Fraud in the Bible or, It Sucks That You Don't Know Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic!

I don't see the big deal, throughout the OT the singular God is constantly referred to as the LORD OF HOSTS - which infers there are other God-like beings who He is King over. Furthermore, the JPS (Jewish Publication Society) does a good job in translating the plural to "divine beings" -

I know most Christians like pointing this out to be the Trinity, but that is back tracking a little bit and is not necessary to believe in Jesus and is a bit disrespectful to the original authors.

There have been skeptics and believers of the Bible since the Bible was written. So far, neither 'side' (if you look at it that way) has been able to disprove the other to the world at large. I imagine this argument will go on long after we are gone too.

The only way this argument is ever settled for anyone, is after a person dies. Then, and only then, is the truth realized. If it turns out to be what you believe to be true now, then great. If not, that's not so great.

I don't see the big deal, throughout the OT the singular God is constantly referred to as the LORD OF HOSTS - which infers there are other God-like beings who He is King over. Furthermore, the JPS (Jewish Publication Society) does a good job in translating the plural to "divine beings" -

I know most Christians like pointing this out to be the Trinity, but that is back tracking a little bit and is not necessary to believe in Jesus and is a bit disrespectful to the original authors.

There have been skeptics and believers of the Bible since the Bible was written. So far, neither 'side' (if you look at it that way) has been able to disprove the other to the world at large. I imagine this argument will go on long after we are gone too.

The only way this argument is ever settled for anyone, is after a person dies. Then, and only then, is the truth realized. If it turns out to be what you believe to be true now, then great. If not, that's not so great.



i think this is only an issue for red neck fundies in the states who believe every word was literally penned by God.

I don't see the big deal, throughout the OT the singular God is constantly referred to as the LORD OF HOSTS - which infers there are other God-like beings who He is King over. Furthermore, the JPS (Jewish Publication Society) does a good job in translating the plural to "divine beings" -

I know most Christians like pointing this out to be the Trinity, but that is back tracking a little bit and is not necessary to believe in Jesus and is a bit disrespectful to the original authors.


You do not know the nature of "the host" any more than the rest of us. You statements are theory or at best your guess. The words "Lord of Host" do not imply god-like abilities.

There have been skeptics and believers of the Bible since the Bible was written. So far, neither 'side' (if you look at it that way) has been able to disprove the other to the world at large. I imagine this argument will go on long after we are gone too.

The only way this argument is ever settled for anyone, is after a person dies. Then, and only then, is the truth realized. If it turns out to be what you believe to be true now, then great. If not, that's not so great.



i think this is only an issue for red neck fundies in the states who believe every word was literally penned by God.

There have been skeptics and believers of the Bible since the Bible was written. So far, neither 'side' (if you look at it that way) has been able to disprove the other to the world at large. I imagine this argument will go on long after we are gone too.

The only way this argument is ever settled for anyone, is after a person dies. Then, and only then, is the truth realized. If it turns out to be what you believe to be true now, then great. If not, that's not so great.



i think this is only an issue for red neck fundies in the states who believe every word was literally penned by God.


What kind of an issue?

There have been skeptics and believers of the Bible since the Bible was written. So far, neither 'side' (if you look at it that way) has been able to disprove the other to the world at large. I imagine this argument will go on long after we are gone too.

The only way this argument is ever settled for anyone, is after a person dies. Then, and only then, is the truth realized. If it turns out to be what you believe to be true now, then great. If not, that's not so great.



i think this is only an issue for red neck fundies in the states who believe every word was literally penned by God.


What kind of an issue?



the issue of the OP.

There have been skeptics and believers of the Bible since the Bible was written. So far, neither 'side' (if you look at it that way) has been able to disprove the other to the world at large. I imagine this argument will go on long after we are gone too.

The only way this argument is ever settled for anyone, is after a person dies. Then, and only then, is the truth realized. If it turns out to be what you believe to be true now, then great. If not, that's not so great.



i think this is only an issue for red neck fundies in the states who believe every word was literally penned by God.


What kind of an issue?



the issue of the OP.


