PDA

View Full Version : The End Of The World


Johnny Marseilles
25th July 2011, 09:58 AM
The skeptical often think that, according to the Bible, the end would come within the lifetime of Jesus' listeners. It is a mistake to conclude this. They mistake the transfiguration, the destruction of Jerusalem, Jesus being at the right hand of power, and John's Revelation at Patmos.

Matthew 16:28 - Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. (Also see Mark 9:1 / Luke 9:27)

The fact is that in the very next verse Matthew reveals that just 6 days later this prophecy was fulfilled. Peter, James and John witnessed the transfiguration. (Matthew 17:1-2 / Luke 9:27-36 / 2 Peter 1:16-18)

Matthew 23:36 - Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. (Also see Matthew 24:34 / Mark 13:30 / Luke 21:32)

All of the above verses differ from the verses given in consideration of Matthew 16:28. British scholar G. R. Beasley-Murray: "The phrase 'this generation' should cause no difficulty for interpreters. While admittedly genea in earlier Greek meant birth, progeny, and so race, . . . in the [Greek Septuagint] it most frequently translated the Hebrew term dor, meaning age, age of humankind, or generation in the sense of contemporaries. . . . In sayings attributed to Jesus the term appears to have a twofold connotation: on the one hand it always signifies his contemporaries, and on the other hand it always carries an implicit criticism."

So Jesus could have been directing that statement to the Jewish opposition there around him at that time, who, within a generation would see the destruction of Jerusalem in 66 - 70 C.E. by Titus, the son of Emperor Vespasian where 1,100,000 Jews died and 97,000 were taken captive, most of whom died horrible deaths and the Christians who knew it would come were saved. (Matthew 24:16, 22) And Jesus may have been applying the same to those in opposition in the future as well.

Matthew 26:64 and Mark 14:62 are parallel accounts to one another and you won't have to wait or look far to see them fulfilled. Acts 7:55-56: "But he, being full of holy spirit gazed into heaven and caught sight of God's glory and of Jesus standing at God's right hand, and he said: "Look! I behold the heavens opened up and the Son of man standing at God's right hand." Also see Psalm 110:1 / Luke 22:69 / Ephesians 1:20 / Colossians 3:1.

John 21:20-23 is somewhat interesting. Jesus may have been telling Peter that John would live longer than him, and in fact John would live 70 years, but also he might have been referring to the prophetic vision that John was given at the end of his life while in exile on the island of Patmos. As recorded in the book of Revelation John was transported to "the Lords day." (Revelation 1:1, 10; Revelation 22:20)

Jesus taught his followers that no one, not even Jesus himself, knew the time of the end of the world. (Matthew 24:36 / Mark 13:32 / Acts 1:7)

Also at this point some clarification should be made as to what exactly is the "end of the world." The Bible says that Earth was given to man for him to fill and subdue it, that the meek will inherit the earth and live forever upon it, and that it will last forever. (Genesis 1:28 / Psalm 37:29; 115:16 / Ecclesiastes 1:4) The end of the world is the end of the present system of things and all that involves. Of Satan's influence and sin, which, when concluding brings much destruction, but when ended, allows peace.

1 Corinthians 1:7-8; 7:29 / Philippians 1:10 all convey the importance of the missionary work in the early stages of Christianity. They all had important work to do before the end of their lives. Nowhere in any of these passages is it conveyed that they expected the end of the system of things to occur during that time.

1 Thessalonians 4:17 is often used to support the rapture, but actually it is referring to some who were mourning the death of their fellow Christians. Paul was reminding them as well as faithful Christians in the future of the resurrection hope, some to heaven immediately upon death and some to paradise earth upon resurrection.

1 Thessalonians 5:23 refers to the presence of Jesus Christ. The Greek noun parousia is used. It means "being alongside." In his work on The Parousia, Israel P. Warren, D.D., wrote: "Had our translators done with this technical word 'parousia' as they did with 'baptisma,' - transferring it unchanged, - or if translated using its exact etymological equivalent, presence, and had it been well understood, as it then would have been, that there is no such thing as a 'Second Presence,' I believe that the entire doctrine would have been different from what it now is. The phrases, 'second advent,' and 'second coming,' would never have been heard of. The church would have been taught to speak of The Presence Of The Lord, as that from which its hopes were to be realized, whether in the near future or at the remotest period, - that under which the world was to be made new, a resurrection both spiritual and corporeal should be attained, and justice and everlasting awards administered."

The word occurs 24 times in the Christian Greek scripture: Matthew 24:3, 27, 37, 39 / 1 Corinthians 15:23; 16:17 / 2 Corinthians 7:6, 7; 10:10 / Philippians 1:26; 2:12 / 1 Thessalonians 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23 / 2 Thessalonians 2:1, 8, 9 / James 5:7, 8 / 2 Peter 1:16; 3:4, 12 / 1 John 2:28.

Pareimi is a related verb with the similar meaning of being present. It also occurs 24 times in the Christian Greek scripture: Matthew 26:50 / Luke 13:1 / John 7:6; 11:28 / Acts 10:21, 33; 12:20; 17:6; 24:19 / Acts 12:20 / 1 Corinthians 5:3, 3 / 2 Corinthians 10:2, 11; 2 Corinthians 11:9; 13:2, 10 / Galatians 4:18, 20 / Colossians 1:6 / Hebrews 12:11; 13:5 / 2 Peter 1:9, 12 / Revelation 17:8.

The Greek word, eleusis (Latin adventu), which conveys the physical act of coming is different and only occurs once in the Christian Greek scripture, at Acts 7:52. Paul was encouraging those with a heavenly hope to remain blameless until their death, or the conclusion of the system of things and the presence, not the physical presence, of Jesus Christ.

In discussing Hebrews 1:2; 9:26 / 1 Peter 1:20; 4:7 it is somewhat difficult to stay on topic of the so called end of the world because the last days that Paul was referring to were not the last days of the present system of things, but rather the last days of the Jewish system of things. Jehovah had given the prophecy of those days 850 years earlier. (Joel 2:28-32 / Acts 2:16-21 / Hebrews 1:1-2) It was the end of God's favor upon the Jewish congregation and the beginning of his favor for the new Christian congregation.

1 John 2:18 refers to the end of the apostolic period. The work mentioned as important in the scriptures at the beginning of this article were near completion and would conclude upon the death of John shortly after he completed the writing of Revelation.

It is interesting that, as with the case of Philippians 4:5, the Lord that is being referred to isn't Jesus Christ but rather, Jehovah. Codex Sinaiticus, Greek, fourth century C.E., Codex Alexandrinus, Greek, fifth century C.E., Vatican ms 1209, Greek, fourth century C.E., Christian Greek Scriptures in 12 languages, including Hebrew, by Elias Hutter, Nuremberg, 1599, Christian Greek Scriptures, Hebrew, by William Robertson, London, 1661, and the Latin Vulgate, by Jerome, c. 400 C.E. (Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem) all read Jehovah.

James 5:7-8 is talking about the presence (parousia) mentioned earlier in this article.

At Hebrews 10:37 Paul quotes Habakkuk 2:2-3 from the Greek Septuagint, which reads "And the Lord answered [me] and said: Write a vision; write it distinctly in a book that the reader may trace these things [may run]; for the vision is for a time yet to come. But it will spring up at last and will not be vain. Though he may tarry, wait for him; for he will assuredly come and will not fail [and will not tarry]."

Revelation 1:1, 3; 3:11; 22:7, 12, 20 may undoubtedly amuse the skeptic, who, of course, is familiar with the Biblical fact that a thousand years are as a watch in the night to God (Psalm 90:4), but to the writers of the Bible, especially John when writing Revelation and who would die shortly afterward, the resurrection hope would follow sleep in death which would seem, upon that resurrection, as the same day as they died, though it actually had been thousands of years.

Ethnikos
25th July 2011, 10:09 AM
One objection to Revelation is that it says these things will take place soon.
There is a place at the end that says not to add or subtract from the Book.
What if there was advertising for the book to announce its soon release to the scribes for publishing?
Would later on, future scribes, keeping in mind the admonition, and finding this advertising right there with the actual body of the book, and out of fear of not being in compliance, put the advertising promo in as the first three verses of Revelation?

Direct literal translation from the Greek:
revelation of Jesus Christ which gave to him God to show to bond-servants of him which was necessary to happen shortly soon and he signafied having sent by angel of him to bond-servants of him John who testified word of the God and the testimony of Jesus Christ as many as he saw blessed those who reads and those who hear those words of prophecy and who keep those therein it written those for time near

Gord_in_Toronto
25th July 2011, 10:30 AM
According to Christians do Good People go to Heaven when they die or do they have to wait for the End-of-Time when they are resurrected?

The New Testament seems somewhat confused on this issue though I have attended funeral services wherein the preacher seems to agree with both eventualities simultaneously. :confused:

Johnny Marseilles
25th July 2011, 10:41 AM
According to Christians do Good People go to Heaven when they die or do they have to wait for the End-of-Time when they are resurrected?

The New Testament seems somewhat confused on this issue though I have attended funeral services wherein the preacher seems to agree with both eventualities simultaneously. :confused:

The mainstream, or modern Christian teachings are heavily influenced by pagan nonsense. Paul seen this coming, as anyone would have since it is common in religion and was beginning in his day. He used the Greek word mythos (English myth) which was later translated into the Latin fabulas (English fables) at 2 Timothy 4:3-4.

The trinity, the immortal soul, hell, rapture, cross, Christmas and Easter are examples of the Christian apostasy.

Most Christians believe we go to heaven upon death, but the Bible teaches that we were created to live forever on earth without sin. The earth was created for our inhabitance, not heaven. A small number of people will go to heaven in spirit form to rule and judge with Christ Jesus, but the meek, they shall inherit the earth and live forever upon it.

PixyMisa
25th July 2011, 10:50 AM
The skeptical often think that, according to the Bible, the end would come within the lifetime of Jesus' listeners.
That is what it says, yes.

ehcks
25th July 2011, 10:50 AM
Why should I believe your Apocalypse more than my Ragnarok?

PixyMisa
25th July 2011, 10:52 AM
The mainstream, or modern Christian teachings are heavily influenced by pagan nonsense.
Well, sure. So too are each and every book of both the Old and the New Testaments. Religions do not arise in a vaccum.

Gord_in_Toronto
25th July 2011, 10:58 AM
The mainstream, or modern Christian teachings are heavily influenced by pagan nonsense. Paul seen this coming, as anyone would have since it is common in religion and was beginning in his day. He used the Greek word mythos (English myth) which was later translated into the Latin fabulas (English fables) at 2 Timothy 4:3-4.

The trinity, the immortal soul, hell, rapture, cross, Christmas and Easter are examples of the Christian apostasy.

Most Christians believe we go to heaven upon death, but the Bible teaches that we were created to live forever on earth without sin. The earth was created for our inhabitance, not heaven. A small number of people will go to heaven in spirit form to rule and judge with Christ Jesus, but the meek, they shall inherit the earth and live forever upon it.

You apparently know this. Would you care to explain your reasoning that allows you to reach these conclusions because it seems to me that you are making some gigantic leaps in thinking that I don't see any support for in the Bible. :confused:

Johnny Marseilles
25th July 2011, 11:12 AM
Why should I believe your Apocalypse more than my Ragnarok?

I only suggest making an informed decision whether it concludes with belief or disbelief. To the "skeptical" faith is a negative concept, but it in and of itself doesn't constitute veneration or obedience. I may have faith, but as Jesus said "The demons know and yet shudder."

If you were as "noble minded" as Paul said the Beroeans were you wouldn't take my word for it, you would examine the scriptures to see if they were true.

The Bible also says that one should beware of the inspired expression of error. Don't believe something just because you want to believe it.

Ethnikos
25th July 2011, 11:17 AM
It is interesting that, as with the case of Philippians 4:5, the Lord that is being referred to isn't Jesus Christ but rather, Jehovah. Codex Sinaiticus, Greek, fourth century C.E., Not seeing it.
Did you read the codex yourself?
I'm looking at it right now and it says, theos.

