It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Then God said, 'Let US make man in OUR image, and in OUR likeness'"

page: 8
26
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 04:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by joey_hv
The Mormons believe that the world and Adam/Eve were created by 3 Gods whilst Elohim the main God waited in heaven for the 3 Gods to return and report.


Not exactly. Elohim created Adam and Eve, and Peter James and John were sent to see how they were progressing and to return and report. Mormons believe everyone was created in heaven before they came here in the flesh an are the spirit offspring of God. The Mormons also believe Elohim is plural and means "council of the Gods"




posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 05:49 AM
link   
so god feels the need to use a 'majestic plural' does he?

what, is he insecure?

why is 'he' a 'he', by the way... god...

seriously....

think about it. a creative force wouldn't be male or female.

an ALIEN, on the other hand, MIGHt very well have been male. indeed, it would explain a helluva lot, if a male alien had created this mess... er, sorry, planet...



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Shane
 


Thanks for sharing your insights, which to me show you are a genuinely inspired searcher in the mysteries of God. It all starts with language, as expressed in John 1:1ff. Then it turned into living entities. I donot refute that there were many gods under Elohim, they might even have been called the Elohim family, but the patriarch of the Elohim is the One God carrying this name. When he says us and we and such there is still just one person speaking. And he addressed his servants, the Sons of God. As you correctly point out Jesjuah and the Father are but two of these entities. Well done.

However I have to agrue that based on Enoch there were a mere 600 of these Sons of God. And I would also argue against that Enoch's 200 Watchers swore to Satan. They swore their oath upon the soul of Semjaza, who swore to take the blame for these angelic people's endavours in the name of love. Enoch for one interceded with these the angelic Watchers and their offspring the Men of Reknown, the Nephilim, who fell, not from Heaven, but from Grace, and most importantly, by the Flood itself. In traditional astrology there were 144,000 named stars, each being represented by their appropriate gods. There were originally 72 constallations, later 88. And when Satan fell (much earlier than when Semjaza swore he would die for the sins the golegues were about to commit) Satan, did according to Kabalaa-related knowledge, wage war in Heaven due to him being shocked that, allthough he had lead Man to break God's Law, to eat the Forbidden Fruit through his instrument Lilith symbolised as a talking serpent in the Tree of Knowledge, God ordered his highest ranking angel, Raziel (who btw. later were among the swearing Watchers in Enoch) to write a book, later refered to as the Spark of Heaven, and give it to Adam. This was when the arch angel Samael (popularily called Lucifer, the angel of the Morningstar) rebelled and waged war against Raziel and the others who were following God's command, and gathered 1/3rd of the angels. This story is not very well known, eventhough many versions of the Fall of Samael corculates among Chriostians about how Satan was called Lucifer before the fall etc. He wasn't, he was among the many Morningstars in God's court. After the fall where Samael turned in to the Arch-Satan, trans. the Arch-Enemy (of Man) and later named Ha-Satan, the enemy and was actually forgiven by God, and reinstated in the court of Heaven and given the job to be Accuser or more precisely Procecuter against sinners in the Law. This was about the time of Mosjeh, when God and Israel agreed upon a common Law code. Most of this has come to me in dreams and in mysterious ways I cannot just like that provide sources for. But I know that before I die, this will be sorted out. I have found most of this to be correct and within the restraints of the Bible and books like the Zohar and other Kabalah works.

[edit on 9/4/2010 by Neo Christian Mystic]



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Hi Rapunzel 222


I don't think we're dealing with science here, but preExilic/Exilic Hebrew liturgical myths (the (2) contradictory 'Creation Myths of the Jews')

The 1st Creation Myth (Gen 1:1 - 2:4a and 5:1-2 etc.) seems to make the clan god (ELOHIM, masc pl) BOTH male AND female:

'In the Day when they were created, Elohim made them in 'his' (sg) own image, MALE AND FEMALE created he them, and HE CALLED THEIR NAME ADAM, and blessed them both...' -- Gen 5:1

Therefore ELOHIM is BOTH Male and Female. The fact that the singular form of ELOHIM (masc pl) is ELOAH (feminine sg) may also be a part of this equation.

So as far as the Jews are concerned, ELOHIM is not to be considered sexless or genderless, but rather BOTH MALE AND FEMALE i.e. self generating (like ithyphallic Isis who shows both male and female parts on her body, even to the point of sexual stimulation !) i.e. ANDROGYNOUS.