OK. Well, I would say it in a different way though. I would say that anyone who has an issue, or becomes emotionally upset with the original post article is most likely going to be a person who is not sure WHY they believe what they believe in the first place.

If a person understands why they believe the Bible is the word of God, and they are very sure about that, then I do not think that person will get upset or angry about any skepticism.

In fact, if we understand why we believe what we believe, whatever that is, then skepticism should not be a problem. It is by and through this process we are able to test our own beliefs and see if they hold up. If they do, great.

If we are not applying what we believe to real life, then what good is that belief? It would be only lip service and a fantasy. We can say many things, but, it is what we do that says the most.

How we actually respond to conflict or challenges is a pretty good sign that reveals much of where we are in that process of applying what we believe to our own life. If our words say, "I've really got it together" but the behavior says otherwise, we can know there is a disconnect between words and deeds.

So, I can tell much by how a person responds. Anybody can tell, if they are aware of all the above.

OK. Well, I would say it in a different way though. I would say that anyone who has an issue, or becomes emotionally upset with the original post article is most likely going to be a person who is not sure WHY they believe what they believe in the first place.

If a person understands why they believe the Bible is the word of God, and they are very sure about that, then I do not think that person will get upset or angry about any skepticism.

In fact, if we understand why we believe what we believe, whatever that is, then skepticism should not be a problem. It is by and through this process we are able to test our own beliefs and see if they hold up. If they do, great.

If we are not applying what we believe to real life, then what good is that belief? It would be only lip service and a fantasy. We can say many things, but, it is what we do that says the most.

How we actually respond to conflict or challenges is a pretty good sign that reveals much of where we are in that process of applying what we believe to our own life. If our words say, "I've really got it together" but the behavior says otherwise, we can know there is a disconnect between words and deeds.

So, I can tell much by how a person responds. Anybody can tell, if they are aware of all the above.

There have been skeptics and believers of the Bible since the Bible was written. So far, neither 'side' (if you look at it that way) has been able to disprove the other to the world at large. I imagine this argument will go on long after we are gone too.

The only way this argument is ever settled for anyone, is after a person dies. Then, and only then, is the truth realized. If it turns out to be what you believe to be true now, then great. If not, that's not so great.



i think this is only an issue for red neck fundies in the states who believe every word was literally penned by God.


What kind of an issue?



the issue of the OP.


OK. Well, I would say it in a different way though. I would say that anyone who has an issue, or becomes emotionally upset with the original post article is most likely going to be a person who is not sure WHY they believe what they believe in the first place.

If a person understands why they believe the Bible is the word of God, and they are very sure about that, then I do not think that person will get upset or angry about any skepticism.

In fact, if we understand why we believe what we believe, whatever that is, then skepticism should not be a problem. It is by and through this process we are able to test our own beliefs and see if they hold up. If they do, great.

If we are not applying what we believe to real life, then what good is that belief? It would be only lip service and a fantasy. We can say many things, but, it is what we do that says the most.

How we actually respond to conflict or challenges is a pretty good sign that reveals much of where we are in that process of applying what we believe to our own life. If our words say, "I've really got it together" but the behavior says otherwise, we can know there is a disconnect between words and deeds.

So, I can tell much by how a person responds. Anybody can tell, if they are aware of all the above.



I totally agree. I just cant understand why, either loon job planet x believers or fundie literalistic religious people completely overlook the history of what they are reading or in this case debunking. There is so many quality scholarly books available on these subjects (that are more interesting than fantasy conspiracy shit), but everyone seems to base their opinions on some Youtube video they watched 20 minutes ago.

Fraud in the Bible or, It Sucks That You Don't Know Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic

What is Pious Fraud?

Pious fraud was a common technique employed by early Christian writers to make a point. Their intention was to convert anyone and everyone by any means available. One of the more persuasive methods was to write a text and falsely tell others that it was written in first person. For example, the four canonized gospel tales were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. That has been a well known fact for about 200 years. And to this day, no one knows who the gospel stories were written by. These texts are perfect examples of pious fraud. Pious fraud is the foundation of the deception known as Christianity and it continues to this day.