Johnny Marseilles
25th July 2011, 11:17 AM
Well, sure. So too are each and every book of both the Old and the New Testaments. Religions do not arise in a vaccum.

The terms Old and New Testaments are erroneous. The Hebrew / Aramaic and Christian Greek scriptures were not based upon pagan superstitions.

The months of the Jewish calendar, baptism, wedding rings, wind chimes, and tombstones are pagan in origin, but there is nothing wrong with any of that. many of the Jewish names, likewise, were changed into pagan versions, such as Paul, Jesus etc.

Johnny Marseilles
25th July 2011, 11:26 AM
You apparently know this. Would you care to explain your reasoning that allows you to reach these conclusions because it seems to me that you are making some gigantic leaps in thinking that I don't see any support for in the Bible. :confused:

Historically speaking the immortal soul can be found to have influenced Jewish thinking about the time of Alexander the Great, though Babylonian in origin many of the teachings of modern day Christianity were later introduced to Jewish / Christian thinking through later historical persons. The immortal soul through the philosophy of Socrates, the Trinity through Plato, hell through Milton and Dante, the cross through Constantine, Easter from Astarte, the pagan goddess of fertility and consort of Baal, and Christmas through the winter solstice celebrations.

Lets take the immortal soul. Read Ezekiel 18:4. The soul dies. The question then becomes, what is the soul? A somewhat unhapy translation into English, but the soul, according to the Bible, is the blood or the life of any breathing creature.

Kopji
25th July 2011, 11:34 AM
What makes you think any of it is true?

Ethnikos
25th July 2011, 11:34 AM
oops, I was on the wrong verse. They separate the verses strangely.
I'm at the right spot and in the normal text it has Kurios, meaning Lord.
In the Sinaiticus it has what looks like an abbreviation with two letters which look to me to be for Kurios.
Probably what you should say in your post is something like:
Certain scholars interpret these obscure scribal markings to be a way to indicate Yahweh but never actually used anything that resembled that name.

Johnny Marseilles
25th July 2011, 11:37 AM
Not seeing it.
Did you read the codex yourself?
I'm looking at it right now and it says, theos.

So? What is theos? To whom is it applied throughout the Bible? Why conclude it is talking about Jesus? What kind of theos is it?

Ethnikos
25th July 2011, 11:38 AM
The terms Old and New Testaments are erroneous. The Hebrew / Aramaic and Christian Greek scriptures were not based upon pagan superstitions.

The months of the Jewish calendar, baptism, wedding rings, wind chimes, and tombstones are pagan in origin, but there is nothing wrong with any of that. many of the Jewish names, likewise, were changed into pagan versions, such as Paul, Jesus etc.

The entire New Testament is pagan because every word in the Greek language had religious meanings which are incorporated into the thoughts and concepts of the teachers of Christianity.

Johnny Marseilles
25th July 2011, 11:39 AM
What makes you think any of it is true?

Who, me? What is true, the pagan influence of modern day Christianity?

Johnny Marseilles
25th July 2011, 11:43 AM
The entire New Testament is pagan because every word in the Greek language had religious meanings which are incorporated into the thoughts and concepts of the teachers of Christianity.

How would you define pagan? To the Christians the Greeks were pagan and to the Greeks the Christians were pagan?

Would you agree it simply means "outside of?"

If baptisms were practiced by the "pagans" or the people outside of Jewish thinking, the people of the nations, as a public declaration then what harm or signifigance would the adoption of it as the same for the Christians have?

None.

On the other hand to adopt the immortal soul would be contrary to Biblical teachings.

Don't get too hung up on my use of the word pagan.

Ethnikos
25th July 2011, 11:43 AM
So? What is theos? To whom is it applied throughout the Bible? Why conclude it is talking about Jesus? What kind of theos is it?I was having trouble finding the right spot seeing how the text is not broken down into verses like our modern Bibles.
Theos is the one we are to receive the things in life we need, the Lord is the one coming which I take to indicate Jesus.
I'm just saying there are theories about these mysterious notations in some manuscripts and some will theorise it means Jehovah or something, instead of Lord.
Some people take it a step further and use that to show that Jesus is Jehovah.
But, It never spells out Jehovah in the N.T. text.

Ethnikos
25th July 2011, 11:49 AM
How would you define pagan? To the Christians the Greeks were pagan and to the Greeks the Christians were pagan?
Would you agree it simply means "outside of?"
If baptisms were practiced by the "pagans" or the people outside of Jewish thinking, the people of the nations, as a public declaration then what harm or signifigance would the adoption of it as the same for the Christians have?
None.
On the other hand to adopt the immortal soul would be contrary to Biblical teachings.
Don't get too hung up on my use of the word pagan.The Greeks thought of people not knowing the Greek language and culture as being barbarians. What do you mean, like the Celts and druids and such, as pagan?
The Greeks did not think they were pagans.
It seems nowadays it is applied to anyone not a "monotheist".

Gord_in_Toronto
25th July 2011, 12:06 PM
Historically speaking the immortal soul can be found to have influenced Jewish thinking about the time of Alexander the Great, though Babylonian in origin many of the teachings of modern day Christianity were later introduced to Jewish / Christian thinking through later historical persons. The immortal soul through the philosophy of Socrates, the Trinity through Plato, hell through Milton and Dante, the cross through Constantine, Easter from Astarte, the pagan goddess of fertility and consort of Baal, and Christmas through the winter solstice celebrations.

Lets take the immortal soul. Read Ezekiel 18:4. The soul dies. The question then becomes, what is the soul? A somewhat unhapy translation into English, but the soul, according to the Bible, is the blood or the life of any breathing creature.

Hmm. I have found a much better translation:

New Living Translation (http://nlt.scripturetext.com/ezekiel/18.htm) (©2007) (http://www.newlivingtranslation.com/)
For all people are mine to judge--both parents and children alike. And this is my rule: The person who sins is the one who will die.

No mention of souls at all. Care to comment? :(

Kopji
25th July 2011, 12:10 PM
Who, me? What is true, the pagan influence of modern day Christianity?

The skeptical often think...


Revelation 1:1, 3; 3:11; 22:7, 12, 20 may undoubtedly amuse the skeptic...

I'm just saying that you are poisoning the well by defining skeptics in a narrow way.
I'm saying you are begging the question by arguing from the Bible, when I do not accept it as other than fiction.
And the larger picture is a strawman, where the role of skeptics is to ponder the vast intricacies of the Bible.

Skeptics might very well ask the question that I did - what makes you think it is true?

PGH
25th July 2011, 12:19 PM
Religious believers. So obsessed with the end of the world and the death of everything we've ever known.

I'll stick with being an atheist, thanks. We tend to prefer that life go on without all the fireballs and smiting you faithful salivate over.

paiute
25th July 2011, 12:34 PM
Unless you are reading it in Aramaic or ancient Greek, you should probably not try to interpret Scripture based on subtleties in the text.

Ethnikos
25th July 2011, 12:43 PM
1 Thessalonians 5:23 refers to the presence of Jesus Christ. The Greek noun parousia is used. It means "being alongside." In his work on The Parousia, Israel P. Warren, D.D., wrote: "Had our translators done with this technical word 'parousia' as they did with 'baptisma,' - transferring it unchanged, - or if translated using its exact etymological equivalent, presence, and had it been well understood, as it then would have been, that there is no such thing as a 'Second Presence,' I believe that the entire doctrine would have been different from what it now is. The phrases, 'second advent,' and 'second coming,' would never have been heard of. The church would have been taught to speak of The Presence Of The Lord, as that from which its hopes were to be realized, whether in the near future or at the remotest period, - that under which the world was to be made new, a resurrection both spiritual and corporeal should be attained, and justice and everlasting awards administered."

The word occurs 24 times in the Christian Greek scripture: Matthew 24:3, 27, 37, 39 / 1 Corinthians 15:23; 16:17 / 2 Corinthians 7:6, 7; 10:10 / Philippians 1:26; 2:12 / 1 Thessalonians 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23 / 2 Thessalonians 2:1, 8, 9 / James 5:7, 8 / 2 Peter 1:16; 3:4, 12 / 1 John 2:28.Parusia is used all these times to indicate a coming and once where it seems clear to me that it should be translated as presence, which was Paul talking about himself but even that could have been referring to his coming to visit those particular people of Thessalonica.
So I can rationalize it to zero, when it does not mean coming.
I find your argument to be worse than just weak but borderline deceptive.

AdMan
25th July 2011, 12:55 PM
Religious believers. So obsessed with the end of the world and the death of everything we've ever known.


I also think it's pretty silly to argue about how to interpret passages in a book that also includes talking snakes, a talking bush, 900-year-old men and a zombie who woke up three days after death, to name just a few items of biblical nonsense.

Marduk
25th July 2011, 12:59 PM
The terms Old and New Testaments are erroneous. The Hebrew / Aramaic and Christian Greek scriptures were not based upon pagan superstitions.
.

bet your life ?
:D

Don't get too hung up on my use of the word pagan.

thats it, back away slowly without any sudden moves
:p

DC
25th July 2011, 01:04 PM
The skeptical often think that, according to the Bible, the end would come within the lifetime of Jesus' listeners.

well i belief the inventors of your religion had no clue when the world will end. especially considering that they messed up knowing when the world formed.

Johnny Marseilles
25th July 2011, 01:13 PM
Hmm. I have found a much better translation:



No mention of souls at all. Care to comment? :(

Same thing. The person is the soul.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967) Vol. XIII, p. 467 - Nepes [Hebrew nephesh] is a term of far greater extension than our 'soul,' signifying life (Ex 21.23; Dt 19.21) and its various vital manifestations: breathing (Gn 35.18; Jb 41.13[21]), blood [Gn 9.4; Dt 12.23; Ps 140(141).8], desire (2 Sm 3.21; Prv 23.2). The soul in the OT means not a part of man, but the whole man - man as a living being. Similarly, in the NT it signifies human life: the life of an individual, conscious subject (Mt 2.20; 6.25; Lk 12.22-23; 14.26; Jn 10.11, 15, 17; 13.37)

The New Encyclopædia Britannica (1976), Macropædia, Vol. 15, p. 152 - The Hebrew term for 'soul' (nefesh, that which breathes) was used by Moses . . . , signifying an 'animated being' and applicable equally to nonhuman beings. . . . New Testament usage of psychē ('soul') was comparable to nefesh.

The Jewish Encyclopedia (1910), Vol. VI, p. 564 - The belief that the soul continues its existence after the dissolution of the body is a matter of philosophical or theological speculation rather than of simple faith, and is accordingly nowhere expressly taught in Holy Scripture.

Ethnikos
25th July 2011, 01:19 PM
Also at this point some clarification should be made as to what exactly is the "end of the world." The Bible says that Earth was given to man for him to fill and subdue it, that the meek will inherit the earth and live forever upon it, and that it will last forever. (Genesis 1:28 / Psalm 37:29; 115:16 / Ecclesiastes 1:4) The end of the world is the end of the present system of things and all that involves. Of Satan's influence and sin, which, when concluding brings much destruction, but when ended, allows peace.
Ecclesiastes 1:4 could be translated as long time. It is comparing the life of a man to the life of the earth.
How about the Last Day, when Jesus comes in person to raise us up from the dead, how does this figure into your end time?
It looks like you don't have Jesus coming back.
Seems you are leaving out something rather important.

It looks to me that you are essentially saying that the world will continue on a lot like it is but there will be a period of worse wars, followed by peace. Like they repeat in Mass in the Catholic Church which is a dogma it seems, World Without End. So maybe the title would more appropriately be named, The Non-End of the World and Why We do not Allow Jesus to be Held Accountable for Our Own Misinterpretations.

Johnny Marseilles
25th July 2011, 01:24 PM
well i belief the inventors of your religion had no clue when the world will end.