Not sure how all this fits with the description of YHWH in the Scroll of the Book of the prophet Hezekiel (whose Babylonian language-accent is apparent in the 1st creation myth of the Jews) where in chapter 1 and 10 of the prophet's oracles, YHWH has the same shape/number and description of 'faces' as the Assyrian creator god ASHUR (Ashur has 4 faces - the face of a man, the face of a lion, the face of an ox and the face of an eagle - i.e. the heads of all the animal types : the ox is the head of all domestic animals, the lion is the head of all wild animals, the eagle is the head of all flying birds, and man is the supposed head of all the animals in the first Creation Myth of the Jews in Genesis chapter 1).

The fact that the cult of YHWH stole (or more politely, 'borrowed') the image of the clan-god from ASHUR the god of the Assyrians should come as no suprise, since the Assyrians conquored Israel in 722-701 BCE and occupied the land for a century, deporting anyone who could read or write or foster rebellion (priests, but also those pesky metalworkers who got into the nasty habit of making weapons) the 10-lost-tribelets of Israel into Assyria - while the 'poor ones' ran south to Jerusalem to escape the carnage (the population of Jerusalem quintupled between 701 and 690 BCE which tells you something of a refugee flight was in place for a while).

Interestingly in Exod. chapter 3 when 'Mosheh' (whoever he was) speaks (!!!) to a burning Sineh ('bush') the 'bush' speaks back: 'whom shall I say has sent me to them'? to which the god replied 'YEHEI ASHER YEHEI' which could mean alot of things : I am who I am (in other words, 'mind your own business, I'm not telling you !) or even I am ASHUR I am !

Which would explain why Ashur and YHWH both have 4 faces exactly alike.

And in preExilic times, the wife of YHWH was called......ASHERAH !! (Ashur/Asherah were twin gods/goddesses who were married in the Assyrian Panthenon - hence 'assurian')

The post exilic clan-god of Israel (YHWH) is quite untranslatable in any event. Even the Rabbi's haven't got a clue as to what it means.

So when ELOHIM was used to replace YHWH in some of the sources used in the socalled 'old testatment' we also have quite a lot of difficulty figuring out why the term was used so widely.

Possibly the masc plural ('majestic plural') generic cover term ELOHIM was used as a replacement title or name for the unspeakable unutterable namee of the clan godd in post exilic times : YHWH (Yah-weh) which was (at least after the Exile i.e. post 587 BCE) forbidden to be spoken outloud by anyone other than a high priest on Yom Kippur when haShem ('the name') was ONLY meant to be spoken in the Qadosh Qadoshim (holy of holies) in the Jerusalem Temple dedicated to YHWH (and earlier in pre Exilic times, i.e. pre 587 BCE 'to YHWH and his Asherah' and also surrounded by shrines on neighbouring hills dedicated to other foreign Cannaanite and Egyptian clan-gods) - speaking the 'divine name' after say 480 BCE was punishable by stoning (i.e. for blaspheming haShem).

The further one digs (literally) into the past, the less YHWH ALONE is worshipped and more than one clan-god is placed in front of the line of worshipful deities in Israel - a process called MONOLATRY (not YHWH alone, but YHWH in front - i.e. 'you shall not have any other clan-gods before my faces' i.e. in the temple, as one of the so-called supposedly ancient 10 commandments purports to say)


Food for thought anyway.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by rapunzel222
so god feels the need to use a 'majestic plural' does he?


God is the "King of Heaven". Like any king, God speaks on behalf of his council and government, and is a timeless institution, not a singular person. When the queen or king delivers a speech, they use the same way of addressing as is reflected in Genesis 1 and 11, using We, Us and Our etc. In German when you address a person you do not know, you address him or her with Sie and Ihr, instead of "du" (you) and "dein" (your) etc. plural forms. Also royalty often speaks of themselves in third person, he, she etc., or they'd typically say "The King wants to address...." etc. This reflects a desire to express unity, and distance, and many other things. When a king dies a new king takes over. Or as the saying: "The king ios dead -- long live the king!" The king is not a person, but rather an institution, an eternal one in their own view. Just as God ruling today may not be the same person who ruled as God in the time of Noah, but the person (ex. Jesjuah) represents the God-institution and it's eternal function and character etc.