During the first couple of centuries of the Common Era the early Christian priest-craft, which would eventually become the early Catholic fathers, were in the process of assimilating religions from all over Europe. Ultimately the new religion become known as the Christian religion, or more accurately The Catholic Church. The Bible was put together by hundreds of people who were either at the head of the fraud or were pawns in its assembly. Once the original languages were translated into Latin, it was only a matter of time before the original language nuances could be discarded. Ever wonder why it was punishable by death to read the Bible during the Middle Ages? Punishable by death by the common folk to read it, that is. Well, the reason was that the priest-craft was well aware of the errors, inconsistencies and flat-out lies that riddled the Bible. If the common man found out, it could have been the death of the Church's authority, power and control over the masses. And since the original languages are rarely, if ever, used by those who read the Bible (well, those who actually READ it), the fraud is perpetuated.

When a pious fraud is knowingly perpetuated in the name of power and money, you have deception. Remember, 1700-2000 years ago, when these texts were being assembled into a 'new testament', the vast majority of humanity was illiterate. Science was not known. Demons rules the world. Anything could be put forth and said to be 'absolute truth' when it was in fact, completely fraudulent.

What is the implication of this? The implication is self-evident. The story of Genesis, that Christian proselytizers love to advance (altho it is part of the much older Jewish texts), is a complete and utter forgery. In that story we are led to believe that there was a single god who created the earth, etc. in 6 days. Not only has science proven the timeline to be completely false, the religious aspect is a complete fabrication. At the time that the Genesis story was supposed to have been written the Hebrew people were not monotheistic. That's history. They believed in many gods and Genesis proves it. The story actually goes back to before the Hebrews were a distinct people-it is not Hebrew in origin.

Pious Fraud in Translation

Let's take a look at the very first words of the book of Genesis. Note very carefully that the Hebrew culture, at the time of this writing, was not monothestic, but rather, polytheistic. Will your priest, minister or preacher tell you that? No. But you can find out for yourself with a simple dictionary.

The Hebrew word for God is el; the plural is elohim, gods. What is the first sentence in the Bible?

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Gen. 1:1).

Here is Genesis 1:1 in Hebrew (transliterated into the Latin alphabet, of course):

"Bereshith bara elohim," etc.,

"In-beginning created (the) gods (the) heavens and (the) earth."

In the same chapter the word "elohim" (gods) is used thirty times., Those gods are the ones who created the 'universe' in 6 days.

To clarify, here is the translation of the Hebrew text of Genesis 1. Notice how Jewish and Christian 'fathers' don't bother to tell you what the original text says. They would like you to believe that a single god created everything. But, they messed up big time and actually translated it properly. In plain English, the translation reads 'let us make man in our image':

Here are three examples of the Hebrew plural gods mentioned in Genesis: 1. "And-said elohim (gods), let-US-make man (adam) in-image-OUR, after-likeness-OUR" (1:26).

2. And when "adam" had eaten of the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge, "the Lord God" said, "Behold, the-man has become like one of US, to know good and evil" (3:27).

3. And when the Tower of Babel was being built: "The Lord [Heb. Yahveh] said ... Come, let US go down," etc.

When speaking of the Hebrew deity, Yahveh, elohim, (gods) is used in the Hebrew texts, The plural elohim is used 2570 times. It is always falsely translated to the singular "God", thus falsely making us believe that this text was written at a time when the Hebrew people were monothestic, when it clearly is the case (written at least 2570 times, no less!) that they WERE NOT.

In the three Genesis verses above, there are three different designations of the Hebrew deity or deities: elohim, (gods), falsely translated "God":

Lord God (Heb. Yahveh-elohim); and Lord (Heb. Yahveh). Yahveh is the proper name of the Hebrew God, which, in English, is Jehovah.

Yahveh-elohim is a Hebrew "construct-form" which is translated to "Yahveh-of-the-gods." Invariably these personal names were falsely translated "Lord" and "Lord God," respectively, for purposes of pious fraud.

First Man, First Woman

There was no first man "Adam," according to the Hebrew text. The word adam in Hebrew is a common noun, meaning man in a generic sense and in Genesis 1:26, it states:

"And elohim (gods) said, Let us make adam (man)"; and so "elohim created ha- adam (the-man); ... male and female created he them" (1: 27).