That is correct. They had no such speculation.

especially considering that they messed up knowing when the world formed.

That isn't true. That reminds me, I have to post in the Genesis / Science thread.

Marduk
25th July 2011, 01:25 PM
The New Catholic Encyclopedia .

how long have you been a catholic ?
:confused:

Leumas
25th July 2011, 01:30 PM
You apparently know this. Would you care to explain your reasoning that allows you to reach these conclusions because it seems to me that you are making some gigantic leaps in thinking that I don't see any support for in the Bible. :confused:

In the gospel of Mathew after Jesus dies on the cross:
Mathew 27:50-53
Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

This and Revelation indicate that the dead will stay in their graves until the END TIME.

Read revelation properly and you will see. Also many other parts of the NT.

Generally speaking the OT says nothing about the afterlife. Only some of the later Prophets talk about heaven in a very vague way.

Leumas
25th July 2011, 01:34 PM
I also think it's pretty silly to argue about how to interpret passages in a book that also includes talking snakes, a talking bush, 900-year-old men and a zombie who woke up three days after death, to name just a few items of biblical nonsense.



INDEED...:clap:

Johnny Marseilles
25th July 2011, 02:00 PM
how long have you been a catholic ?
:confused:

I have never belonged and will never belong to any organized religion.

Marduk
25th July 2011, 02:03 PM
I have never belonged and will never belong to any organized religion.

so your faith is a bit mix and match then
;)

Johnny Marseilles
25th July 2011, 02:04 PM
In the gospel of Mathew after Jesus dies on the cross:
Mathew 27:50-53
Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

This and Revelation indicate that the dead will stay in their graves until the END TIME.

Read revelation properly and you will see. Also many other parts of the NT.

Generally speaking the OT says nothing about the afterlife. Only some of the later Prophets talk about heaven in a very vague way.

In De viris inlustribus (Concerning Illustrious Men), chapter III, Jerome says: "Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed." So this (Matthew having been the first gospel) might be a reason for the others having not included the dead people emerging from their graves.

Any serious scholar of the Bible could tell you that at Matthew 27:52-53 the Greek egeiro means simply raised up rather than resurrected back to life, and in addition to this "they" (meaning the bodies that were walking around) is a pronoun, and in Greek all pronouns have gender and "they" is masculine whereas bodies" (the bodies that were lifted up) is in the neuter. They are not the same.

Adam Clarke: "It is difficult to account for the transaction mentioned in verses 52 and 53. Some have thought that these two verses have been introduced into the text of Matthew from the gospel of the Nazarenes, others think the simple meaning is this: - by the earthquake several bodies that had been buried were thrown up and exposed to view, and continued above ground till after Christ's resurrection, and were seen by many persons in the city."

Theobald Daechsel's translation: "And tombs opened up, and many corpses of saints laying at rest were lifted up."

Johannes Greber's translation: "Tombs were laid open, and many bodies of those buried there were tossed upright. In this posture they projected from the graves and were seen by many who passed by the place on their way back to the city."

ETA - Similar events have taken place in recent times, as in Ecuador in 1949 and Bogota, Colombia in 1962 when 200 corpses in the cemetery were thrown out of their tombs by a violent earth tremor. - El Tiempo, Bogotá, Colombia, July 31, 1962.

DC
25th July 2011, 02:06 PM
That is correct. They had no such speculation.



That isn't true. That reminds me, I have to post in the Genesis / Science thread.

bring it on

Johnny Marseilles
25th July 2011, 02:07 PM
so your faith is a bit mix and match then
;)

Faith? My faith is based upon knowledge and I think for myself, though, of course I use the resources of the organized religion. Surely you don't expect anything original from a discussion on a 4-2 thousand year old text or 2,000 years of its obvious transmogrification.

Marduk
25th July 2011, 02:40 PM
Faith? My faith is based upon knowledge and I think for myself, .
Your earlier claim that the origins of the bible are not based on pagan belief suggests a lack of knowledge. Thats the problem with basing faith on knowledge, you never know if you know everything
;)

though, of course I use the resources of the organized religion. Surely you don't expect anything original from a discussion on a 4-2 thousand year old text or 2,000 years of its obvious transmogrification.

what part of the bible dates back 4000 years ?
:confused:

Ethnikos
25th July 2011, 03:12 PM
That is correct. They had no such speculation.
Hmm.
. . .his disciples came to him privately and said, “Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”

Ethnikos
25th July 2011, 03:25 PM
Johannes Greber's translation: "Tombs were laid open, and many bodies of those buried there were tossed upright. In this posture they projected from the graves and were seen by many who passed by the place on their way back to the city."
So you are quoting a spiritualist who had a spirit guide help him translate the Bible.
This may explain the answer you gave to the question of how long you have been Catholic.
Could it be you are not a Christian at all and belong to your own New Age self-invented religion who just likes Jesus as an Iconic figure for your rituals or whatever?

Ethnikos
25th July 2011, 03:30 PM
so your faith is a bit mix and match then
;)

Looks like it.
I was having a problem trying to place it and now I understand why.
Just grabs bits from here and there.
I may not be the best person to be a critic since I am not exactly so orthodox.

Leumas
25th July 2011, 03:51 PM
Theobald Daechsel's translation: "And tombs opened up, and many corpses of saints laying at rest were lifted up."

Johannes Greber's translation: "Tombs were laid open, and many bodies of those buried there were tossed upright. In this posture they projected from the graves and were seen by many who passed by the place on their way back to the city."

Leumas' translation:
Notice how each translation is DIFFERENT from the other? Does that mean we can ever tell which is right and which is not? Why select one over the other? Could it be that all translations are WRONG? Can it be that the basis for you choosing one rather than another is YOUR preference? What if I choose MY OWN translation (i.e. it is all bull) why would that be less applicable than yours?


Faith? My faith is based upon knowledge and I think for myself, though, of course I use the resources of the organized religion. Surely you don't expect anything original from a discussion on a 4-2 thousand year old text or 2,000 years of its obvious transmogrification.

So why are you in anyway invested in the Biblical stuff rather than the Upanishads or Mahabharata or the Iliad or the Eddas or the Quran or Harry Potter or Little Red Riding Hood or Narnia or One Thousand and One Nights.

What is it that makes the Bible in anyway TRUE or correct or valid to life today??????

Just consider this very possible likelihood..... you are reading translations of translations of books written in dead languages that hardly anybody can read or understand today with certainty without speculations. Even when they know the words they can have numerous meanings and nuances that render any comprehension of the original writers' intents impossible.

BUT....BUT.... even worse.....these books could have been no more than the equivalent of Brothers Grimm Fairy Tales of the time.

Imagine thousands of years from now ignorant people who are descendents of humans after a major apocalypse and they find One Thousand And One Nights and they think that it is tales of real people and real moral directives.

Just imagine how stupid they would be!

Gord_in_Toronto
25th July 2011, 04:18 PM
Same thing. The person is the soul.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967) Vol. XIII, p. 467 - Nepes [Hebrew nephesh] is a term of far greater extension than our 'soul,' signifying life (Ex 21.23; Dt 19.21) and its various vital manifestations: breathing (Gn 35.18; Jb 41.13[21]), blood [Gn 9.4; Dt 12.23; Ps 140(141).8], desire (2 Sm 3.21; Prv 23.2). The soul in the OT means not a part of man, but the whole man - man as a living being. Similarly, in the NT it signifies human life: the life of an individual, conscious subject (Mt 2.20; 6.25; Lk 12.22-23; 14.26; Jn 10.11, 15, 17; 13.37)

The New Encyclopædia Britannica (1976), Macropædia, Vol. 15, p. 152 - The Hebrew term for 'soul' (nefesh, that which breathes) was used by Moses . . . , signifying an 'animated being' and applicable equally to nonhuman beings. . . . New Testament usage of psychē ('soul') was comparable to nefesh.

The Jewish Encyclopedia (1910), Vol. VI, p. 564 - The belief that the soul continues its existence after the dissolution of the body is a matter of philosophical or theological speculation rather than of simple faith, and is accordingly nowhere expressly taught in Holy Scripture.

I find this response to be somewhat confusing. Is the soul part of a person or is it just a synonymy for person? Do you suggest that, everywhere in the Bible, I can replace the one word with the other and it still makes sense (for a very small sense of sense).

Complexity
25th July 2011, 04:33 PM
Why is anyone discussing this nonsense?

These bits could have been used for porn.

psionl0
25th July 2011, 04:40 PM
The skeptical often think that, according to the Bible, the end would come within the lifetime of Jesus' listeners. It is a mistake to conclude this.You would say that.

It would seriously dent the authority of the bible if it predicted the return of Jesus during the lifetime of his disciples and this didn't happen.

Therefore, the people writing the bible must have meant something completely different and the translators got it wrong.

Marduk
25th July 2011, 05:14 PM
Why is anyone discussing this nonsense?

These bits could have been used for porn.

seconded
:D

Elizabeth I
25th July 2011, 05:54 PM
Don't believe something just because you want to believe it.
That goes double for you.

Ethnikos
25th July 2011, 06:09 PM
I find this response to be somewhat confusing. Is the soul part of a person or is it just a synonymy for person? Do you suggest that, everywhere in the Bible, I can replace the one word with the other and it still makes sense (for a very small sense of sense).In the Old Testament it meant your life.
The NT gets more esoteric because it is in Greek but might not be a good idea to take it to that same extent that the Greeks believed. It may have been the closest equivalent, and not to put any more meaning to it than that but it may mean the more expanded concept if it was Paul because he was a native Greek speaker and an initiate into the mysteries.

Slimething
25th July 2011, 07:27 PM
Originally Posted by Complexity http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=7406431#post7406431)
Why is anyone discussing this nonsense?

These bits could have been used for porn.

seconded
:biggrin:

Thirded. :D:D

Mudcat
25th July 2011, 08:01 PM
Why is anyone discussing this nonsense?

These bits could have been used for porn.

seconded
:D

Thirded. :D:D

Fourthed. :cool::cool::cool:

AdMan
25th July 2011, 08:32 PM
Well of course, I disagree. Perhaps it suggests a presupposition on your part? ;)

Maybe you and I lean slightly to either Higher and Lower criticism respectively. Higher criticism, of course, is primarily a pseudo scholarly attempt to undermine people's confidence in the Bible.



Genesis was completed in 1513 B.C.E.

Here is something I did some time ago for the casual reader to mull over.

B.C.E.

4026, Adam created

<snip>


All a waste of time after this bit of silliness, but I hope it was entertaining for you.

PS
I like your avatar; I hope you don't get banned. :D

Johnny Marseilles
25th July 2011, 08:36 PM
All a waste of time after this bit of silliness, but I hope it was entertaining for you.

PS
I like your avatar; I hope you don't get banned. :D

For my avatar?! Why would I get banned for my avatar?

AdMan
25th July 2011, 08:39 PM
For my avatar?! Why would I get banned for my avatar?


Oh, not for the avatar.

Just based on the history of members who've posted similar ideas to your own. They've not been very understanding of the rules here, sometimes.

I just meant I liked our avatar and would want to keep you around. :)

Johnny Marseilles
25th July 2011, 08:44 PM
Oh, not for the avatar.

Just based on the history of members who've posted similar ideas to your own. They've not been very understanding of the rules here, sometimes.

I just meant I liked our avatar and would want to keep you around. :)

Oh, I see - yeah, I have no doubt I will be banned but I didn't think it would be for my avatar which is just cute as all get out. :cool:

Thanks for saying so.

Marduk
25th July 2011, 08:51 PM
Well of course, I disagree. Perhaps it suggests a presupposition on your part? ;)
My presupposition is that I don't claim to know everything, you did, and that can't possibly be true, because youre a human.
The word pagan was used by the romans to describe anyone who worshipped the old Gods rather than the state gods, now where do you think Judaism fits into that, to deny that the origins of the Bible are pagan, is to claim that all Jews are really Christians, which isn't true. The further fact that large parts of Genesis are based on Mesopotamian texts which would also be regarded as pagan seems to have escaped you as well
;)



Maybe you and I lean slightly to either Higher and Lower criticism respectively. Higher criticism, of course, is primarily a pseudo scholarly attempt to undermine people's confidence in the Bible.