[edit on 9/4/2010 by Neo Christian Mystic]



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by troubleshooter
 


Horus was an ancient egyption god, so ofcourse I knew it was religious. But if you actually read my post clearly, I said "that dont make me religious".

Now runalong and dont bother me kid.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 06:14 PM
link   
ABoxofTrix had the correct answer. According to Judaism, there is only one God. God speaks in the plural because he is discussing man's creation with the council of angels - Even though the angels really have no say in the matter. God calls the shots.

According to the Art Scroll edition of the Jewish Siddur (prayer book), God is not corporeal - meaning that he does not have a body.

Elohim refers to God's attribute of Judgment (pre-Noah). Hashem ("the Name") refers to Mercy (post-Noah).

A great Jewish commentary on these matters is the Stone Edition of the Chumash (Torah - First 5 books of the Bible).



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Hi CookieMonster -

The various PreExilic Judaeisms that existed in Canaan before the Babylonian Exile (pre 587 BCE) and especially before Hezekiah's reforms of 621 BCE were polytheistic, not monotheistic, and in some places, monolatric (one god at the top of a pantheon of lesser gods and goddeses).

Archaeology has uncovered dozens of preExilic pre-Yahwistic shrines (from c. 2200 BCE to c. 621 BCE) that were later adapted for other gods e.g. EL and YHWH and Ba'al (sometimes all three !) in various places e.g. Gilgal ('stone circle'), Carneiim, Megiddo, Gaza, Shechem, Shiloh, Ashkelon, Dan, Beer-Shebaq, Ramoth-Gilead, Beth-El (L'uz), Kadesh, Seccacah, Jebus (Shalayim), Hazor, Jericho, Beth-Sheyan, Shomeron, Gath, Dor, Ashdod, Lachish, Devir, Hebron, Gibeon, &tc.

It was not until after Hezekiah's destruction of the 'Bronze Snake Idol of Moses' in 621 BCE that worship of YHWH and his consorts and other pantheon members at all these 'sacred groves/high places' (many of which were partially destroyed by the Assyrian invasions of the northern Kingdom of Israel between the years 722-701 BCE) were consolidated into one single sanctuary at Jebus-Shalayim (Jerusalem), which was then also burned to the ground by the Babylonians.

It is possible that the 1st creation myth of the Jews in Gen 1:1 to 2:4a actually contained material that was pre-Exilic, but certainly in the form we read it today in paleoHebrew it has a marked 'Babylonian' Hezekielite accent:

And the visions ascribed to the prophet Hezekiel in chapter 1 and chapter 10 of the collection of oracles that bear his name (dating from the years c. BCE 587 to BCE 550) show clear influences from Assyrian pantheon, especially the worship of Ashur with his 4 faces (man, ox, lion, eagle) later taken over as an image of YHWH.

The worship of the ONE clan-god YHWH is a POST-EXILIC phenomenon ('Hear o Yisro'el, YHWH is our clan-god, YHWH alone !' - (=Heb. Shema' o Yisro'el, YHWH elohenu, YHWH echad !') which is sometimes ignorantly mis-translated as 'Hear O Israel, the Lord our God the Lord is one' - which makes no grammatical sense in English).

Although Gen 1:1 to 2:4a are probably based on post-exilic copies, there are some ancient preExilic features to the myth which echo polytheism (The Babylonian Chaos Monster Tiamat becomes TEHOM (Aram. Tehomah), the Watery Deep etc.) throughout.

Bear in mind that the types of Judaiesms that flourished in the Levant before c. 500 BCE were varied and often included other gods than YHWH e.g. EL or El-Shaddai or El-Elyon etal.

So it would be dangerous to assume that the religious traditions of the Israelites was always the same over time: nothing could be further from the truth ; every time they were over run by invaders (Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome) they borrowed ideas and concepts and literature and adapted them to their own needs.

Thus scholars can see several layers of religious traditions in the several contradictory families of the written texts of the Torah, some earlier, some later material, all combined together (but probably NOT brought together as a single text before the time of Ezra the Scribe c. 420 BCE when the new aleph-beth was introduced, and Ezra and his scribal school merged differing traditoins under a single clumsy narrative). This is the basis of the Graf-Wellhausen form and source critical school of the late 19th century which has undergone tweeks and revisions over time since then, but still holds the field today (the socalled J, E, P, D & redactors Sources).