In the second creation story, where man is first made alone:

"Yahveh formed ha-adam (the-man) out of the dust of ha-adamah-the ground" (2:7).

Man is called in Hebrew adam because he was formed out of adamah, the ground; just as in Latin man is called homo because he was formed from humus, the ground. Early Christian father Lactantius stated it as 'homo ex humo' ('man from the ground', or 'dust' as it commonly stated today).

The forging of the name Adam from the Hebrew noun adam into a mythical proper name Adam, was after the so-called Exodus. The fraud in the forging of fictitious genealogies from "in the beginning" to Father Abraham.

And this wasn't done by Christians, but rather by early Hebrew priests. Nonetheless, early Christians took this deception and used it for their own newly forged religion.

Who has a Soul?

In Genesis 1 is the account of the creation of the elohim-gods-on the fifth day, of "nephesh hayyah" which is "the moving creature that hath life," and of "nephesh hayyah-every living creature" out of the waters (1:20, 21); and on the sixth day of "nephesh hayyah-the living creature" out of the ground (1:24); and he gave to ha-adam-the-man dominion over "kol nephesh hagyah-everything wherein there is life," (1:30.)

The Hebrew text states that all animal living creatures are by God called "nephesh hayyah," literally "living soul".

In Chapter 2 is the history of ha-adam made from ha-adamah; and, in contrast to these lowly "living creatures" (nephesh hayyah), Yahveh-clohim "breathed into his nostrils nishmath hayyim -- (living breaths), and ha-adam became nephesh hayyah-a living soul". (2:7)

In Hebrew everywhere you read the word nephesh it simply means soul, and hayyah (living) is the feminine singular adjective from hai, life.

In the original Hebrew texts, Man was created exactly the same as the other animals. All had or were 'nephesh hayyah' or living souls.

Remember, tho, that the reason there are two creation stories is because two culture's stories of creation were woven together by the early Hebrew priestcraft.

Unknown scribes, in translation, made animals merely creatures, and "Creation's masterpiece, Man," became a "living soul." They falsely altered these plain words so as to deceive us into believing a special God-breathed soul is in man which is completely different from animal that merely perishes to dust.

The implication of this is that someone has fraudulently decided that we are a special creation that has a soul, and eliminated the actual words of what Genesis says. Now all other animals don't have a soul. According to the story, all things that live have a soul. So what happened here? Forgery. That's what happened.

Chalk one up for vegetarians.

There Was No Continuous Hebrew Monotheistic Culture

When Yahveh appeared to Moses in the Burning Bush, and announced himself as "the God of thy fathers," he was a total stranger to Moses. How do I know? Read the account. It doesn't take a scholar to read where Moses ASKS who's taking. No, Moses wasn't merely surprised at the voice…he simply didn't know what was going on. (The fact that Moses is just a rehash of the Egyptian Mises is another essay altogether. But for the purposes of this essay, I'm pretending that Moses was a real person.)

Moses did not know this Yahveh, and had never heard of him. So that he asked, "What is thy name?" -so that he could report it to the people back home in Egypt, who had never heard it. After some intermission, the God came directly to the point, and declared-here are the exact words-one of the most notorious falsities in the Hebrew text:

"And elohim spake unto Moses, and said unto him., anoki Yahveh -- I am the Lord!

"And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of el-shaddai, but by my name Yahveh (JEHOVAH) was I not known to them." (Ex. 6:2, 8.)

The Hebrew God for the first time since the world began, is "revealed" to mankind the "ineffable name" of Yahveh, here first appearing in the Bible translations, and there printed as JEHOVAH in capital letters; for more vivid and awe-inspiring impression.

But this is a notorious lie-since we known that Moses did not write the first five books of the Hebrew text.

In Genesis 2:4, the name YAHVEH first appears; "in the day that Yahveh-elohim made the earth and the heavens." Its first recorded use as a mystical personage, was when Eve "conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from Yahveh-the Lord." (Gen. 4:1.)