I think you'll find then that its not required, very few people here have any confidence in the bible already
:D


Genesis was completed in 1513 B.C.E.

do you actually believe that, if so, what language was it written in ?
:confused:

MNBrant
25th July 2011, 09:00 PM
I had a Zoroastrian bible for awhile til it got snatched. They are rare and hard to get ahold of I think. I had a copy. Seemed like a good religion.

Toontown
25th July 2011, 09:00 PM
It was all a big misunderstanding. God's attitude toward time is a bit careless, since it means nothing to Him. He told Jesus The End would come in the spring, but He failed to mention the year, or even the millenium. Jesus assumed the Big Guy meant the coming spring. So that's why Jesus was rushing around, trying to get crucified and resurrected in a timely manner, telling everyone "Behold, I come quickly. You people better sleep with your clothes on, because the time is at hand."

But it was all a big misunderstanding. In more ways than one. For starters, God did not say to Jesus, "You need to get crucified, Son. You are the sacrificial Lamb." What He said was "You need to get laid, Son. You're as jittery as a lamb at Passover."

The whole episode was a comedy of miscommunication. And it still hasn't been cleared up, two millenia later. Jesus told everyone He was the Lamb of God and got Himself crucified. So They pretty much had to go with that. They were hoping no one would notice the mistake on the the end of the world timing.

So now God is like, "Jesus Christ, Jesus. Can't you get anything straight? You were only supposed to preach fire and brimstone to them. You were supposed to tell them they have about as much chance of beating the system as a camel has of crawling through the eye of a needle. I intended for all of them to pay for their sins, but you had to go and offer yourself up as a sacrifice, and gave them an out. Now they can repent after sinning like the dirty little sinners they are, and get off the hook. You moron."

And Jesus is like, "You see? This is why we don't talk. You. Always with the negative vibes. It ain't no big thing. So we have to build some condos in heaven to house the repenters. There won't be that many of them, and you never did specify exactly how long "eternity" is. We can just stop the clocks after a while and tell them their time is up, eternity is over, they'll have to move out. And with the earth destroyed, the only available housing is in Hell. If they say anything about how short eternity was, we can say time flies when you're having fun in heaven. Eternity goes by just like that. Whoosh."

And then God glares at Jesus and says (on the inside) "Things would be so much better if that crafty Satan were The Son instead of the bumbling Jesus, with the nail scars in his hands and thorn scars on his forehead. What a maroon." And Jesus says, "I heard that. Your thoughts are loud, Daddy Dearest. And another thing, Dad. I've been studying Satan's rebellion. I know where he messed up. He could have had you, Dad."

MNBrant
25th July 2011, 09:12 PM
It was all a big misunderstanding. God's attitude toward time is a bit careless, since it means nothing to Him. He told Jesus The End would come in the spring, but He failed to mention the year, or even the millenium. Jesus assumed the Big Guy meant the coming spring. So that's why Jesus was rushing around, trying to get crucified and resurrected in a timely manner, telling everyone "Behold, I come quickly. You people better sleep with your clothes on, because the time is at hand."

But it was all a big misunderstanding. In more ways than one. For starters, God did not say to Jesus, "You need to get crucified, Son. You are the sacrificial Lamb." What He said was "You need to get laid, Son. You're as jittery as a lamb at Passover."

The whole episode was a comedy of miscommunication. And it still hasn't been cleared up, two millenia later. Jesus told everyone He was the Lamb of God and got Himself crucified. So They pretty much had to go with that. They were hoping no one would notice the mistake on the the end of the world timing.

So now God is like, "Jesus Christ, Jesus. Can't you get anything straight? You were only supposed to preach fire and brimstone to them. You were supposed to tell them they have about as much chance of beating the system as a camel has of crawling through the eye of a needle. I intended for all of them to pay for their sins, but you had to go and offer yourself up as a sacrifice, and gave them an out. Now they can repent after sinning like the dirty little sinners they are, and get off the hook. You moron."

And Jesus is like, "You see? This is why we don't talk. You. Always with the negative vibes. It ain't no big thing. So we have to build some condos in heaven to house the repenters. There won't be that many of them, and you never did specify exactly how long "eternity" is. We can just stop the clocks after a while and tell them their time is up, eternity is over, they'll have to move out. And with the earth destroyed, the only available housing is in Hell. If they say anything about how short eternity was, we can say time flies when you're having fun in heaven. Eternity goes by just like that. Whoosh."

And then God glares at Jesus and says (on the inside) "Things would be so much better if that crafty Satan were The Son instead of the bumbling Jesus, with the nail scars in his hands and thorn scars on his forehead. What a maroon." And Jesus says, "I heard that. You keep forgetting, I'm omnipotent too. I can read minds too, Daddy Dearest. And another thing, Dad. I've been studying Satan's rebellion. I know where he messed up. He could have had you, Dad."

Nope nice try though. Gods an alien, the primordial evil is as smart as hell. The co-creator is tough and cunning. The human creation is the smallest fraction.

AdMan
25th July 2011, 09:13 PM
Nope nice try though. Gods an alien, the primordial evil is as smart as hell. The co-creator is tough and cunning. The human creation is the smallest fraction.


Wut

MNBrant
25th July 2011, 09:15 PM
Wut

That's what I said! Doesn't that suck?

Robin
25th July 2011, 09:28 PM
The skeptical often think that, according to the Bible, the end would come within the lifetime of Jesus' listeners. It is a mistake to conclude this. They mistake the transfiguration, the destruction of Jerusalem, Jesus being at the right hand of power, and John's Revelation at Patmos.

Matthew 16:28 - Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. (Also see Mark 9:1 / Luke 9:27)

The fact is that in the very next verse Matthew reveals that just 6 days later this prophecy was fulfilled. Peter, James and John witnessed the transfiguration. (Matthew 17:1-2 / Luke 9:27-36 / 2 Peter 1:16-18)
Ah, so all those Christians waiting for Jesus to come to his kingdom are wasting their time? It has already happened.

Shall you tell them or shall I?

Robin
25th July 2011, 09:29 PM
I like your avatar though.

Johnny Marseilles
25th July 2011, 09:51 PM
Ah, so all those Christians waiting for Jesus to come to his kingdom are wasting their time? It has already happened.

Shall you tell them or shall I?

I've tried. When people get to believin' there is no helping them.

When Jesus told his followers that the world would see him no more, that should have been a clue. When the Bible says that his sacrifice was for once and all time, how could his body be resurrected in the flesh? Why didn't his followers recognize him when he came back after parts of three days in the tomb? Because he had another body.

When I was 8 years old, and a confirmed atheist who thought all religious people were nuts I got into an argument over this with a little old Jehovah's Witness. At the time they taught that Jesus used his original body and though I had never even looked at a Bible I told her, based on her own account, that their thinking was ridiculous. Later they would change their teaching in agreement with my argument to her.

Johnny Marseilles
25th July 2011, 09:56 PM
I like your avatar though.

Isn't it adorable?! Thanks :)

Marduk
25th July 2011, 10:02 PM
I have no illussions regarding my knowing everything. That is far from the truth. That large parts of Genesis is based on Mesopotamian texts is propaganda at least and at best a really poor attempt at scholarship, especially regarding chronology, archeology and astronomical calculations. .
really, thats clear then that you haven't studied any mesopotamian text, when you want to get back to me, I'll point you to some which are word for word the same as their biblical counterparts, except the mesopotamian versions are around 1500 years older,

Hebrew, of course.

Hebrew didn't exist then, Hebrew flourished as a spoken language in the kingdoms of Israel and Judah during the 10th to 7th centuries BCE
so you'd need a time machine to make that work
:rolleyes:

Johnny Marseilles
25th July 2011, 10:06 PM
really, thats clear then that you haven't studied any mesopotamian text, when you want to get back to me, I'll point you to some which are word for word the same as their biblical counterparts, except the mesopotamian versions are around 1500 years older,

Hebrew didn't exist then, Hebrew flourished as a spoken language in the kingdoms of Israel and Judah during the 10th to 7th centuries BCE
so you'd need a time machine to make that work
:rolleyes:

Uh-huh, by what calculation is this established? I don't even need to know what text you are talking about, just explain the logic underling that conclusion, please?

Marduk
25th July 2011, 10:23 PM
Uh-huh, by what calculation is this established? I don't even need to know what text you are talking about, just explain the logic underling that conclusion, please?

the books of Genesis are not as old as you think they are
the general consensus amongst biblical scholars are that they date between the 10th to 5th century B.C.E. whereas most of the source mesopotamian text were original from 2300bce

Only fundamentalists believe that Moses wrote them during the exodus in a language that didn't exist for another 500 years, thats because fundamentalists disregard evidence that doesn't agree with their belief

Time for you to decide, are you a scholar, or a fruit loop ?
:D

maybe you could just tell me what date this was written ?
When a seventh day arrived
I sent forth a dove and released it.
The dove went off, but came back to me;
no perch was visible so it circled back to me.
I sent forth a swallow and released it.
The swallow went off, but came back to me;
no perch was visible so it circled back to me.
I sent forth a raven and released it.
The raven went off, and saw the waters slither back.
It eats, it scratches, it bobs, but does not circle back to me.

Robin
25th July 2011, 10:27 PM
I've tried. When people get to believin' there is no helping them.
Save me the bluster and stick to the facts
When Jesus told his followers that the world would see him no more, that should have been a clue. When the Bible says that his sacrifice was for once and all time, how could his body be resurrected in the flesh? Why didn't his followers recognize him when he came back after parts of three days in the tomb? Because he had another body.
I am not sure what you think the relevance of that is. What does the matter of which case of flesh Jesus decided to wear for his resurrection have to do with the question in hand?

We have the text:

27 “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.” Luke 9:26-27

And your claim that this prophecy was fulfilled by the Transfiguration, six days later.

I was just pointing out that there are a lot of Christians waiting on the Kingdom of God and they are going to be a tad disappointed when they found out they have missed it.

I don't really think that your interpretation holds water. Firstly "some who are standing here will not taste death before..." is a slightly over dramatic way of saying "six days from now". Is he saying that some of them will die in the next six days?

And secondly, Jesus' instructions to his disciples after this event imply that the Kingdom of God has not come yet, for example:

When you enter a town and are welcomed, eat what is offered to you. 9 Heal the sick who are there and tell them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near to you.’ 10 But when you enter a town and are not welcomed, go into its streets and say, 11 ‘Even the dust of your town we wipe from our feet as a warning to you. Yet be sure of this: The kingdom of God has come near.’ 12 I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town.

PixyMisa
25th July 2011, 10:28 PM
Uh-huh, by what calculation is this established? I don't even need to know what text you are talking about, just explain the logic underling that conclusion, please?
Since Hebrew didn't exist as a written language before the 10th century BCE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_language#Oldest_Hebrew_inscriptions), Genesis couldn't have been written in Hebrew in the 16th century BCE.

It's not really that complicated.

Johnny Marseilles
25th July 2011, 10:39 PM
Since Hebrew didn't exist as a written language before the 10th century BCE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_language#Oldest_Hebrew_inscriptions), Genesis couldn't have been written in Hebrew in the 16th century BCE.

It's not really that complicated.

What I would like to see is some evidence to that effect. That's not really that complicated, is it?

Marduk
25th July 2011, 10:42 PM
What I would like to see is some evidence to that effect. That's not really that complicated, is it?
you were just given the evidence, why did you ignore the link, here it is again
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_language#Oldest_Hebrew_inscriptions
are you reverting to type
Only fundamentalists believe that Moses wrote them during the exodus in a language that didn't exist for another 500 years, thats because fundamentalists disregard evidence that doesn't agree with their belief

;)

Five lines of ancient script on a shard of pottery could be the oldest example of Hebrew writing ever discovered, an archaeologist in Israel says.