Therefore be aware of the changes to the text and the traditions which underlie the text of Genesis when you form your pronouncements about what ELOHIM really means, and why a plural masculine of a feminine sg noun (ELOAH) is used, both governing a singular verb in the text.

The issues before us are far more complicated than your simplistic pronouncements, alas.



posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic
When he says us and we and such there is still just one person speaking. And he addressed his servants, the Sons of God. As you correctly point out Jesjuah and the Father are but two of these entities. Well done.


Thanks for the comments, and I feel OUR differences lie directly to the Point you Offered. Language. Minor Theory Differences, but close to the Mark none the less.

Your point above is more than Valid, but from my prespective just slightly different.

When he says Us and We and such there is still just ONE Creating.

Those that make up the Body of Son's of GOD, partook in the "Planning" but did NO CREATING. They had no part in creating anything, at any time.


I would have to argue that based on Enoch there were a mere 600 of these Sons of God.


You may have a point, but I was just offering a Number to attempt to establish what is being discussed as Sons of GOD. Enoch ONLY noted 200 Swore the Oath, and yes, you have provided "Enoch's" Moniker for the leader of these Fallen. A Rose by anyother name is still a Rose.



In traditional astrology there were 144,000 named stars, each being represented by their appropriate gods.


And who taught "Traditional Astrology? One of the Fallen? Enoch does name him. And who's point of view would be taught. GOD's plan, or one of the Fallen's twistings and perversions of GOD's plan.

Now reviewing your reply, I feel we really do not have points to argue against.

My only views that differ from yours, revolve around Satan.

While your are exactly correct, Satan fell during a period between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. He and those who followed him (1/3 of the Sons of GOD), caused the "Void and Without Form" noted in the 1611 KJV Gensis 1:2.

I beleive, there is ample evidence in various texts and sources to suggest SATAN was the "Serpent" in the Garden, which I think we have discussed in others posts.

But I also believe those 200 which swore to Semjaza are the same that fell with Satan, and that this "OCCURANCE" (The Oath) took place in the days of Jared, and that is the only thing I was attempting to Imply.

With this in mind, I simply used math to give the 600 Figure, since the 1/3 is totaled in Enoch, and refered to in various places such as Revelations.

I trust you understand this.

You see, My impression of this "Subject" we are discussing, as well as what "Other's" have contributed is that this is a realitive and related Subject.

It is just "we" in general wish to seperate these matters as if the have no connection or no relavance to eachother. OR "we" in general need to claim these for "OUR OWN" and blind ourselves to the fact that they are the same.

What is the Genesis Chapter 6 Account speaking about?

I believe it is the Patheon of the gods.
I believe it is what Stitchen suggests.
I believe it is what some refer to as Alien gods and deities and genetic manipulations
I believe it is those that Enoch refered to
I beleive is it those who that Fell with Satan

And review of your comments above leave me still with this impression.

You are offering perspective from various sources.
Stitchen is offering perspective from his sources.
Egypt offers their perspectives from their sources.
Sumer, Babylon, Greece, Rome, The Norse, The Celts, The Vegas, and on and on.

They all are speaking about the Same Characters, with the Names changed to suit the desired effect with the peoples they are involved with.

I also have this other OBSERVATION about this from a perspective that revolves around the "Flood".

Would it be fair to suggest, NO god or deity, has set foot upon the earth since the Flood, outside of Jesus and Satan (Spiritually in this case)?

All the gods and deities worshiped by every culture disappeared. When though? Maybe 5500 BCE, which would fall within the timeframe of the "Flood".

Just views and observations and comments placed to provoke further considerations and thoughts.

I am not expecting you to suddenly say, I am right, and I am not saying I am or your wrong. I just wish to ensure these thoughts are taking into consideration prior to stating anything as FACT.

Hope you get my point.

Have a Good day Neo.

Ciao

Shane

P.S. So you are in Norway or just from Norway?

