Therefore, since hardcore evolutionists are arrogant enough to think this and to even declare it, then it seems to me they should submit their "truth" to the Formula for Truth. Truth = The Whole + Nothing But. Nothing omitted, nothing added. But as you have seen from above, they're not interested in bringing God into their scientific equations because they deny the existence of The Unseen -- the Eternal. So, they deceive themselves into believing that they can make total sense of supernatural acts of creation by building models and constructs and assumptions out of their Naturalism -- their Materialism, and they fully expect to get to the "truth".

But not only this, since evolutionists are so cock-sure and arrogant, they should find the courage to submit their findings to the "jury of their peers" -- the full scientific community for a show of hands. In courts, the jury must reach a unanimous decision -- that's a consensus to the extreme -- the ultimate consensus. Since this works pretty well in our criminal court system, why wouldn't this additional test work in the scientific community? I'll tell you why: Because evolutionists know they'd never get this kind of consensus and this failure would result in their theories as ultimately being regarded by the public for what they really are -- vain babblings and foolish speculations.

Boxcar

Greyfox

04-18-2011, 08:45 PM

In courts, the jury must reach a unanimous decision -- that's a consensus to the extreme -- the ultimate consensus. Since this works pretty well in our criminal court system, why wouldn't this additional test work in the scientific community? I'll tell you why: Because evolutionists know they'd never get this kind of consensus and this failure would result in their theories as ultimately being regarded by the public for what they really are -- vain babblings and foolish speculations.

Boxcar

Unanimous consensus would never be reached regarding religious works either.

boxcar

04-18-2011, 09:15 PM

Unanimous consensus would never be reached regarding religious works either.

Yes, but propositional truth claims can be tested for internal consistencies. Since the bible itself claims that God cannot lie and that he inspired the writers to write his words, then these kinds of texts provide the impetus for testing those claims.

When someone takes the witness stand and swears to tell the truth, do not the examining attorneys look for inconsistencies in the witness' testimony? Or when the police question a crime suspect, aren't they vigilant to try to spot inconsistencies in his story or alibi?

Of course, in addition to this an interpreter is always sensitive to finding subtle self-defeating statements, as well, which would also invalidate the claim that God is completely truthful.

But not only does scripture bear witness to itself, but creation bears witness to scripture. I have frequently shown how Special Revelation harmonizes with Natural Revelation.

Plus Christians have a third witness which is the indwelling Holy Spirit within us.

Boxcar
P.S. Plus there's another aspect to all this you overlook. The natural man -- the unbeliever has a natural aversion to God and his truth. It's just the way it is. As Jesus himself said in the story about Lazarus and Rich Man -- that even if the Rich Man were raised from the dead and allowed to go back to his brothers to warn them of the torments of hell, they would not believe him since they did not believe Moses! Pretty heavy statement.

TJDave

04-18-2011, 09:17 PM

Unanimous consensus would never be reached regarding religious works either.

Even IF there were definitive proof supporting or disproving one religious dogma or another do you think it would make any difference? Would followers of Judaism, Christianity, Mohammedism, Buddhism or the rest get in a different line?

Don't think so.

boxcar

04-18-2011, 09:21 PM

Even IF there were definitive proof supporting or disproving one religious dogma or another do you think it would make any difference? Would followers of Judaism, Christianity, Mohammedism, Buddhism or the rest get in a different line?

Don't think so.

Not without the effectual call of God, they wouldn't. We're on the same page again. :D

Boxcar

TJDave

04-18-2011, 09:32 PM

Not without the effectual call of God, they wouldn't. We're on the same page again. :D

Boxcar

But just got a call saying tonight would be different than all other nights. Paschal lamb is on the menu. Yummy.

My page is full until tomorrow.

Greyfox

04-18-2011, 10:00 PM

Since the bible itself claims that God cannot lie and .

That statement seems to indicate God has limitations.
If true, there is one thing that God cannot do. Hmmm??

toetoe

04-18-2011, 10:10 PM

Holy crap.

Well put. :lol: .

OTM Al

04-19-2011, 09:03 AM

Clearly it was his intent, since Jesus was the Word made flesh (Jn 1:14).

And who is doing the mocking in that Proverbs passage is Jesus, since Solomon is personalizing Wisdom. And Jesus is the Wisdom of God (1 Cor 1:24; Eph 3:8ff). And Wisdom is mocking because fools did not listen to her beckoning so that they would be spared the judgments of God.

Boxcar

You wonder why people can't refute your arguments when you write something like this? Something so full of holes as this is all but impossible to argue because it is so inane. Do you form your arguements by doing word searches? It's fortunate that everyone spoke English in the Bible then....

Let's see, using your logic, Jesus is the lamb of God. Dave ate lamb at his seder, a feast celebrating God. QED, Dave had a juicy rack of Jesus last night.....Hope it was good Dave. Never have been to one myself but got some leftovers once and that made a fine meal.

By the way, logos is the Greek word being translated as "word" here. It actually means more than that, really more something spoken, a speech, an argument also would be appropriate translations in an earlier period, though by the time John was written, "word" in the sense of a spoken word is an ok translation. What it doesn't mean though is something written, such as, oh say the whole OT. That would be called biblia. Thus the word Bible. Again a force fitting of things that have nothing to do with each other on your part. Pretty poor try really. So once again, where did Jesus say it was appropriate to mock the unfortunate?

prospector

04-19-2011, 09:40 AM

That statement seems to indicate God has limitations.
If true, there is one thing that God cannot do. Hmmm??
square circle

Greyfox

04-19-2011, 09:55 AM

square circle

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/files/2009/08/squarecirclespiral.jpg.