The shard was found by a teenage volunteer during a dig about 20km (12 miles) south-west of Jerusalem.

Experts at Hebrew University said dating showed it was written 3,000 years ago - about 1,000 years earlier than the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The characters are written in proto-Canaanite, a precursor of the Hebrew alphabet.





http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7700037.stm
:p

Lucian
25th July 2011, 11:23 PM
Historically speaking the immortal soul can be found to have influenced Jewish thinking about the time of Alexander the Great, though Babylonian in origin many of the teachings of modern day Christianity were later introduced to Jewish / Christian thinking through later historical persons. The immortal soul through the philosophy of Socrates, the Trinity through Plato, hell through Milton and Dante, the cross through Constantine, Easter from Astarte, the pagan goddess of fertility and consort of Baal, and Christmas through the winter solstice celebrations.

Lets take the immortal soul. Read Ezekiel 18:4. The soul dies. The question then becomes, what is the soul? A somewhat unhapy translation into English, but the soul, according to the Bible, is the blood or the life of any breathing creature.

I may be misunderstanding you, but are you saying that the concept of hell was introduced into Christianity by Dante and Milton?

I also like your avatar.

dafydd
25th July 2011, 11:27 PM
For my avatar?! Why would I get banned for my avatar?

Read the post again.

Explorer
25th July 2011, 11:58 PM
The Bible also says that one should beware of the inspired expression of error. Don't believe something just because you want to believe it.

How then does the Bible explain and teach someone to believe in something for the "right" reasons, and presumably dispel wishful thinking in the process?

I ask this as it could be a useful tool for dispelling religious belief.

Brainache
26th July 2011, 12:35 AM
...
I also like your avatar.

I still say I preferred his American Dad avatar.

Leumas
26th July 2011, 04:50 AM
If that were true how would these wandering groups have gained control of Egypt gained control in the "Twelfth Dynasty" which was about the time of Egypt's peek of power. It indicates to me a considerable amount of confusion on the parts of not only ancient Egyptian history but modern interpreters as well. No validity of the Hyksos Period can be achieved.

Another point of consideration is the fact that Egypt, like many Near Eastern lands, was heavily linked with the priesthood and the scribes were well trained under their tutelage leaving the very possible fact that propagandistic explanations were invented to account for the Egyptian gods to deal with Jehovah and the exodus.


What ASTOUNDING HUBRIS..... :jaw-dropp

What you are saying is that the BIBLE is TRUE regardless of the fact that archeology and well established Egyptian history written in ROCK proves it to be all fabrication.

What you are saying is that Egyptian history must have either been MISTAKEN or MADE UP and that archeologists are either MISTAKEN or duped by the Egyptian lies. BUT....the Bile MUST be irrefutably true .

What you are trying to do is DISTORT the world to better fit your PRESUPPOSED TRUTH and accuracy of the Biblical account. If any FACTS of archeology, geography, other civilizations' history, paleontology, philology, chemistry, astronomy, cosmology, carbon dating, other civilizations' mythology etc. etc. contradict or do not accord with the Biblical timeline or assertions then they are all wrong, or fabricated or preemptively plagiarizing the bible etc, etc.

WARP CONTORT time and space just to ram it into the BIBLICAL FAIRY TALE..... What AMAZING ARROGANCE and BLINDNESS.

Why is it in your mind acceptable that the Egyptians made up and boasted when they wrote their histories BUT NOT the biblical writers. What makes them immune from fabricating and boasting about their PROPAGANDIST "history" just as the Egyptians and all middle eastern cultures around them did????? Is it because YHWH was dictating the Bible to them and thus could not lie? According to the bible itself YHWH (besides being drunk on blood all the time) is the author of LIES, DECEPTIONS, CONFUSION and all other falsities. Read this posting (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7401693&postcount=31). So the Bible itself admits that its author is a LYING SCOUNDREL of a god.

By the way your attempts at WARPING the Egyptian history time line and DENYING its veracity are OLD HACKNEYED ATTEMPTS....they have been attempted by various DISCREDITED "scholars" already.

For example…and I think that is the source of your ideas …. Immanuel Velikovsky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Velikovsky#Reception).

dafydd
26th July 2011, 05:37 AM
For example…and I think that is the source of your ideas …. Immanuel Velikovsky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Velikovsky#Reception).

'Nuff said.

Jensen
26th July 2011, 05:47 AM
...

1918, Isaac born

1913, Isaac weaned

....




:covereyes

PGH
26th July 2011, 05:56 AM
:covereyes

Thank you Jensen for being brave enough to care to read that mess. I never picked up on that amazing feat of pre-birth weaning. Truly biblical times were fantastic indeed. :boggled::D

Johnny Marseilles
26th July 2011, 07:06 AM
Thank you Jensen for being brave enough to care to read that mess. I never picked up on that amazing feat of pre-birth weaning. Truly biblical times were fantastic indeed. :boggled::D

Pssstt! You will notice that the time line in B.C.E. goes back numerically rather than foreword.

We'll pretend like that didn't happen oh knowledgeable skeptic.

AdMan
26th July 2011, 07:25 AM
Care to address the question of whether Velikovsky is the source of at least some of your ideas, Johnny?

Ethnikos
26th July 2011, 07:30 AM
I've tried. When people get to believin' there is no helping them.

When Jesus told his followers that the world would see him no more, that should have been a clue. Jesus was talking about the Advocate coming into the world to point out how the unbelievers are wrong.
So what follows was Jesus describing how this works. John 16:7-19
Jesus is to die, be raised, thus indicating that God had judged him righteous, and then to be glorified as part of his receiving his kingdom. The problem for the disciples was that the being proved right made him unavailable for looking at directly because we still being in a sinful state by living in the still sinful world, can not look upon this glory and live. Only when we are either transformed into uncorruputible bodies, or resurrected into same can we stand to look at him.

Johnny Marseilles
26th July 2011, 07:32 AM
Care to address the question of whether Velikovsky is the source of at least some of your ideas, Johnny?

Never heard of him.

Johnny Marseilles
26th July 2011, 07:47 AM
oops, I was on the wrong verse. They separate the verses strangely.
I'm at the right spot and in the normal text it has Kurios, meaning Lord.
In the Sinaiticus it has what looks like an abbreviation with two letters which look to me to be for Kurios.
Probably what you should say in your post is something like:
Certain scholars interpret these obscure scribal markings to be a way to indicate Yahweh but never actually used anything that resembled that name.

The manuscripts of the so called "New Testament" are not the originals, of course. The copies we have today are at least two centuries later than the originals. By then they were replacing the Tetragrammaton with the generic Kurios or Kyrios which is the Greek word for "Lord."

It is clear that when Jesus read from or quoted the so called "Old Testament" he was pronouncing God's name. (Deuteronomy 6:13, 16; 8:3 / Psalm 110:1 / Isaiah 61:1, 2 / Matthew 4:4, 7, 10; 22:44 / Luke 4:16-21)

For a considerable time the Tetragrammaton was thought to have been missing from the Greek Septuagint (a Greek translation of the Hebrew text) but then some very old fragments of the Greek Septuagint were discoverd from the time of Jesus which included the Tetragrammaton.

The divine name does appear in its abbreviated form at Revelation 19:1, 3, 4 and 6.

Ethnikos
26th July 2011, 07:48 AM
When the Bible says that his sacrifice was for once and all time, how could his body be resurrected in the flesh? Why didn't his followers recognize him when he came back after parts of three days in the tomb? Because he had another body.

When I was 8 years old, and a confirmed atheist who thought all religious people were nuts I got into an argument over this with a little old Jehovah's Witness. At the time they taught that Jesus used his original body and though I had never even looked at a Bible I told her, based on her own account, that their thinking was ridiculous. Later they would change their teaching in agreement with my argument to her.

Here's a blurb from Watchtower literature:
. . .Jesus simply materialized or took on a fleshly body, as angels had done in the past…While Jesus appeared to Thomas in a body similar to the one in which He was put to death, He also took on different bodies when appearing to His followers. Thus Mary Magdalene at first thought that Jesus was a gardener. At other times his disciples did not at first recognize him.… Jesus Christ…was the first to be raised as a spirit person.
Unless you are a lot older than I am (I doubt it), this stance of the JW's was not changed in your lifetime.

Ethnikos
26th July 2011, 08:00 AM
The divine name does appear in its abbreviated form at Revelation 19:1, 3, 4 and 6.
Could you point out which versions, if you know, otherwise I'll see if I can find out which one. The Sinaiticus is one available for close viewing online.

Anyway I am not aware that there is a general agreement that these mean Jehovah specifically, among the scholars who specialize in the manuscripts.

I think your point is that if you see a reference to the Lord coming, it is not Jesus coming, but (apparently by your way of thinking, not mine) God, the Father of Jesus, is coming. And how would that be any different from the alternative? Wouldn't it be essentially the same thing?

Johnny Marseilles
26th July 2011, 08:15 AM
Leumas' translation:
Notice how each translation is DIFFERENT from the other? Does that mean we can ever tell which is right and which is not? Why select one over the other? Could it be that all translations are WRONG? Can it be that the basis for you choosing one rather than another is YOUR preference? What if I choose MY OWN translation (i.e. it is all bull) why would that be less applicable than yours?

Why is it that many skeptics seem so very sensitive about the alleged implication of superiority? The constantly cry "What makes you think yours is better than mine?!" When nothing of the kind was implied. My translation is best for me, yours is best for you. Same with beliefs.

Translations that differ are a good thing, its like having many different viewpoints or witnesses of the same events, you get a broader picture of what might have happened, and you see the history in different ways and shades and colors.

So why are you in anyway invested in the Biblical stuff rather than the Upanishads or Mahabharata or the Iliad or the Eddas or the Quran or Harry Potter or Little Red Riding Hood or Narnia or One Thousand and One Nights.

I have a website with The Dhammapada, Four Noble Truths, Bhagavad Gita, Chuang Tzu, Tao Te Ching, Nihongi, Kojiki, Quran, Analects of Confucius, Divine Comedy, Paradise Lost, Pirqe Aboth.

I like Frank Herbert's Dune series, Douglas Adams . . . is that okay?

What is it that makes the Bible in anyway TRUE or correct or valid to life today??????

There's that superiority complex again. That's for you to decide and when you reject it are you going to get all defensive because the majority disagree?

Just consider this very possible likelihood..... you are reading translations of translations of books written in dead languages that hardly anybody can read or understand today with certainty without speculations. Even when they know the words they can have numerous meanings and nuances that render any comprehension of the original writers' intents impossible.

BUT....BUT.... even worse.....these books could have been no more than the equivalent of Brothers Grimm Fairy Tales of the time.

Well . . . it could be worse, it could have been discovered painted on a cave wall and dissected by idiot archaeologists with an agenda and penchant for wild interpretation. But that would be really cool, right?

Imagine thousands of years from now ignorant people who are descendents of humans after a major apocalypse and they find One Thousand And One Nights and they think that it is tales of real people and real moral directives.

Just imagine how stupid they would be!

A recent study compared a 1,000 year difference in copies of a chapter in Isaiah. There were three letters comprising one word; "light" which was a copyist marking error. The addition of this didn't change the meaning of the text.

Not to be disrespectful but you don't know what you are talking about. What scares me is if 1,000 years from now all they have is the opinions of some very verbose but uninformed "skeptics."

PGH
26th July 2011, 08:28 AM
Pssstt! You will notice that the time line in B.C.E. goes back numerically rather than foreword.

We'll pretend like that didn't happen oh knowledgeable skeptic.

