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.

 

Christians, I would like your opinion on these verses.

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Back when I was still a Christian, I asked those in the position of authority in my church about this. It left them flabbergasted and without response. One person called me a liar and refused to even read the passage. However it had me very troubled.
Even though I no longer believe, I still would like to hear what Christians think of this this.
This is not an attack, just an attempt to deal with something that has been bugging me for several years.

Exodus 32: 9-14

9 And the Lord said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people: 10 Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation. 11 And Moses besought the Lord his God, and said, Lord, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand? 12 Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people. 13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever. 14 And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.




posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by calstorm
 


I think a better translation that does not rely on High English and prose would clarify it perhaps.


9 “I have seen these people,” the Lord said to Moses, “and they are a stiff-necked people. 10 Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation.”

11 But Moses sought the favor of the Lord his God. “Lord,” he said, “why should your anger burn against your people, whom you brought out of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians say, ‘It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth’? Turn from your fierce anger; relent and do not bring disaster on your people. 13 Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self: ‘I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance forever.’” 14 Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.


You may also want to go to an Interlinear Bible and work it out from a direct translation. There are many available.

As you can see the words the "the Lord relented" changes the context a bit and it far more accurate.

Those you asked must not have been very versed in this.

ATS is not really a good place for questions like this.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by calstorm
 



14 And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.


Greatest. Line. Ever.

It looks like "God" isn't so loving and merciful after all. Guess you better choose another scapegoat for the bumps in your path, people.


EDIT:

14 Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.


Here we have a very clear example of our leaders attempting to make God look good. Look at all that rewriting! Look at that backpedaling! For the "word of God", that's some hefty changes. My, oh my...
edit on 9-8-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   
I always kind of took it that he was waiting to see if Moses would "step up" and defend his people even to the Lord himself.

Just a thought.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   
It shows God will bless the unjust solely based on the just.

Refer back to Lot and Sodom, Abraham had an interesting bartering session with God than as well.

God could of wiped out the Israelite and still fulfilled his promise to Abraham through Moses, and been done with them.

Moses again a Just man, argued for the Unjust.

You know how God had just saved them from slavery, fed them from the sky, and than they go build a golden calf the instant Moses and God go away to talk...

It shows another point as well, the Jews where not picked because they where "special" they always mess up, the entirety of the old testament is the Jews messing up with their deal with god.

Which goes into a deeper theology that I won't derail the thread with.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Go back to the theme of god being Enlil, the same one that decided to kill off Earth with the big flood.

All the Hebrew didn't worship Enlil, so he was thinking to knock them off too.

The Hebrew liked the golden calf, the hand me down from Nimrod being god.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


I am sorry, but while your argument may be valid, I was taught growing up the the King James version was the only acceptable version and anyone with the holy spirit did not need it to be put in "modern" terms. The elders in which I was dealing with believed strongly that the other version of the bible were taking sinful liberties with the word of God and would be punished.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by SrWingCommander
I always kind of took it that he was waiting to see if Moses would "step up" and defend his people even to the Lord himself.

Just a thought.

This is perhaps the best answer I have heard, as it does fit with the theme of God testing his people.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by calstorm
 


Hard to argue with those types. Lucky for me, Southern Baptists have concepts in their by laws that, while not doctrine specifically, act as such.

The big one, that is different from other denominations is:

Autonomy of the local church.....which means within certain limitations, the church can operate pretty much how ti wants in order to meet it's members and communities needs.

www.sbc.net...
www.sbc.net...
www.sbc.net...



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by calstorm
 


You're looking at it in a faulty light.

The question is not, "Does the answer fit my perceptions?"

The question is, "Do my perceptions accept the answer?"

Because always, ALWAYS, it is not the truth that is most important. It's how we feel about it.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   
The possibility of another God working with Moses:

www.oocities.org...

The problem is our Bible itself. The Canon Process is terrible and not inspired by the Holy Spirit but for the sake of profit and oppression. Many non-Canon texts are left out which provided a very good explanation for the inconsistencies in the Bible.

The God of Jesus calls Father has not changed since the Book of Enoch which was pre-deluvian.