The personal name YAHVEH occurs in the Book of Genesis one hundred and fifty-six times. It's spoken dozens of times by Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as any one can read in Genesis. Every single time that the title "the Lord" and "the Lord God" appears, it is a false translation by the priests for the Hebrew personal name YAHVEH.

Throughout the Hebrew "scriptures" it occurs thousands of times: "The sacred name occurs in Genesis ~156 times; and is found in the Old Testament approximately 6000 times, either alone or in along with another Divine name."

More exactly, the Tetragrammaton (YHVH), appears in the Old Testament 6823 times as the proper name of God as the God of Israel. As such it serves to distinguish him from the gods of the other nations." Thus was the Hebrew tribal god YAHVEH distinguished from Bel, and Chemosh, and Dagon, and Shamash, and the dozens of "gods of the nations". Just as James would distinguish his name from Rudolph, or Cary, this was precisely the Hebrew usage-to distinguish one heathen god from another.

And this the pious translators, foisting their fraud on us, sought to hide, giving names to all the "other gods," but suppressing a name for the Hebrew deity, who as "the Lord," or "the Lord God," was high and unique, "a god above all gods," -the one and only true God-thru the use of a tetragrammaton.

But yet a more malicious and evil-intentioned deception, 6828 times, is the name of the Hebrew God concealed by false rendition for the deliberate purpose of forging the whole Hebrew texts, as translated, into a semblance of harmony with the false declaration of Exodus 6:3, that "by my name YAHVEH was I not know unto them."

Search as one may, outside Exodus 6:3, the god-name YAHVEH (Jehovah) is never to be found in the translations, except in Psalm 78:18, and Isaiah 12:2 and 26:4. (But they are irrelevant for this discussion because those passages were written well after the original 5 books were forged.)

The false translations thus "make truth to be a liar," the lie of Exodus 6:3 to seem the truth; and a barbarous heathen tribal god among a hundred neighbor and competitive gods to be the nameless One Lord God of the Universe. For more on this tribal god, you can read

Who is this Jehovah and Where Does He Live?

What does this imply? It implies this: the Hebrew-Christian-One-God is a patent forgery and myth; a mythological Father-god can have no "only begotten Son"; Jesus Christ is a myth even before he is mythically born by the forged whimsy of the early Christian 'fathers'.



A Few Translations

These translations, while only three in number, will change your whole way of thinking about what is being presented in your Bible.

Son of Man: In all three major Semitic languages (Aramaic, Hebrew, and Arabic) the term barnasha means "human being". Jesus often referred to himself as a human being (28 times in the Gospels). Barnasha comes from bar (son) and nasha (man). The meaning of barnasha has created a lot of confusion in the Gospels. It is impossible to translate the Aramaic term of barnasha literally as "son of man" - and yet most biblical translators have and still do just that to this day. In the Aramaic language the word bar is combined with many other words to create different meanings - most specifically is means a "likeness." For example barabba means "resembles his father". Barhila translated literally would mean "son of power" but in reality it means "soldier". So when we read in the Gospels the phrase "son of man" it should be read correctly as "human being".

Son of God: The word bar means a likeness or resemblance to the suffix word. The Aramaic term that Son of God comes from is bardalaha. Translated literally as "son of God" it does not mean this. Bardalaha in reality means "like God" or "God-like". So when Jesus is referred to as the "Son of God" we should read this correctly as "God-like" or "like God". So what does that tell you about the translation we read in today's Bibles? It tells you that Jesus was not the Son of God - but that he was "God-like". There is a big difference. Jesus himself repeatedly referred to himself as a "human being". The Aramaic reference does not mean one is physically divine - it means there is an important spiritual relationship between God and the man whom is bestowed that phraseology. In addition, don't forget that the Council of Nicea in 325 CE voted to change the human Jesus to a supernatural being. It wasn't until that time that any church thought of Jesus as such.

Only Begotten Son: The world ehedaya is Aramaic. It is very important to understand its meaning when hearing that phrase being bantered about. When we read that Jesus was God's "only begotten son" - it is an incorrect translation of the Aramaic word. The term is found exclusively in the Gospel of John. The phrase we read in English was translated from a Greek word, monogenes. Monos means "single" or "one" and genos means "kind". So the Greek translation originally was with "one-of-a-kind". So where does 'begotten' come from? The Greek word genos is distantly related to the verb gennan which means "to beget". Thus, to translate monogenes as "only begotten" is improper and incorrect--which is an indication of an ill-trained translator being involved with the text. The actual translation should be "unique son" or "one-of-a-kind". The Aramaic word ehedaya means "sole heir" and "the beloved". So when we combine monogenes ehedaya we get "one-of-a-kind, beloved son". That's considerably different from 'only begotten son'.
[link to www.hiddenmysteries.org]
___________

If it expects, or demands worship, it is not divine!!

Yeah, it does suck.

But just because you do know some of these words, doesn't mean you don't twist things to your viewpoint either.


I never twist, but I do so enjoy untwisting the so called infallible word!!


:teeeehee:


___________

If it expects, or demands worship, it is not divine!!

Yeah, it does suck.

But just because you do know some of these words, doesn't mean you don't twist things to your viewpoint either.


I never twist, but I do so enjoy untwisting the so called infallible word!!


:teeeehee:
___________



Your path of discovery has
found the truth again.

Soul
In scripture, the term soul is used as a synonym for spirit to describe a person in four different phases of his or her eternal existence. Soul is used to describe a person in premortal life—before birth (see Abraham 3:23). During earth life, the soul is joined with a physical body (see Abraham 5:7). At death, the soul leaves the body and goes to the spirit world to await resurrection (see Alma 40:11–14). In the Resurrection, the body and soul are inseparably connected, which is called "the redemption of the soul" (see Alma 40:23; D&C 88:15–16). - [link to www.lds.org]

Moses 3:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew. For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth. For I, the Lord God, had not caused it to rain upon the face of the earth. And I, the Lord God, had created all the children of men; and not yet a man to till the ground; for in heaven created I them; and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water, neither in the air;

HardTruth has seen through the deception again.
[link to www.godlikeproductions.com]

MC

I don't think anyone else brought this up:

Didn't God personally breathe another breath into Man? I seem to remember a repetition in the process of creating Man.

Making Man special, but having more in common with animals than we often act like we do.

Let me be clear, I am what you may consider a 'fundie.' I would not call myself that however. I believe the Bible is the word of God. Perfect and complete. If that means I am a 'fundie' to some people, then I guess that's what I am to some.

The irony of this thread is startling.

How do you analyse Hebrew with no discussion of gematria?

In the beginning = ראשית = 911


The Symbolism of the Hebrew Language
[link to www.godlikeproductions.com]



Read it and tremble is what I say.

In the midst of Second Degree Doom,
:clock::clock: 
per the TimeTable of Doom

The TToD is based on numerology. Numerology is pure bullshit, therefore TTod is bullshit.


9:33 And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record. - [link to skepticsannotatedbible.com]

The Symbolism of the Hebrew Language
The written Hebrew language captures the original concept of God's program. It is the only language that survived after the confusion of Babel to retain some of its original design.

Many Bible verses contain hidden or confirming messages buried within the text that are revealed when overlaid or analyzed with what I call the Hebrew Alphabet Number System. As stated elsewhere, each letter of the Hebrew alphabet contains three dimensions:

1. They are simply common letters that make up words.
2. Each letter also expresses a symbolic concept.
3. Each letter represents a mathematical value.

After the destruction of the First Temple in ancient Israel, the Hebrew language was no longer used. It was exchanged for Aramaic and later Greek. Those languages do not incorporate the above three linguistic dimensions that were embodied in the original text. Therefore, in order to understand the complete message of biblical prophecy, we must study some details of the original Hebrew Alphabet Number System.

"each letter of the Hebrew alphabet contains three dimensions"
[link to 74.125.155.132]

Linguistic dimensions are also apparent in the TimeTable of Doom.

This subject WAS added to my Log of Direct Links: [link to www.godlikeproductions.com]

MC 

Let me be clear, I am what you may consider a 'fundie.' I would not call myself that however. I believe the Bible is the word of God. Perfect and complete. If that means I am a 'fundie' to some people, then I guess that's what I am to some.




What is your opinion on the OP then?

Let me be clear, I am what you may consider a 'fundie.' I would not call myself that however. I believe the Bible is the word of God. Perfect and complete. If that means I am a 'fundie' to some people, then I guess that's what I am to some.




What is your opinion on the OP then?

OK. Well, I would say it in a different way though. I would say that anyone who has an issue, or becomes emotionally upset with the original post article is most likely going to be a person who is not sure WHY they believe what they believe in the first place.

If a person understands why they believe the Bible is the word of God, and they are very sure about that, then I do not think that person will get upset or angry about any skepticism.

In fact, if we understand why we believe what we believe, whatever that is, then skepticism should not be a problem. It is by and through this process we are able to test our own beliefs and see if they hold up. If they do, great.

If we are not applying what we believe to real life, then what good is that belief? It would be only lip service and a fantasy. We can say many things, but, it is what we do that says the most.

How we actually respond to conflict or challenges is a pretty good sign that reveals much of where we are in that process of applying what we believe to our own life. If our words say, "I've really got it together" but the behavior says otherwise, we can know there is a disconnect between words and deeds.

So, I can tell much by how a person responds. Anybody can tell, if they are aware of all the above.


Nice reply.

Let me be clear, I am what you may consider a 'fundie.' I would not call myself that however. I believe the Bible is the word of God. Perfect and complete. If that means I am a 'fundie' to some people, then I guess that's what I am to some.




What is your opinion on the OP then?


I can only respond to what I read from him.

He appears to be someone in seach of answers but has rejected that from which the answers are given, the Word of God. I went back to read some of his other posts and there does not appear to be a lot of indendant thought. I am sure he is a good person, but we know that GOOD has nothing to do with being saved from the judgment to come.

I as well am a "fundie" if that is a word. Having been educated under "liberal" schools of theology, I realized what a terrible mistake that kind of thinking can lead to and now I am what most refer to as a fundamentalist.

Most people use that as a bad word but I glory in it. So, if you choose to call me that, I thank you in advance for the compliment!!!!!!!!

A "fundamentalist" is actually one who believes in the FUNDAMENTALS OF THE SCRIPTURES......ie,
1. Jesus is the Creator.
2. The Virgin birth.
3. The Trinity.
4. Jesus is the Christ/Messiah.
5. Man is a sinner.
6. ONLY Jesus can save man from the judgment.
7. Hell is just as real as heaven.
8. Jesus is coming again.

Those are just a few of the fundamentals of Chrisanity.

Let me be clear, I am what you may consider a 'fundie.' I would not call myself that however. I believe the Bible is the word of God. Perfect and complete. If that means I am a 'fundie' to some people, then I guess that's what I am to some.




What is your opinion on the OP then?


Well, my opinion is that the article was written by a Bible skeptic who is concerned with disproving the Bible. The content of the article, and the fact he acted to write the article, tells me this.

The article does not contain any points or arguments that I have not already heard, examined, and determined answers for prior to today.

I think that people can either take the time to examine the article, immediately dismiss the article, agree with the article, disagree, etc. etc.

And, I think that in the end, it will matter to no one but ourselves what we choose to do with any information we come across in this life.

What is your opinion on the OP?

How we actually respond to conflict or challenges is a pretty good sign that reveals much of where we are in that process of applying what we believe to our own life. If our words say, "I've really got it together" but the behavior says otherwise, we can know there is a disconnect between words and deeds.

So, I can tell much by how a person responds. Anybody can tell, if they are aware of all the above.


Nice reply.





YES, well said.

I would also add that when you begin to see anger, and then personal attacks, that person has lost the battle and shifted the focus to something he feels more comfortable with.

Let me be clear, I am what you may consider a 'fundie.' I would not call myself that however. I believe the Bible is the word of God. Perfect and complete. If that means I am a 'fundie' to some people, then I guess that's what I am to some.




What is your opinion on the OP then?


I can only respond to what I read from him.

He appears to be someone in seach of answers but has rejected that from which the answers are given, the Word of God. I went back to read some of his other posts and there does not appear to be a lot of indendant thought. I am sure he is a good person, but we know that GOOD has nothing to do with being saved from the judgment to come.

I as well am a "fundie" if that is a word. Having been educated under "liberal" schools of theology, I realized what a terrible mistake that kind of thinking can lead to and now I am what most refer to as a fundamentalist.

Most people use that as a bad word but I glory in it. So, if you choose to call me that, I thank you in advance for the compliment!!!!!!!!

A "fundamentalist" is actually one who believes in the FUNDAMENTALS OF THE SCRIPTURES......ie,
1. Jesus is the Creator.
2. The Virgin birth.
3. The Trinity.
4. Jesus is the Christ/Messiah.
5. Man is a sinner.
6. ONLY Jesus can save man from the judgment.
7. Hell is just as real as heaven.
8. Jesus is coming again.

Those are just a few of the fundamentals of Chrisanity.


well what I am asking is what do you make of the multiplicity of Gods in the Torah (first 5 books) - it is there, no doubt about it. I am well aware that by the time of the Prophets, and Poetry Books, the Jews narrowed their view down to one God.

So as a proud fundie do you see the Bible as one people's view of God, that gradually and rationally evolved to Monotheism (read the Torah carefully, you will see that they were figuring it out as they went along) or do you subscribe to the narrow paradigm of traditional American Fundamentalism (re-working the Bible to fit your own needs, cherry picking verses, totally over looking the historicty of the Jewish writings, etc).

Let me be clear, I am what you may consider a 'fundie.' I would not call myself that however. I believe the Bible is the word of God. Perfect and complete. If that means I am a 'fundie' to some people, then I guess that's what I am to some.


What is your opinion on the OP then?


Well, my opinion is that the article was written by a Bible skeptic who is concerned with disproving the Bible. The content of the article, and the fact he acted to write the article, tells me this.

The article does not contain any points or arguments that I have not already heard, examined, and determined answers for prior to today.

I think that people can either take the time to examine the article, immediately dismiss the article, agree with the article, disagree, etc. etc.

And, I think that in the end, it will matter to no one but ourselves what we choose to do with any information we come across in this life.

What is your opinion on the OP?


YES, I agree completly. Nothing new there at all.

Hardtruth copied and pasted the article from "hiddenmysteries.org" which is an atheist website in Dallas Tex.

He is therefore by association an atheist as well. I can, have and do debate with non-believers up to the point where they start to become angry and obnocious.

I don't see the big deal, throughout the OT the singular God is constantly referred to as the LORD OF HOSTS - which infers there are other God-like beings who He is King over. Furthermore, the JPS (Jewish Publication Society) does a good job in translating the plural to "divine beings" -

I know most Christians like pointing this out to be the Trinity, but that is back tracking a little bit and is not necessary to believe in Jesus and is a bit disrespectful to the original authors.

Yeah, it does suck.

But just because you do know some of these words, doesn't mean you don't twist things to your viewpoint either.


I never twist, but I do so enjoy untwisting the so called infallible word!!



___________



Your path of discovery has
found the truth again.

Soul
In scripture, the term soul is used as a synonym for spirit to describe a person in four different phases of his or her eternal existence. Soul is used to describe a person in premortal life—before birth (see Abraham 3:23). During earth life, the soul is joined with a physical body (see Abraham 5:7). At death, the soul leaves the body and goes to the spirit world to await resurrection (see Alma 40:11–14). In the Resurrection, the body and soul are inseparably connected, which is called "the redemption of the soul" (see Alma 40:23; D&C 88:15–16). - [link to www.lds.org]

Moses 3:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew. For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth. For I, the Lord God, had not caused it to rain upon the face of the earth. And I, the Lord God, had created all the children of men; and not yet a man to till the ground; for in heaven created I them; and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water, neither in the air;

HardTruth has seen through the deception again.
[link to www.godlikeproductions.com]

MC


WOW>..a Mormon agreeing with an atheist on spiritual matters.

Proves once again that Mormonism IS NOT CHRISTIANITY!!!