Points to you, but like I said I didn't read your nonsense. Because, well, it's nonsense. As far as I can tell you're a YEC and that belief is so backwards and without merit that there's little point in pretending that we're in any kind of rational debate. Any facts that refute your misguided notions will be ignored by you. There's no point in trying to debate if you honestly believe that life started 6,000 years ago with one man who was poofed into being. You aren't being intellectually honest with yourself, much less anyone else.

CriticalSock
26th July 2011, 08:41 AM
<snip>When I was 8 years old, and a confirmed atheist who thought all religious people were nuts I got into an argument over this with a little old Jehovah's Witness. At the time they taught that Jesus used his original body and though I had never even looked at a Bible I told her, based on her own account, that their thinking was ridiculous. Later they would change their teaching in agreement with my argument to her.

Hi Johnny Marseilles, welcome to the forum. I have one question: If you think that Jehovah's Witnesses thinking is ridiculous, why do you hold to so many of their beliefs?

No Immortal soul.

Chosen few go to heaven, the rest carry on living on earth.

The dating of the Old testament books.

The meaning of the book of Revelation.

Gods name originally in the NT but changed by scholars.

Ignoring Marduk's quote from the Epic of Gilgamesh...


Are you not, in fact, a Jehovah's Witness yourself?

That's not a problem, although it will make having a discussion on the veracity of the bible somewhat difficult. :)

Johnny Marseilles
26th July 2011, 08:48 AM
Points to you, but like I said I didn't read your nonsense. Because, well, it's nonsense. As far as I can tell you're a YEC and that belief is so backwards and without merit that there's little point in pretending that we're in any kind of rational debate. Any facts that refute your misguided notions will be ignored by you. There's no point in trying to debate if you honestly believe that life started 6,000 years ago with one man who was poofed into being. You aren't being intellectually honest with yourself, much less anyone else.

Perhaps if you worried about your own intellectual honesty you would refrain from labeling me as a YEC (which I take as an insult) before reading my post, or abandon the pretense of even the possibility of rational debate under those circumstances.

Just say you don't agree with my position, though hard to determine without knowing it. On second thought don't - because that might be an indication of a proclivity of doing so and compromise your obvious and passionate willful ignorance and xenophobic hatred of the Bible.

Typical skeptical.

dafydd
26th July 2011, 09:14 AM
Perhaps if you worried about your own intellectual honesty you would refrain from labeling me as a YEC (which I take as an insult) before reading my post, or abandon the pretense of even the possibility of rational debate under those circumstances.

Just say you don't agree with my position, though hard to determine without knowing it. On second thought don't - because that might be an indication of a proclivity of doing so and compromise your obvious and passionate willful ignorance and xenophobic hatred of the Bible.

Typical skeptical.

I don't hate The Lord Of The Rings,The Harry Potter Books or the bible. How can you hate a work of fiction? The use of the word xenophobic puzzles me. Do you know what it means?

Belz...
26th July 2011, 09:21 AM
The skeptical often think that, according to the Bible, the end would come within the lifetime of Jesus' listeners. It is a mistake to conclude this.

Jesus said it would occur before the generation was out. That seemed pretty clear to me that, after 100 AD, something was wrong with his prediction.

PGH
26th July 2011, 09:22 AM
Perhaps if you worried about your own intellectual honesty you would refrain from labeling me as a YEC (which I take as an insult) before reading my post, or abandon the pretense of even the possibility of rational debate under those circumstances.

Just say you don't agree with my position, though hard to determine without knowing it. On second thought don't - because that might be an indication of a proclivity of doing so and compromise your obvious and passionate willful ignorance and xenophobic hatred of the Bible.

Typical skeptical.

If you're not a YEC than what's with the belief that mankind started when Adam was born 6,000 years ago? If you don't want to be lumped in with them don't share their dogma.

I'm clearly not ignorant of the bible. And I don't know how it's even possible to be xenophobic of a book. I just know that it's wrong. I don't need to hate it. I can just look at most any page, take into consideration when it was written and by who, and know that it's all made up.

Do you have "an obvious and passionate will ignorance and xenophobia" of Dianetics? Of course not. But you don't buy into it, I would guess. So why are you so enlightened for believing in the bible and not this other book that people pretend contains all the wisdom of the ages?

Ethnikos
26th July 2011, 09:38 AM
Jesus said it would occur before the generation was out. That seemed pretty clear to me that, after 100 AD, something was wrong with his prediction.I was looking at those last night and checking what the various key words in the "original" Greek were.
There are two issues, one being, what is this Kingdom of God that has come, two, what is this kingdom that Jesus refers to as being his own.

The "near at hand" from what I can figure out is not temporal proximity but a co-existence as in a parallel existence that access to has been now opened.

The kingdom of God came into existence at the moment Jesus ever uttered a word about it.
The kingdom of Jesus is a future event as in the party, but the bestowing of it was done, like he said, in the lifetime of the hearers of his words.
Think of two people getting married. They go to the courthouse and get the paperwork all in order and some sort of ceremony according to that particular jurisdiction. At this point they are legally married. Then they have a select list of people invited to the church service. Then they have a general reception open to a lot more people. So, the civil would have been his resurrection. The church wedding would be his ascension to heaven and whatever reception he had there. The general reception where the party starts is the second coming.
This explanation is not in agreement with the views of the OP but is with the NT, as best as I can figure.

Johnny Marseilles
26th July 2011, 09:43 AM
Hi Johnny Marseilles, welcome to the forum. I have one question: If you think that Jehovah's Witnesses thinking is ridiculous, why do you hold to so many of their beliefs?

Hi Critical Sock, thanks for the welcome, its nice to be here.

My comments on the Jehovah's Witnesses dealt with something that happened when I was very young. Having been told by one of the JWs that Jesus sacrificed himself once and for all time and then saying he was walking around in that same body was to me like paying for a candy bar then taking the money back.

What the Jehovah's Witnesses did do is gradually remove all of the pagan influence in Christianity and that is saying something because most of the modern day Christian teachings are pagan, unscriptural. But at the same time they are very religious in nature. What I mean by that is they have all of these zealous trappings of a cultish nature.

They ban organ transplants for years and years costing hundreds of people their lives for no other reason than, to them, Jehovah thought of it as cannibalism. Then they wised up. Similar bans on education, vaccinations. I remember some local JWs telling me they didn't use the Internet because the "Society" discouraged it. I said, oh, yeah? Well if you get a chance you might want to check out their new website. ON THE INTERNET!

Its just nonsense. Jehovah didn't prescribe a figurative lobotomy.

Ignoring Marduk's quote from the Epic of Gilgamesh...

Oh, c'mon! Gilgamesh! What about the Babylonian Atrahasis Epic? Its older. Gilgamesh, originally discovered on a cuneiform from the library of Ashurbanipal in Nineveh who reigned from 668 - 627 B.C.E. from earlier sources. Now you ask the skeptic to figure out the time and they will put the Bible writing way ahead and Gilgamesh way behind. Why, you ask them? They read it on a website.

It takes more than a bold assertion and a link to get my attention.

Are you not, in fact, a Jehovah's Witness yourself?

No. Never have been, never will be a part of ANY organized religion.

That's not a problem, although it will make having a discussion on the veracity of the bible somewhat difficult. :)

:scared: Well, we sure wouldn't want that complicating things.

Ethnikos
26th July 2011, 10:03 AM
Hi Johnny Marseilles, welcome to the forum. I have one question: If you think that Jehovah's Witnesses thinking is ridiculous, why do you hold to so many of their beliefs?
There is also a tie-in with the Johannes Greber's translation (that the OP was quoting), in relation with the New World translation.
I did not look further into it because I have an aversion to studying evil.
Others less fearful may want to check it.

Ethnikos
26th July 2011, 10:07 AM
No. Never have been, never will be a part of ANY organized religion.
Is the J.W.'s an "organized religion"?

Leumas
26th July 2011, 10:16 AM
My translation is best for me, yours is best for you. Same with beliefs.

Fine...but that in the past was and still in the present is the justification for most wars of rapine and extirpation.

Translations that differ are a good thing, its like having many different viewpoints or witnesses of the same events, you get a broader picture of what might have happened, and you see the history in different ways and shades and colors.

That is fine if it was humans witnessing human events. But not so when it is supposed to be DIVINE WORDS about DIVINE stuff.

Also that is not the case with TRANSLATIONS....you are confusing your apologetics..... when two people INTERPRET the same words or event differently that is fine (but not divine stuff) ...... but it is not fine if two people READ the VERY SAME WRITTEN WORDS and sound out DIFFERENT WORDS from each other.

If two people read the following sentence:
Your stuff is a load of rubbish

They should read it as it is (if they can read english)...they then can have as many opinions and interpretations as they want.....but NOT READ THE WORDS as different words.

In this case we have the very same words on a manuscript and different people are translating it into totally different sentences because they are arguing about the original words being different words and having different meaning. The word WATER to anyone who knows how to read english has ONE MEANING....but a thousand years from now people who have never seen an englishman or heard an english word being uttered or ever seen one written down, may argue at what WATER means or how it should be read.

But all that indicates is that it is all HUMAN stuff....not DIVINE stuff.

You may argue that the Jews know. You would be wrong…. Modern Jews can no more read ancient Hebrew than you or I. Only scholars can read ancient Hebrew and most of them cannot agree.

Also Ancient Hebrew was written without vowels which can render one word to be 4 or 5 possible words in certain cases. And that of course when a word is even known.

try t rd ths sntnc nd s f y cn ndrstnd t. Als thnk bt th fct sm wrds cld hv mltpl wrds Als wht f y d nt vn knw th lngg nd n n ls ds nd y r jst gng by nfrncs nd spcltns nd ddctns?

Or even worse...since in the past they did not have spaces between words....so try this version
trytrdthssntncndsfycnndrstndt.Alsthnkbtthfctsmwrds cldhvmltplwrdsAlswhtfydntvnknwthlnggndnnlsdsndyrjs tgngbynfrncsndspcltnsndddctns?

Besides…..even if jews knew but gentiles did not…..that only means one thing….. Like Jesus said….. the DOGS are not MEANT TO KNOW…..

You are altogether worshiping a God who does not care a pigs foot if you worshiped him or not….all he cares is that the Israelites worship him. He only spoke Ancient Hebrew (which in fact is Canaanite) and did not care to make his word known except to a few murdering ignorant Bedouins in the middle of some meaningless hell hole called Israel. He did not want DOGS to know his word and did not care for you to understand or be able to translate it.

If he did he would have appeared to your ancestors and given them books they could understand in their respective languages and not have them wait until some ROMAN SOLDIER came over to their land and conquer, massacre, rape and pillage and then force them to follow the religion DECREED by the EMPERROR under threats of torture and killing.

He would not have us FIGHT WARS over interpretations of NUANCES of his supposed word based on translations of translations and falsifications of falsifications and alterations of alterations to suit the agendas of liars after liars and murderers after murderers and all based LOST manuscripts that nobody can read even if they could find them and guarantee that they are not YET ONE MORE forgery made by some HUCKSTER after money and with a more insidious political agenda of cementing the lies with more lies.

I challenge this supposed God….. I challenge him to a duel….. if he is truly a god….. come down in a pillar of fire and WRITE the book of Isaiah in whatever language he desires (if he knows any other than extinct Hebrew) on the face of the sun.

If he wanted to convince the world of his veracity as he was so darned concerned about it with barbaric brigands 3000 years ago, he would do something that is not possible to mistake.

Better still….. why does he not Make every amputee grow back their lost limbs….. if every Jewish amputee in the world suddenly gets back his limbs…we know YHWH is the real god….if every Christian or Muslim or whatever then we know that that is the TRUE and only religion.

If he wants to send a message of love and end all the hatred and strife in this world he can make amputees of all religions and creeds grow back their limbs and then we can conclude that he is the universal god of all and that he approves of all religions….or at least the ones who grew their limbs back.

How about that….after all I am not asking for personal anything…. I am not asking him to help me win a war or pass an exam or avoid a ticket or get more money…. I am asking him to help out all those people who lost limbs in whatever religion(s) he thinks is/are VALID.