[edit on 10-4-2010 by Shane]



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 05:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Shane
 


I don't really think we are that different. In Hebrew verbs reflect the subject in many ways. If the subject is plural the verb is also plural, but not with Elohim. The verb bara, which means create, is also a very special verb, since it can only be used with Elohim as subject, and it is singular, showing Elohim, though a plural intensive noun, puts any verb connected to it as singular. This shows that Elohim is to be understood as singular, reflecting the One God concept. However. God speaks here (ex. 1:26). What would be the point in speaking or commanding unless there were many others present? For instance, when God created the first cration in Genesis 1:1 it says:

In the beginning God (Elohim - plural intensive) created (Bara - singular) the Heavens (Sjamajim - plural) and the Earth (Eretz - singular).

To reflect that in English, you might say (using past tense):

In the beginning Gods (plural) was (reflecting singular subject) creating Heavens and the Earth.

or (in present tense):

In the beginning Gods (plural) creates (reflecting singular subject) Heavens and the Earth.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 06:20 AM
link   
Hi there, I am new to ATS.

I enjoyed your post as it does make one look back at the scripture whether you be Christian or Athiest.

IMO however I would like to add that when reading the Bible one must first read each verse in the context of the entire book. When reading a one liner and taking the apparent meaning by face value you might well get a different understanding than if you considered the same verse in context of te entire book.

I refer now to verses in the New and Old testiment. The plural wording as mentioned might give claim to different 'god' entities but when read in context of the entire bible incorporating the NT and OT one would see that the NT correctly backs up the statements/ plural GOD types as mentioned in the OT. The Trinity (God, The Son and The Holy Spirit) is indirectly refered to in the OT and shadows the sentiment in the New Testiment.


Just a thought...

God Bless



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Gabriel_
 


Welcome to the board, and into the fire if I may add. And here is the acid test:

The trinity isn't mentioned an any of the sources. The only quote anyone can provide supporting there being a Trinity in the sense used today is the so called "Comma Johanneum" inserted between the verses 5:7 and 5:8 in the Gospel of John on a later stage. The "comma" is referenced by a few early patriarchs and writers of the Church, but it is always refered to as either a direct forgery or an explanatory addition to the text (a forgery or falsum) by the Church.

The "correct" verses would read as follows: John 5:7 "There are three things which bear witness: 8 The Spirit and the Blood and the Water. And these three all agree in oneness." This is a direct reference to how the body is made, and also that the election, the suffering and the baptism all carry witness of the One Truth in Jesjuah ha Mesjiach.

[edit on 11/4/2010 by Neo Christian Mystic]



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic
 



Thank you

I can see where sceptism may arise and you make valid points.

It is my belief that the NT and Jesus are real and this is apon which I base my faith. It is for this reason that I find truth in Jesus's words where he specificaly mentions that he and God are the same and nearer the end he mentions the coming of the Holy spirrit that will take his place after he is gone.

Sure you have to believe in the validity of Jesus and bible before you can believe the actual statements made within. But my point is merely that my belief is not only based on a comma but literal wording.

I do want to state that this is my belief and I am in no way attempting to debunk or disprove any other posts. I actually enjoy being able to discuss such topics as we are all of different opinions and I respect that.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Gabriel_
 


The comma is, like I said, the only literal occation on the Whole blible, substantiating there being a Trinity in the first place. The Trinity is a Catholic dogma brought further to our day by the protestants. It is the basis of many Catholic end othe denominated Churches, and is a dogmus upon which many church doctrines and sacraments rely on. However it is extra biblical and such logi (teachings) are not to be found in whether the Tanakh ("OT") or the Christian NT. Whether I believe in Jesjuah or not, has little to do with what's written and who wrote it, all I know is that the Bible as we know it has come as the product of many years and centuries' war within the Church and also Judaism, it reflects several scisms and fractions of our faith. Many of these are in direct contrast to what we believe. Take the story of the woman who was caught in extra marital conduct ("cast your first stone" and so on), the story is a later addition. And the very Number of the Beast was obviously originally not 666, but rather 616, and this is why I have chosen not to use the Latin version of God's name, "Jesus", but rather use Aramaic/Hebrew Jesjuah or similar, since "Jesus" equals 616 in Hebrew gematria. And these I mention are but a few in a wide variety of later additions and changes made to the Text, our Teachings or in Greek, Logos. This is partly also the reason why I don't see the crucifiction as crucial, not that it was lethal, Jesjuah didn't die there, he survived after a short period of not breathing (ie. "giving up his spirit"), hence he was dead according to what knowledge they had back then, but not according to our knowledge today.

[edit on 11/4/2010 by Neo Christian Mystic]



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 09:02 AM
link   
Ok , i dont think entering into a debate regarding this would do any good seeing as there are hundreds of various writtings and evidence to support both sides of this discussion.

My point I tried to make was that the opinion of each would depend on their specific belief. As a christian I believe in the Trinity. This IMO is openly mentioned in the Bible which again I believe to be accurate. This belief transends historical/ scientific arguments and is based mainly on faith and personal experiences that inspires each christian.

I am in no way discrediting your opinion and knowledge.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Gabriel_
 


Fair enough. You are naturally free to have whatever faith you'd like, and find support in this whatever way you'd find adequate. But I'd love to see some scriptual referances supporting your belief that there is such a trinity as what the Church claims. There is but one place I can find where Jesjuah ever says anything which may indicate there is such a trinity, and that is in the Missionary Commission, where he says:

Matt 28:18 ... "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Baptising people has to do with (re-)naming aswell as the more spiritual aspect as introduced by John the Baptist. When gentiles carrying heathen names were baptised by the Christians they typically received "Christian" names or names which were in accordance with the Faith.



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gabriel_
My point I tried to make was that the opinion of each would depend on their specific belief. As a christian I believe in the Trinity...............

I am in no way discrediting your opinion and knowledge.


I think you may misunderstand Neo's Comments. His opinion is valid, in a "Literal" sense, and I think for the most part, his intent is to show the Truth, in respects to Biblical Teachings. His background is revolving around study of Various Sources and he is just pointing these out for us to learn from.

Your belief in the Trinity, is of course Yours (and Mine as well), to have and share and express. I believe Neo is correct in the manner inwhich the Holy Roman Church was the source of this Dogma, but I also believe, in "SOME CASES", (such as this), they at least got it right.

I would also concure with you, that these topics do tend to "Expose" soft spots in some peoples beliefs, but that is by no means any reason that civility must be lost in an effort to "Shout the Loudest", so to speak, inorder to have the last word.

I am not suggesting you have done so, and my friend Neo is a Gentleman at all times. (Arn't you my Friend!)?

You should know there is the under belly of ATS that is vapid and crude, and they tend to
Spew venom, rather than contribute to conversations. They bait their posts in attacks, which eventually leads to "Conflict" on the Board, so be warned, we do have some wingnuts out to do nothing more than $#!+ disturb,

I would also like to echo Neo's remarks and say "Welcome Gabriel!"

Ciao

Shane



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gabriel_

IMO however I would like to add that when reading the Bible one must first read each verse in the context of the entire book. When reading a one liner and taking the apparent meaning by face value you might well get a different understanding than if you considered the same verse in context of te entire book.


The problem is that the Bible wasn't written as a book. It was actually many different writings, written by many different people. There are no copies of any of the originals. The bibles we have now have been edited, removed from, and added to.

For example, the book of Enoch no longer is a part of the Bible but was at one time. How was the Bible you have today officially created? Men got together and decided which books should be a part of it and which shouldn't be.

You say that one should look at the context of the entire book, but how did those who lived before this bible was put together know what was meant without having the whole book to look at? Like Moses? David? Jacob? Daniel? Paul? Peter? Etc.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by silverstreak
Then God said, "Let US make man in OUR image, in OUR likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground (Genesis 1:26)

And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of US, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever" (Genesis 3:22)

Come, let US go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other (Genesis 11:7)

*****

So why is God speaking in pluralities?

A lot of people will tell you that God speaks this way because it is in reference to the Christian Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). However, I personally do not subscribe to this claim because these passages are from Genesis, in the Hebrew Old Testament. The concept of a "Trinity" is a Christian concept that was not created until the Christian New Testament (many thousands of years later after the recordings of the Hebrew books).

So then again I ask, why is God speaking in pluralities?

God is not speaking to man he is speaking to those in Heaven. God did the creating and man looks like God. God is a man but in spirit form so you can not see him.

Man became like Satan who was one of US, knowing good and evil, again speaking to those in Heaven.

The tower of Babel, when man started to speak different languages, again speaking to those in Heaven.

Man was inspired by God to write the scriptures, books, history. The truth can not be changed.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Katie
The tower of Babel, when man started to speak different languages, again speaking to those in Heaven.

Why did he tell those in Heaven to come down with him to do this? He can't do it by himself? And why did he have to come down?




top topics



 
26
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join