OTM Al

04-19-2011, 10:05 AM

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/files/2009/08/squarecirclespiral.jpg.

That really messes with your eyes doesn't it? They are concentric circles though aren't they?

Greyfox

04-19-2011, 10:12 AM

That really messes with your eyes doesn't it? They are concentric circles though aren't they?

Yup. :D

boxcar

04-19-2011, 12:35 PM

That statement seems to indicate God has limitations.
If true, there is one thing that God cannot do. Hmmm??

Of course, God has "limitations". I have explained this on previous occasions. God cannot act contrary to his nature -- to what he is, which righteous and holy. God can only think, speak and act in accordance with his sinless, perfect nature. Therefore, God cannot sin. Neither did the only begotten Son of God ever sin, which is logical since Jesus is the very God of God and was sent to earth as the perfect sacrifice to atone for the sins of his Father's people.

Heb 4:15
15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.
NASB

Further, if God were a sinner like us, why the necessity for the Cross? Why would he send his only Son to die for sinners in their place? Wouldn't God just say, "Look, folks, do the best you can because I'm just as vulnerable to sin as you, so I can empathize with you"?

Moreover, who would want to trust in God if he were capable of sinning? How trustworthy would he be, especially since we're all going to be judged by him? How would anyone be able to trust in his righteous judgments in this world or the next?

The fact that God cannot sin is a very great comfort to Christians.

Boxcar

boxcar

04-19-2011, 12:40 PM

But just got a call saying tonight would be different than all other nights. Paschal lamb is on the menu. Yummy.

My page is full until tomorrow.

Enjoy. I would only wish you'd feast on the Lamb of God.

Boxcar

hcap

04-19-2011, 02:53 PM

Yes, but how many of us daily make these mundane assumptions and claim we're making sense of how the universe and all life got here? Bad analogy.
I drive nearly every day based on the "science" of man, yet along with a gazillion of other drivers, that activity doesn't exactly excite my interest in unraveling the deep mysteries of the universe and life! Nor do I have to in order to drive! Nor did the guy for that matter who invented the internal combustible engine, etc. :rolleyes:

One more time. V-e-r-y S-l-o-w-l-y for the reading impaired. I never said science alone is the way to understand all the mysteries of life and universe. We are only dealing with your bogus manufactured idiocy re: The age of the universe and 1/2 baked contention that it appears older than it really is.

At least you drive...

The internal combustion engine, the technology that you use without having a clue, is direct evidence for the scientific case for the old universe.

a)-The petroleum burnt is known to have originated based on the science of chemistry, physics and geology eons ago.

b)-The laws of thermodynamics explain why burning that petrol moves your car. And why you can stop by applying friction brakes

c-If you use GPS, the accurate speed of light must be known and applied.

All may be "mundane" theologically, but all are based on sophisticated repeatable testable empirical scientifically established theory and knowledge that prove the earth and universe are far older tan 6,000 yeas.

You cannot refute the actual evidence. You only have the last resort of a philosophical scoundrel. The sophistry of "appearance of age." Provide one damn piece of EVIDENCE other than your misinterpretation and rationalization of the bible. One piece of evidence that at least points to your self defined paradoxical appearance of age proposition having some reality external to cherry picked biblical passages. It is up to you to provide something to support your hair brained theory. Anything. But we all you you can't.

I will remind you of the history of the many prior debates I have had with you. Previously after confronting you with irrefutable facts contrary to a young earth, and after you vainly tried to disprove radiocarbon dating and other scientific evidence as well (you tried to convince all of us the the literal time line of Genesis was correct), it was only then after boxed in and no where to go, you presented the appearance of age babble. Your history shows you have retreated into a losing philosophical position and have nowhere else to go. But to maintain your trumpeted internal consistency theorem you wind up reducing God into a cruel mocking headmaster handing out unjust final exams in the Boxcarian school of fore and brimstone.

A despicable graven image of your own narrow mind.

I said "I will remind you of the Hindu story about the elephant." Your stupid reply
:lol: :lol: :lol: Oh, no, not again!

Yeah...well, preach that to the scientists who leave out God from their scientific equations.Write us ONE that includes God. But I doubt you have any understanding of math. Generally goes well with illiteracy in science, I doubt you even know what an equation is.
I have defended my position. I will not engage in foolish speculations with you. I gave you four reasonable justifications behind my "apparent age" theory.
In your dreams. Reasonable justifications have some sort of correlation with factual evidence. You have nothing

The Genesis account can only leave us with this reasonable conclusion. The universe and all life was created in a mature, fully developed state. God had the right, as the Potter, to create and mold the clay as he wants.

God revealed to mankind that he created ex nihilo, therefore, no one can accuse him of deception. (Men choose to ignore the bible and the supernatural at their own peril!) The only way God could be accused of deception is if he didn't reveal this and yet judged men on the basis of what Paul wrote in Rom 1:18ff. God, then, would have lied by omission.

Scripture records that God tests Man; therefore, how he created could very well be a moral test to see if man's heart is drawn more to the creation or to the Creator.

Go your way, 'cap, to build your altar to the creation.How do you know you are not the one being tested by buying into a fundamentalist crock? It would seem to me God wouldn't waste his time instilling intellect in man and then pulling the rug out from under his feet. God has better things to do than play silly games that originate in limited minds.