I think after a miracle like that we won’t need any more Bibles or priests or anything….we would all be convinced of his veracity and can rest assured of his continued existence and the fact that he cares about US and not some retarded fiends from 3000 years ago and he has stopped caring or actively participating in anything since.

Let the fellow bring out a new edition of his book to settle the matter once and for all.

I have a website with The Dhammapada, Four Noble Truths, Bhagavad Gita, Chuang Tzu, Tao Te Ching, Nihongi, Kojiki, Quran, Analects of Confucius, Divine Comedy, Paradise Lost, Pirqe Aboth.

Link please.....I would like to see it.



dissected by idiot archaeologists with an agenda and penchant for wild interpretation.

Yeah....they are called Biblical Archeologists funded by the Albright Institute or the Vatican or l’École Biblique


A recent study compared a 1,000 year difference in copies of a chapter in Isaiah. There were three letters comprising one word; "light" which was a copyist marking error. The addition of this didn't change the meaning of the text.

So what does that prove..... the same was done for the Iliad and Odyssey and 1001 Nights and Aesop's Fables....are they YHWH ISPIRED too?


Not to be disrespectful but you don't know what you are talking about. What scares me is if 1,000 years from now all they have is the opinions of some very verbose but uninformed "skeptics."


Yeah that might be scary....but it definitely is less scary than today where we have gone through 1500 years of HAVING TO take the Bible as DIVINE INSPIRATION under torture, murder, extirpation and violation.

I think after 1500 years of having to swallow the FABRICATION of the Church as truth it has become very hard for most people to discern facts from fiction.

Ethnikos
26th July 2011, 10:31 AM
Link please.....I would like to see it.

When you google all those names, you get a J.W. web site.

dafydd
26th July 2011, 10:37 AM
What happened to the end of the world? Should I cancel my holiday plans for next year?

Marduk
26th July 2011, 10:50 AM
Oh, c'mon! Gilgamesh! What about the Babylonian Atrahasis Epic? Its older. Gilgamesh, originally discovered on a cuneiform from the library of Ashurbanipal in Nineveh who reigned from 668 - 627 B.C.E. from earlier sources. Now you ask the skeptic to figure out the time and they will put the Bible writing way ahead and Gilgamesh way behind. .

ok lets ask a sceptic
Marduk you're quite knowledgable in these things, whats your opinion

"well. he's doing that ignoring the evidence that doesn't fit his belief, like he did earlier when he refused to acknowledge that hebrew didn't exist in 1500bce
true, the first copy was found in the library of Ashurbanipal, and he did live between 668 - 627 B.C.E, but as with any library, its stock does not post date its existence. The tablets in that case dated to 1300bce, and were signed by the author,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin-liqe-unninni
which is a few hundred years before the existence of judaism, since then older examples have been found pushing the epic back to 2100bce,
So its a bit laughable to claim that a group which didn't exist wrote one earlier. There is a hebrew connection though, the librarians at the library were all semitic slaves who were tasked with translating old tablets into Assyrian and the lingua franca of the day Akkadian, they all signed their work Rabbi and in fact the writing of Genesis is currently dated to this period. Originally written no doubt by learned men who would have signed their work Rabbi, but yanno, who knows where they got their inspiration from
roflmao"

btw johnny, its not the sceptics that are ripping you to pieces here, its the Atheists, try not to get them confused eh.
:p

AdMan
26th July 2011, 11:06 AM
Johnny has been closely quoting from what I assume is his own site:

http://thedaystar.webs.com/wtbsa/world.html

Ethnikos
26th July 2011, 11:11 AM
Johnny has been closely quoting from what I assume is his own site:

http://thedaystar.webs.com/wtbsa/world.html

since you already linked to it, yes, that's what I found.

AdMan
26th July 2011, 11:16 AM
since you already linked to it, yes, that's what I found.


I don't see why there would be a problem linking to it, since he's been quoting from it.

Johnny Marseilles
26th July 2011, 11:17 AM
Is the J.W.'s an "organized religion"?

Of course.

dafydd
26th July 2011, 11:21 AM
Of course.

The JW are totally out to lunch but even they do not believe that "magnetism is the effect of the divine ray in manifestation in the same sense that electricity is the manifested effect of the primordial ray of active intelligence"

Ethnikos
26th July 2011, 11:29 AM
I don't see why there would be a problem linking to it, since he's been quoting from it.

no problem
I just wanted to have the thing I mentioned, tested
that anyone can go straight to it just by googling part of his post

dafydd
26th July 2011, 11:30 AM
no problem
I just wanted to have the thing I mentioned, tested
that anyone can go straight to it just by googling part of his post

Pass.

Toontown
26th July 2011, 11:38 AM
Nope nice try though. Gods an alien, the primordial evil is as smart as hell. The co-creator is tough and cunning. The human creation is the smallest fraction.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

Johnny Marseilles
26th July 2011, 11:40 AM
no problem
I just wanted to have the thing I mentioned, tested
that anyone can go straight to it just by googling part of his post

Psssttt! [whispers] Oh great discoverer of mysteries and god emperor of all wisdom . . . check the credits on Johnny's site and devnull's signature!

dafydd
26th July 2011, 11:48 AM
Psssttt! [whispers] Oh great discoverer of mysteries and god emperor of all wisdom . . . check the credits on Johnny's site and devnull's signature!

I've already passed on your site. No idea what the rest of your post is supposed to mean. Mystical stuff,I'll bet.

Johnny Marseilles
26th July 2011, 11:52 AM
I've already passed on your site. No idea what the rest of your post is supposed to mean. Mystical stuff,I'll bet.

I was talking to Ethnikos.

dafydd
26th July 2011, 12:06 PM
I was talking to Ethnikos.

Send him a private message,this is a public forum.

Ethnikos
26th July 2011, 12:09 PM
Psssttt! [whispers] Oh great discoverer of mysteries and god emperor of all wisdom . . . check the credits on Johnny's site and devnull's signature!

114 Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life." Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven."

Johnny Marseilles
26th July 2011, 12:15 PM
114 Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life." Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven."

Exodus 18:4 - and the name of the other was Eliezer, "because," to quote him, "the God of my father is my helper in that he delivered me from Pharaoh’s sword."

Deuteronomy 33:7 - And this was Judah’s [blessing], as he went on to say: "Hear, O Jehovah, the voice of Judah, And may you bring him to his people. His arms have contended for what is his; And may you prove yourself a helper from his adversaries."

Hosea 13:9 - It will certainly bring you to ruin, O Israel, because it was against me, against your helper.

Psalm 33:20 - Our very soul has been in expectation of Jehovah. Our helper and our shield he is.

dafydd
26th July 2011, 12:15 PM
I've noticed you like to stick your head in conversations to say absolutely nothing or some brief negative comment as if the weight of your opinion matters one wit. Is, uh, is that how you raked up over 12,000 posts?

Lots of nothing.

You would know all about nothing. It's whit,by the way. I ask questions which woos never answer or instead make comments like the one above. They call my behaviour not entering into a discussion.

PGH
26th July 2011, 12:32 PM
Exodus 18:4 - and the name of the other was Eliezer, "because," to quote him, "the God of my father is my helper in that he delivered me from Pharaoh’s sword."

Deuteronomy 33:7 - And this was Judah’s [blessing], as he went on to say: "Hear, O Jehovah, the voice of Judah, And may you bring him to his people. His arms have contended for what is his; And may you prove yourself a helper from his adversaries."

Hosea 13:9 - It will certainly bring you to ruin, O Israel, because it was against me, against your helper.

Psalm 33:20 - Our very soul has been in expectation of Jehovah. Our helper and our shield he is.

Nice quotes. Here's another from the same book:

Deuteronomy 22:28-29
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.



You can keep your book. I want no part of it. And I'm sure not going to accept it as evidence of anything but primitive mythology.

Spindrift
26th July 2011, 12:34 PM
Psssttt! [whispers] Oh great discoverer of mysteries and god emperor of all wisdom . . . check the credits on Johnny's site and devnull's signature!
Johnny we hardly knew ye.


Oops, looks like we did know ye.

Johnny Marseilles has been banned as a sockpuppet of a previously banned member.

AdMan
26th July 2011, 12:41 PM
Johnny we hardly knew ye.


Oops, looks like we did know ye.


Rather silly of him to admit that was his site... again.

Ethnikos
26th July 2011, 12:46 PM
Like I said, I have an aversion to studying evil so I don't even want to "discover" what he was getting at.

PGH
26th July 2011, 12:48 PM
Mostly I'll miss the little cat avatar. Sockpuppeting liar that he/she was that was one cute kitty.

AdMan
26th July 2011, 12:57 PM
Mostly I'll miss the little cat avatar.


Me too! Cutest avatar I've seen in a while.

I mentioned it to him (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7407121&postcount=54), though also psychically predicted he would get banned. :D


Sockpuppeting liar that he/she was that was one cute kitty.


He. This (http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=39145) was his earlier incarnation.

PGH
26th July 2011, 01:00 PM
Here's hoping that's not his real name. Because that would be real stupid...


And I did notice when you predicted his banning. Looks like somebody just earned a cool million dollars...

dafydd
26th July 2011, 01:19 PM
deleted

Ethnikos
26th July 2011, 02:12 PM
Deuteronomy 33:7 - And this was Judah’s [blessing], as he went on to say: "Hear, O Jehovah, the voice of Judah, And may you bring him to his people. His arms have contended for what is his; And may you prove yourself a helper from his adversaries."


. . .Judah who everyone knows is the Feircest of Beast in protection of Her Children. . .

to quote another writer who likes to comment on biblical allusions.

catsmate1
26th July 2011, 02:24 PM
Rather silly of him to admit that was his site... again.
He seemed more coherent and less rant-prone this time.

dafydd
26th July 2011, 02:25 PM
King Arthur: How does it... um... how does it work?
Sir Lancelot: I know not, my liege.
King Arthur: Consult the Book of Armaments.
Brother Maynard: Armaments, chapter two, verses nine through twenty-one.
Cleric: [reading] And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, "O Lord, bless this thy hand grenade, that with it thou mayst blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy." And the Lord did grin. And the people did feast upon the lambs and sloths, and carp and anchovies, and orangutans and breakfast cereals, and fruit-bats and large chu...
Brother Maynard: Skip a bit, Brother...
Cleric: And the Lord spake, saying, "First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.
Brother Maynard: Amen.
All: Amen.
King Arthur: Right. One... two... five.
Galahad: Three, sir.
King Arthur: Three.

Leumas
26th July 2011, 07:13 PM
It was all a big misunderstanding. God's attitude toward time is a bit careless, since it means nothing to Him. He told Jesus The End would come in the spring, but He failed to mention the year, or even the millenium. Jesus assumed the Big Guy meant the coming spring. So that's why Jesus was rushing around, trying to get crucified and resurrected in a timely manner, telling everyone "Behold, I come quickly. You people better sleep with your clothes on, because the time is at hand."

But it was all a big misunderstanding. In more ways than one. For starters, God did not say to Jesus, "You need to get crucified, Son. You are the sacrificial Lamb." What He said was "You need to get laid, Son. You're as jittery as a lamb at Passover."

The whole episode was a comedy of miscommunication. And it still hasn't been cleared up, two millenia later. Jesus told everyone He was the Lamb of God and got Himself crucified. So They pretty much had to go with that. They were hoping no one would notice the mistake on the the end of the world timing.

So now God is like, "Jesus Christ, Jesus. Can't you get anything straight? You were only supposed to preach fire and brimstone to them. You were supposed to tell them they have about as much chance of beating the system as a camel has of crawling through the eye of a needle. I intended for all of them to pay for their sins, but you had to go and offer yourself up as a sacrifice, and gave them an out. Now they can repent after sinning like the dirty little sinners they are, and get off the hook. You moron."

