'Mousetrails' and the dark side of the Old Testament

page: 9
33
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by undo
 



i think he was wrong about that as yahweh is just a later spelling of jehovah.


Other way around, Jehovah was a later spelling of the "YHWH" tetragrammaton of the OT.

There are no "J" letters or J phonetic sounds in Hebrew.


thanks for the correction! i knew it was one or the other, anyway, i wanted to be sure i circumvented the attempt of anyone saying that yahweh and jehovah were different, cause they aren't, however the etymology of his name is reallllllllly interesting.

ever read anything by michael heiser?
like this: So What Exactly is an Elohim?"
tiny.cc...
edit on 16-7-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by undo
 



i think he was wrong about that as yahweh is just a later spelling of jehovah.


Other way around, Jehovah was a later spelling of the "YHWH" tetragrammaton of the OT.

There are no "J" letters or J phonetic sounds in Hebrew.


thanks for the correction! i knew it was one or the other, anyway, i wanted to be sure i circumvented the attempt of anyone saying that yahweh and jehovah were different, cause they aren't, however the etymology of his name is reallllllllly interesting.

ever read anything by michael heiser?



Yeah, there are not vowels in ancient Hebrew. God's proper name of YHWH is YaHWeH, but Greek to Latin to English has rendered the phonetics of His name to JeHoVaH. The Vav, "W", carries a v phonetic sound in English.



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   


No he didn't. He cherry-picked a few random verses without any context to push an agenda.
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Please explain, specifically, where I cherry-picked these random verses rather than just used them to illustrate the point I was making.

There are many passages in the Old Testament that describe the so-called 'God' telling the Jews to massacre cities, towns and villages - are you denying that?



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by JonU2
 



Please explain, specifically, where I cherry-picked these random verses rather than just used them to illustrate the point I was making.


I have already addressed that.

"Christians do not deny God's wrath, skeptics deny God's mercy, grace (common and specific), forgiveness, justice, holiness, and righteousness. If people only evaluate God's wrath without taking into consideration His other attributes that's cherry picking and a hasty generalization."



There are many passages in the Old Testament that describe the so-called 'God' telling the Jews to massacre cities, towns and villages - are you denying that?


No I'm not denying that. But I also explained why He did so HERE.



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Logman
Originally posted by NOTurTypical

They were polytheistic Canaanites, according to the Torah, which is a book edited for a thousand years since the first book for written (which was not Genesis 1). They worshipped one of many Canaanite gods.


Yes, they were when God first spoke to Abraham. My point, was that when Abraham became the first Hebrew, he was worshiping the One True God, and had been for 18 years. He became the first Hebrew at his circumcision. So you're incorrect, the first "Hebrews" were monotheists. Idolatry and Paganism entered later, much later.


Idolatry and Paganism appeared long after the initial Exodus, even according to the Bible.


Yes, true. And God was severe in punishing His "chosen people" for said idolatry.


There is no archaelogical evidence for mass slavery in Egypy, let alone the enslavement of a whole race. Of course there was some slavery though.


Completely false. Because no one wants to talk about the evidence, doesn't mean there is no evidence.

"The Exodus Decoded" ~ James Cameron

"Mountain of Fire" ~ The Search for the Real Mt. Sinai


Jesus, if he existed was not God. He never said he was God. The Council of Nicea was convened to discuss his divinity, at which time it was decided Jesus was divine. He has also been dead for 2,000 years.


He was killed because He claimed to be God. The title "Son of Man" was taken directly from Daniel 9 where a man has the attributes of God. His title "Emmanuel" means God with us. He took His life back up again after death proving He was God. And the tomb is empty, it has been for 1,980 years. It would be kinda hard for Christianity to make it off the ground in Jerusalem 1,980 years ago if everyone could just walk outside the city walls and see the tomb with the stone still intact don't ya think?

And no, don't get your theology and church history from Dan Brown books. The Nicean council was convened to address the Aryan controversey. His divinity was already long accepted, the council didn't "make" Jesus divine, but they defined His divinity. Also the books of the Bible wasn't even a topic of discussion.

Oh yeah, and Constantine didn't have a vote.



Understood. Which is why I don't debate Christians or Politicians. Nothing I say will change anyone's mind but it can be fun debating people purely on their own beliefs and merits. Nothing I've said is untrue, it all comes from the Torah. We need look know further to discover the real Truth.


No, it's a gross misunderstanding of the Torah. You've said quite a few things untrue so far, (several in this post alone), that's why I've been setting the record straight. It's not for my health.







edit on 16-7-2011 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)


Oh man, thank you for the documentaries. The Mt. Sinai one was fascinating. I wonder why Saudi Arabia blocked the area when such a finding would help the Abrahamic faiths, including Islam.



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


So, you're saying that your God cannot be questioned? Whatever he has done or will do, in your belief, is divine and, therefore, humans should just accept that?

If the above is true, then you're only really here to preach and not to discuss...............



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 


Both you and I already know why the authorities have the mountain completely sealed off from the world.



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by JonU2
 


and my theory is, it's not always the same god involved in the process.
the big clue i think, comes in the new testament when paul describes the effects the law had on humanity.
the law is the accuser. and the accuser is satan. the law is necessary. it's that whole "what is light without dark" thing. "what is good without evil," you wouldn't be able to rise above your condition and accept the light of salvation if you didn't know you needed it, and the only way you know you need it is if you recognize evil and you can only recognize evil when it's pointed out to you or mom spanks ya on the buttskis. it's pretty philosophically tight.

anyway, i think the translators had a few problems with the god words, made a few assumptions they shouldn't have, and didn't recognize there was a divine council at all, even though it's talked about constantly in the text. some of those divine council members were not boy scouts. lol
edit on 16-7-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by JonU2
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


So, you're saying that your God cannot be questioned?


I'll refer to Job 38 for this.


Whatever he has done or will do, in your belief, is divine and, therefore, humans should just accept that?


I recognize His sovereignty.



If the above is true, then you're only really here to preach and not to discuss...............


I could counter that based on the OP's grossly incomplete representation of the attributes described for God in the Bible that you're here for the same reason. You've cherry-picked God's attributed as their presented in the Bible. You've ignored His sovereignty, His justice, His mercy, His holiness, and His righteousness and only concentrated on His wrath for rebellion and disobedience.



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 



the law is the accuser. and the accuser is satan.


No, no, no. Paul describes the Law as a "schoolmaster" used to teach mankind that the efforts to justify themselves by righteousness by following the letter of the law is futile. That law was given so sin "might abound", or would increase, thus driving men to the free mercy and grace He offered at the cross.



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


I would think the Muslims would be pleased to show the authenticity of the OT. Unless the Mt. Sinai thing is in dispute, much like who was the true succesor of the covenent, Isaac or Ishmael.



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   
I have often wondered about those same things. Being brought up a Christian, I never understood the parts of the bible when God tells a certain person to slay his brother, or slay your first born son. To me that does not seem like an all caring, merciful creator, it just sounds down right evil.



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


yeah that's what i said.

my favorite is romans 7-8 this one in particular says the same thing
11For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


I would think the Muslims would be pleased to show the authenticity of the OT. Unless the Mt. Sinai thing is in dispute, much like who was the true succesor of the covenent, Isaac or Ishmael.


Bingo.

And they want to keep the myth going that there was no Egyptian captivity nor mass exodus by the Jewish people.



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


yeah that's what i said.

my favorite is romans 7-8 this one in particular says the same thing
11For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.



Yeah, love Romans. It's the definitive, most comprehensive document about Christian theology/doctrine in the Bible.



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link   


you wouldn't be able to rise above your condition and accept the light of salvation if you didn't know you needed it, and the only way you know you need it is if you recognize evil and you can only recognize evil when it's pointed out to you or mom spanks ya on the buttskis. it's pretty philosophically
reply to post by undo
 


This 'light of salvation', why do you believe in that? From the New Testament? If yes, what has made you believe these writings are more true than say: 'The Hobbit' or 'Lord of the Rings' ?

Could the answer be upbringing or because many other people believe it?

I'm not trying to be flippant and mean no insult but why should the New Testament writings be true just because of the many believers that started following a couple of thousand years ago when humans were more easy manipulated.

Remembering that in those days there were no phones, internet, tv etc - just word of mouth from village to village, people were so much more isolated and naive and therefore believed what an authority figure told them. Gaining an initial following would have been comparitively easy and then from generation to generation this was what each family and community believed.............without questioning of whether it was true.

For the past couple of millennia, peoples religion has been what has kept them focused through very hard times, which is credited as being a great thing about religion. I, personally, believe it's more of a reflection on the strength of the people themselves - the religion was just something that they concentrated on and believed in.

The same people could have achieved the same things over the years by using that inner strength and belief in themselves and their families without the need for the service to a higher cause...........IMHO
edit on 16/7/11 by JonU2 because: typo



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by JonU2
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


So, you're saying that your God cannot be questioned?


I'll refer to Job 38 for this.


Whatever he has done or will do, in your belief, is divine and, therefore, humans should just accept that?


I recognize His sovereignty.


If the above is true, then you're only really here to preach and not to discuss...............


I could counter that based on the OP's grossly incomplete representation of the attributes described for God in the Bible that you're here for the same reason. You've cherry-picked God's attributed as their presented in the Bible. You've ignored His sovereignty, His justice, His mercy, His holiness, and His righteousness and only concentrated on His wrath for rebellion and disobedience.
edit on 16/7/11 by JonU2 because: typo



So, yes, you're here to preach...................
edit on 16/7/11 by JonU2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by JonU2
 


i'd say prophecy has been the thing that tied it together over the millenia, that and it is a fascinating book, with dragons and flying gods in wheels full of eyes, and temples, pyramids, pharaohs, traditions, foods, cultural norms, astronomical motifs, world changing events set on a precession of the equinoxes clock, etc etc. really fascinating and engrossing, spanning thousands of years and inspires more philosophical conversation than any other topic i've been involved in.



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by JonU2
 



So, yes, you're here to preach...................



This is "Religion, Faith, and Theology". Is it okay if I share my faith and Theology here? I've addressed all your posts in a clear, concise manner.

You just don't like what I've said.



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   
The biggest mistake you have made OP in understanding the scripture is using any translation other than the King James such as NIV or NLT. This almost completely changes around your percieved meaning its what a Bible scholar calls a perversion. Take a look at Deuteronomy 21


If one be found slain in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee to possess it, lying in the field, and it be not known who hath slain him:

Then thy elders and thy judges shall come forth, and they shall measure unto the cities which are round about him that is slain:

And it shall be, that the city which is next unto the slain man, even the elders of that city shall take an heifer, which hath not been wrought with, and which hath not drawn in the yoke;

And the elders of that city shall bring down the heifer unto a rough valley, which is neither eared nor sown, and shall strike off the heifer's neck there in the valley:

And the priests the sons of Levi shall come near; for them the LORD thy God hath chosen to minister unto him, and to bless in the name of the LORD; and by their word shall every controversy and every stroke be tried:

And all the elders of that city, that are next unto the slain man, shall wash their hands over the heifer that is beheaded in the valley:

And they shall answer and say, Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it.

Be merciful, O LORD, unto thy people Israel, whom thou hast redeemed, and lay not innocent blood unto thy people of Israel's charge. And the blood shall be forgiven them.

So shalt thou put away the guilt of innocent blood from among you, when thou shalt do that which is right in the sight of the LORD.

When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive,

And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;

Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;

And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.

And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated:

Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn:

But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree:

His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God
that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.



So your bascially follwing a doctrine of man and not God.


Now to address what you are saying about the old testment it talks in many places about God sent his son to create a new covenant so that the law is fufilled. I cannot find the verse I am looking for but it is something along the lines of if the previous covenant were perfect than there would be no need for a new.

Hebrews 8:13
In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.


Corinthians 3 12-13

Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:

and not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:

but their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same veil untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which veil is done away in Christ.

But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart.

Nevertheless, when it shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away.




Timothy 1 chapter 3.

But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.






top topics



 
33
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join