Aside from the Gospel of Jesus, most of the rest of the Bible teaches practices that are not sustainable from a naturalist's point of view, in other words, destructive to our Planet, nature, and animals. Those works could not be from the same God Jesus calls Father.

The teachings of Jesus serve to stop the suffering to animals and nature from sacrifices (made to demons/fallen angels) and secular human activities (city building, agriculture, construction, engineering, etc) by pursuing a life of austerity and self denial by looking to natural sources to sustain onself.

The teachings of Jesus in fact catered to those who inflicted the least damage to nature - the poorest classes of people. His radical teachings would insult those who had many things and hope in this world, those eats well, has a comfortable life, in other words, wealthy by global standards (most of the people in the world are poor)

History serves that species with most voracious apetites such as dinosaurs, and later on, gigantic mammals are made extinct. We are next.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by calstorm
 


What is the question exactly though? That God was angry with the Jews or that He changed His mind about killing them all in the desert?



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by calstorm
 



14 And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.


Greatest. Line. Ever.

It looks like "God" isn't so loving and merciful after all. Guess you better choose another scapegoat for the bumps in your path, people.


EDIT:

14 Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.


Here we have a very clear example of our leaders attempting to make God look good. Look at all that rewriting! Look at that backpedaling! For the "word of God", that's some hefty changes. My, oh my...
edit on 9-8-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)


What "rewriting"? It's only updating the older English of the King James period to modern English terms. Back then "repented" meant "changed mind". Now most people see repentance as a change in behavior, and it is at maturity, but "repent" means "to change one's mind". And the Hebrew word that's used for "evil" would be better translated as "calamity" in today's vernacular.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Really? I didn't think "updating" could change the line so much...I mean, it's not like we don't use the word "evil" still. What's to update?

Naw, it was rewritten.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by calstorm
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


I am sorry, but while your argument may be valid, I was taught growing up the the King James version was the only acceptable version and anyone with the holy spirit did not need it to be put in "modern" terms. The elders in which I was dealing with believed strongly that the other version of the bible were taking sinful liberties with the word of God and would be punished.


It is because it's based upon the majority text manuscript. The modern versions rely on the Westcott and Hort text that is based on the obscure minority texts. The problem is us, we alter definitions to words a lot. Another example, in King James English of 1611 "conversation" means " behavior". Also what makes King James so good is that for the most part it's a word for word translation rather than a thought for word translation. Any words added by the translators for clarification purposes are always in italics so the reader knows they were added for clarity.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Really? I didn't think "updating" could change the line so much...I mean, it's not like we don't use the word "evil" still. What's to update?

Naw, it was rewritten.


You're completely missing my point. The Hebrew words of the original text never change, but how we translate that word (Lexigrapher do this) changes over time. So when the King James was translated into English 400 years ago the translators saw that Hebrew word in that contextual arrangement and wrote it as "evil". Today when translators see that word "calamity" is the modern English word that fits the context.


The other example is repent. In King James' day that meant to change one's mind. Today it means in most circles is to change ones course and head the other way. The Greek term that the King James translators for relent was "metanoia", and that meant " to change the mind", the original words never change, definitions change over time.


edit on 9-8-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


God does not change his mind because he is all-knowing, meaning he knew he would 'repent' long before the situation ever occurred, so he never repented because he had the same mindset on the situation since the beginning of time.

Also, if god is all-knowing, what would be the purpose of god testing Moses if he already knew what he was going to say?

Those are only a few among the long list of contradictions contained within the bible.
edit on 9-8-2012 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


Ah, someone who sees the same logical fallacies I do. So I'm not alone after all!

It's a relief.

edit on 9-8-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


So it isn't "God" that's the problem, it's the writers. And since the writers are clearly imperfect, we cannot rely on them to impart a flawless understanding of a flawed topic.

There's really no point to trying to understand, then. There will always be mistakes. Good to know. I'm glad I didn't waste my time trying to understand a flawed interpretation of an infinite concept that I could never grasp.


Now we just need the rest of the world to realize it. We might finally bring out some true spirituality, and not this cult crap.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


Here my man, look at what the guys from CARM say in regards to this. Also included are famous theologian quotes from the past.

LINK




top topics



 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join