And Jesus is like, "You see? This is why we don't talk. You. Always with the negative vibes. It ain't no big thing. So we have to build some condos in heaven to house the repenters. There won't be that many of them, and you never did specify exactly how long "eternity" is. We can just stop the clocks after a while and tell them their time is up, eternity is over, they'll have to move out. And with the earth destroyed, the only available housing is in Hell. If they say anything about how short eternity was, we can say time flies when you're having fun in heaven. Eternity goes by just like that. Whoosh."

And then God glares at Jesus and says (on the inside) "Things would be so much better if that crafty Satan were The Son instead of the bumbling Jesus, with the nail scars in his hands and thorn scars on his forehead. What a maroon." And Jesus says, "I heard that. Your thoughts are loud, Daddy Dearest. And another thing, Dad. I've been studying Satan's rebellion. I know where he messed up. He could have had you, Dad."

Brilliant....:D

I am glad no one asked you to use predicate algebra to prove it.

Leumas
26th July 2011, 07:16 PM
Rather silly of him to admit that was his site... again.

Pity... I was enjoying his CRAZY and very benighted stuff....I was looking forward to more arguments....oh well.... another one down.

AdMan
26th July 2011, 07:45 PM
Pity... I was enjoying his CRAZY and very benighted stuff....I was looking forward to more arguments....oh well.... another one down.


Do not worry--there will be more.

CriticalSock
27th July 2011, 02:24 AM
Oh that's a damn shame! Anyone else want to provide evidence that the book of Revelation is actually talking about our current time and not just about Jesus' time?

Anyone??

<anticipates tumbleweeds>

Brainache
27th July 2011, 03:46 AM
Oh that's a damn shame! Anyone else want to provide evidence that the book of Revelation is actually talking about our current time and not just about Jesus' time?

Anyone??

<anticipates tumbleweeds>

I just had a look at this Revelation book.
It's full of critters with too many eyes
and seals that open and thrones of gold
people with swords and feet like bronze
Death riding a black horse through Babylon and Sardis and Tyre
and crowns and scythes and fornicating whores
There's a blaspheming beast and angels with flaming feet
And lots of other crazy things.

So I can see how anyone might think it describes a typical saturday night these days...

Ethnikos
27th July 2011, 07:22 AM
Oh that's a damn shame! Anyone else want to provide evidence that the book of Revelation is actually talking about our current time and not just about Jesus' time?

Anyone??

<anticipates tumbleweeds>
I could but it would quickly go into politics because that is what the book is.
Start right at the first chapter and the letters to the seven churches, all politics.
The various characters are clearly identified for one reason, the players have seemingly gone out of their way to brand themselves to match the various descriptions such as the woman who rides on the beast, which is the most obvious.
Its about the IMF And the World Bank where they have a cartel on the banking systems and the master banker is the red dragon. The beast is the European banking system which was wounded by the nationalistic republican Napoleon and the red dragon gave the seven heads of the royal European blood lines ten crowns, or seats of power to defeat Napoleon to restore the dragon's banking system in Europe. The two horned beast rises in the name of the nationalistic republic, which is the American bison on the buffalo nickle. It gives power to the first beast, and that is by defeating the nationalist NAZI party of Germany, again restoring the red dragons banking system in Europe and the seven heads are happy with the beast for having the safety of their crowns. The woman riding on the back of this beast is the EU, who conveniently enough for identification purposes have as their seal, a woman riding on the back of a beast holding a cup, exactly as portrayed in revelation.
The two horned beast who started out as being like a sheep and then going to where it was speaking as the dragon is the new Anglo/American empire which enforces the acceptance of the world, of the dragons banking system, for example, the Anglo/American war in Libya, to get rid of the nationalistic banking system of Gaddafi which was gaining acceptance in all of Africa. The image of the beast is the political structure of American government that make the pretense of a republic but is in fact a sneaky form of a dictatorship. The false prophet is the American "evangelical" churches that make up flowery sounding explanations for the dragon's wars.

dafydd
27th July 2011, 07:39 AM
I could but it would quickly go into politics because that is what the book is.
Start right at the first chapter and the letters to the seven churches, all politics.
The various characters are clearly identified for one reason, the players have seemingly gone out of their way to brand themselves to match the various descriptions such as the woman who rides on the beast, which is the most obvious.
Its about the IMF And the World Bank where they have a cartel on the banking systems and the master banker is the red dragon. The beast is the European banking system which was wounded by the nationalistic republican Napoleon and the red dragon gave the seven heads of the royal European blood lines ten crowns, or seats of power to defeat Napoleon to restore the dragon's banking system in Europe. The two horned beast rises in the name of the nationalistic republic, which is the American bison on the buffalo nickle. It gives power to the first beast, and that is by defeating the nationalist NAZI party of Germany, again restoring the red dragons banking system in Europe and the seven heads are happy with the beast for having the safety of their crowns. The woman riding on the back of this beast is the EU, who conveniently enough for identification purposes have as their seal, a woman riding on the back of a beast holding a cup, exactly as portrayed in revelation.
The two horned beast who started out as being like a sheep and then going to where it was speaking as the dragon is the new Anglo/American empire which enforces the acceptance of the world, of the dragons banking system, for example, the Anglo/American war in Libya, to get rid of the nationalistic banking system of Gaddafi which was gaining acceptance in all of Africa. The image of the beast is the political structure of American government that make the pretense of a republic but is in fact a sneaky form of a dictatorship. The false prophet is the American "evangelical" churches that make up flowery sounding explanations for the dragon's wars.

I prefer Lord Of The Rings.

AdMan
27th July 2011, 07:43 AM
I could but it would quickly go into politics because that is what the book is.
Start right at the first chapter and the letters to the seven churches, all politics.
The various characters are clearly identified for one reason, the players have seemingly gone out of their way to brand themselves to match the various descriptions such as the woman who rides on the beast, which is the most obvious.
Its about the IMF And the World Bank where they have a cartel on the banking systems and the master banker is the red dragon. The beast is the European banking system which was wounded by the nationalistic republican Napoleon and the red dragon gave the seven heads of the royal European blood lines ten crowns, or seats of power to defeat Napoleon to restore the dragon's banking system in Europe. The two horned beast rises in the name of the nationalistic republic, which is the American bison on the buffalo nickle. It gives power to the first beast, and that is by defeating the nationalist NAZI party of Germany, again restoring the red dragons banking system in Europe and the seven heads are happy with the beast for having the safety of their crowns. The woman riding on the back of this beast is the EU, who conveniently enough for identification purposes have as their seal, a woman riding on the back of a beast holding a cup, exactly as portrayed in revelation.
The two horned beast who started out as being like a sheep and then going to where it was speaking as the dragon is the new Anglo/American empire which enforces the acceptance of the world, of the dragons banking system, for example, the Anglo/American war in Libya, to get rid of the nationalistic banking system of Gaddafi which was gaining acceptance in all of Africa. The image of the beast is the political structure of American government that make the pretense of a republic but is in fact a sneaky form of a dictatorship. The false prophet is the American "evangelical" churches that make up flowery sounding explanations for the dragon's wars.


CriticalSock asked for evidence, not just your own bizarre interpretation.

Anyone can come up with fiction.

Ethnikos
27th July 2011, 08:13 AM
CriticalSock asked for evidence, not just your own bizarre interpretation.

Anyone can come up with fiction.

The request was for evidence that Revelation was about our time versus the time of Jesus. I believe that the argument can be made that Revelation fits today's political situation at least as well as it would have fit the situation of AD 32-70, or whenever the predictions of Jesus may have been expected to be fulfilled.

dafydd
27th July 2011, 08:46 AM
The request was for evidence that Revelation was about our time versus the time of Jesus. I believe that the argument can be made that Revelation fits today's political situation at least as well as it would have fit the situation of AD 32-70, or whenever the predictions of Jesus may have been expected to be fulfilled.

Revelation is the insane scribblings of a nutcase. It has no bearing upon reality.

Ethnikos
27th July 2011, 09:18 AM
Revelation is the insane scribblings of a nutcase. It has no bearing upon reality.There are enough people who do accept it that there are also people who take the trouble to contradict it.
My explanation could be an example, if somehow it got picked up and run on the top of the page on Drudge Report, with headlines, "The Beast's Identity Revealed", then you would see people posting on the internet with funds provided through various front organizations, refuting the claims and coming up with all sorts of counter explanations, not wanting people to understand the true nature of the wars supposedly being fought to liberate the people from "the evils of Islam" or whatever.
The same thing happened in the Protestant Reformation where the Protestants used Revelation to identify the Catholic Church as the Antichrist and so on. Then you had theologians coming up with counter explanations to refute those claims, not wanting their cash-flow hampered. This is what the OP was repeating and probably as a paid person to present these views when if you pick at it, it seems evident that he really believes in a bunch of esoteric whatever spirit-ism.

AdMan
27th July 2011, 09:27 AM
There are enough people who do accept it that there are also people who take the trouble to contradict it.
My explanation could be an example, if somehow it got picked up and run on the top of the page on Drudge Report, with headlines, "The Beast's Identity Revealed", then you would see people posting on the internet with funds provided through various front organizations, refuting the claims and coming up with all sorts of counter explanations, not wanting people to understand the true nature of the wars supposedly being fought to liberate the people from "the evils of Islam" or whatever.
The same thing happened in the Protestant Reformation where the Protestants used Revelation to identify the Catholic Church as the Antichrist and so on. Then you had theologians coming up with counter explanations to refute those claims, not wanting their cash-flow hampered. This is what the OP was repeating and probably as a paid person to present these views when if you pick at it, it seems evident that he really believes in a bunch of esoteric whatever spirit-ism.


Revelation is fiction, no matter how anyone interprets it, just like Nostradamus's "prophecies".

Toontown
27th July 2011, 09:49 AM
Brilliant....:D

I am glad no one asked you to use predicate algebra to prove it.

I don't need to prove anything. One story about mythical omnipotoids is as good as another.

Ethnikos
27th July 2011, 09:50 AM
Revelation is fiction, no matter how anyone interprets it, just like Nostradamus's "prophecies".

OK, let's say John Hogue who is the supposed top expert on Nostradamus on Coast to Coast says one night speaking with George Noory, "Well, I have been studying this for so many years and finally my real secret goal of my work is complete and I can without a doubt, identify the antichrist and I am going to reveal his name tonight on your show. It is Rupert(or whoever). . ."
You would see stuff all over the internet posting on forums and blogs and chat rooms about how "We know a scholar of Nostradamus who says the real antichrist is Barack(or whoever). . .", being paid to say that through front organizations established to defend Fox.
My point is that the sock puppet is doing what he does to promote a view that deflects from people looking at current events for fulfilment of any predictions that point out where the real power centers of the world are.

dafydd
27th July 2011, 09:51 AM
There are enough people who do accept it that there are also people who take the trouble to contradict it.
My explanation could be an example, if somehow it got picked up and run on the top of the page on Drudge Report, with headlines, "The Beast's Identity Revealed", then you would see people posting on the internet with funds provided through various front organizations, refuting the claims and coming up with all sorts of counter explanations, not wanting people to understand the true nature of the wars supposedly being fought to liberate the people from "the evils of Islam" or whatever.
The same thing happened in the Protestant Reformation where the Protestants used Revelation to identify the Catholic Church as the Antichrist and so on. Then you had theologians coming up with counter explanations to refute those claims, not wanting their cash-flow hampered. This is what the OP was repeating and probably as a paid person to present these views when if you pick at it, it seems evident that he really believes in a bunch of esoteric whatever spirit-ism.

More fool him. It's all a load of old pony.

Mudcat
27th July 2011, 07:47 PM
I prefer Lord Of The Rings.

Who doesn't?

Oh Dafydd, I think someone hacked you and changed your avatar :D

Marduk
27th July 2011, 08:06 PM
He. This (http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=39145) was his earlier incarnation.

ah ok, now I remember the ignorance from earlier
:rolleyes: