Neo:
You are in a state of denial. You guys arehypocrites and can't take a straight statement.
Revelation 22:16
I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star
You may deny all you want but Revelation definitely identify Jesus as Morningstar and Morningstar is Lucifer or Helel.
Surely you cannot be serious that you believe Jesus is Lucifer?
So, if Jesus is Lucifer in the Book of Revelation, who then is the Beast?
Why not?
Jesus is mirroring God as stated in Isaiah 14 and in the comparison statements. Why are pretending to act dumb? Can't you accept what theBible says about Jesus. That was alsofortold about one who would arise acting like God. Do you think Jesus is God? If so that is the proof. Lucifer fooled you thinking he is God.
Linkat wrote:The Bible was written by man, not by God, so there in of itself leads that the word of God may not have been written perfectly. Hopefully, I am not struck down dead by saying that. In addition, the Bible was written by different writers over an extensive period of time.
Secondly, the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic while the New Testament was in Greek. These are the original languages of the Holy Bible from which all the translations are derived. God's inspiration is confined to the original languages and utterances, not the many translations.
There are 1,300 languages and dialects into which the Holy Bible, in its entirety or in portions, has been translated. This does not mean that the translations do not convey the meaning of the Bible. The translations depend upon the translator to use the proper words and phrases to render meaning as close as possible to the text of the original language. It is well-known that a new translation is more or less a new interpretation. For instance, in the English language there are many translations and renderings with different words and phrases, which imply that one translation differs from the other.
Unique characteristics such as idioms and colloquialisms make it impossible for an accurate translation of the meaning of the original Language. Therefore, the translations should be used for, the spiritual guidance of the believers.
But the simple truth is that, Truth does not change and the word of God would be Truth because 'God is Truth.' And so no matter if the original word was translated, retreived or changed, it would remain the same because Truth does not change. So if something changed, it could not have been the word of God.
Once you realize that Jesus is not God then the prophecy has been fulfilled as he has certainly fallen from heaven. He is no longer God.
However, I like Christianity as Jesus preaches about other things that are very good. So if Jesus is not God does it matter? It doesn't. Consider Jesus as a prophet or a philosopher and I would be comfortable. The claim that Jesus is God is wrong but his techings are valuable. Christianity would not die because Jesus is not God. Look at Islam Mohammed is no God. He is considered a prophet. There are many things in Islam I do not like but Mohammed makes no claim that he is God.
cicerone imposter wrote:neo, I know your heart is in the right place. My brother offered to buy me one just last weekend on christmas day at his daughter's home.
It seems quite evident that you have missed timber's post about bible interpretation. If "day" in the bible means something other than day as defined in most dictionaries, the author did a piss-poor job of communicating. If "day" doesn't mean day, it seems the reader is free to interpret "day" any way they wish that meets their own needs. That's not even sophistry; it's pure bullshet.
What is bullshet? Are we left to make our own interpretation?
According to a concordance, "day" in Genesis 1 comes from the word:
Quote:TWOT from an unused root meaning to be hot
) day, time, year
a) day (as opposed to night)
b) day (24 hour period)
1) as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1
2) as a division of time
a) a working day, a day's journey
c) days, lifetime (pl.)
d) time, period (general)
e) year
f) temporal references
1) today
2) yesterday
3) tomorrow
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/3/1135861993-8915.html
talk72000 wrote:Once you realize that Jesus is not God then the prophecy has been fulfilled as he has certainly fallen from heaven. He is no longer God.
Angels fall from heaven, not God. So if someone fell, it wasn't Yeshua because He's God. If God started falling from heaven we'd be nowhere because we're sustained by God. He looks after us. By the way following are only a few of the reasons why Yeshua is God -
"Love your enemy." Only God can love everyone.
'God is love.' He was all just love, gave love and lived a life of love.
"I'm the way and the truth and the life." 'God is Truth.'
"I and the Father are one." He must have identified completely with God and so come the closest to understanding Him.
Etcetera.
Beena - The word of God hasn't necessarily changed - it is man's interpretation of the word that has changed.
I have to admit that Revelation is my least favorite book in the Bible because it is so ambiguous. The whole thing is a vision filled with symbolic language which pertained to the people of the day. You can't really just read it and understand it, you have understand the meanings of the figurative language bearing in mind the times. Personally I don't buy into most of the modern day explanations of the second kingdom and Jesus ruling for a thousand years, bla, bla... for the simple reason that in the beginning it said, events which will shortly come to pass. Other than that though, the whole thing is just too mysterious for my taste and I avoid the book and the debate like the plague.
Quote:Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified [it] by his angel unto his servant John:
Momma Angel wrote:I have quit reading anything that isn't his own words. He doesn't believe in the Bible but he will post what Bible scholars say? I haven't got a clue as to what he really thinks.
Which is exactly how I feel about posts that quote scripture without an opinion expressed by the poster.
Okay-interpret this-
"Moreover the Lord saith,Because the daughters of Zion are haughty,and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes,walking and mincing as they go,and making a tinkling with their feet:
Therefore the Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion,and the Lord will discover their secret parts.
In that day the Lord will take away the bravery of their tinkling ornaments about their feet,and their cauls,and their round tires like the moon,
The chains,and the bracelets,and the mufflers,
The bonnets,and the ornaments of the legs,and the headbands,and the tablets,and the earrings,
The rings and nose jewels,
The changeable suits of apparel,and the mantles,and the wimples,and the crisping pins,
The glasses,and the fine linen,and the hoods,and the vails.
And it shall come to pass,that instead of sweet smell there shall be stink;and instead of a girdle a rent;and instead of well set hair baldness;and instead of a stomacher a girding of sackcloth;and burning instead of beauty.
Thy men shall fall by the sword,and thy mighty in the war.
And her gates shall lament and mourn;and she being desolate shall sit upon the ground."
Verses 16 to 26 (inc) of Chapter 3 of Isaiah.
A brief study of media and even one of Manhattan shopping areas ought to provide an insight into the Biblical nature of American society and also of my own.
One might easily imagine the fashionable dress of the ladies on the ID side in the court at Dover.
Momma Angel wrote:Surely you cannot be serious that you believe Jesus is Lucifer?
So, if Jesus is Lucifer in the Book of Revelation, who then is the Beast?
I love it that the majority of the laws and rules written plainly down in the bible require 'interpretation', while you blindly accept that the most wheels-off book of the bible is to be taken literally.
Questioner wrote:Implicator wrote:Questioner wrote:Implicator wrote:
I suspect any Christian is going to challenge anything they disagree with. The problem here is that there is nobody at the other end of the challenge to respond.
I
CI, stirring the pot up once again.
Some would suggest that the overabundance of material and items being challenged would point towards a flimsy belief system.
Some might suggest that the hang nail on my left big toe would point towards a flimsy belief system. The challenge for such people doing said suggesting is to support their suggestion.
I
Alright.
Let me pose it to you this way:
You are about to board an airplane. You see your pilot at the gateway and immediately recognize him as the single best pilot in the world. Just the mere sight of this pilot fills you with ease.
From your vantage point you can also see the airplane on which you will be flying. It only has 1 wing, a rather obvious oil leak, a hole about 2 feet in diameter in the fuselage and several missing windows.
The question: Do you trust the pilot enough to ignore the condition of the plane in which you will be entrusting your life? Do you believe in his abilities to force that plane to hold together?
The bible is the airplane. It is riddled with contradictions and ambiguity, yet you(generalization) are content to merely argue semantics and what you 'disagree' with, all the while strapping on the seatbelt and taxiing to the runway. I consider this to be idiocy of the highest order, yet it is labeled 'faith'.
The fact that there are so many 'challenges' to be had points directly to the fact that for all the arguing, bickering, debate, and what-not amongst theologians, scholars, and your average believer, the thing you believe in is about as solid an airplane with one wing.
Questioner, I always appreciate your thoughtful perspective.
As an aside, I will be spending the next few days getting caught up on a number of projects that I've let fall behind, in part from spending too much time on A2K
, let me take this opportunity to wish you all a Happy New Year.
My spiritual resolution for 2006 is too dedicate time each day to being mindful by beginning a habit of peaceful meditation.
May the coming year fill your hearts with the blessings of peace and joy in your lives.
Beena wrote:Linkat wrote:The Bible was written by man, not by God, so there in of itself leads that the word of God may not have been written perfectly. Hopefully, I am not struck down dead by saying that. In addition, the Bible was written by different writers over an extensive period of time.
Secondly, the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic while the New Testament was in Greek. These are the original languages of the Holy Bible from which all the translations are derived. God's inspiration is confined to the original languages and utterances, not the many translations.
There are 1,300 languages and dialects into which the Holy Bible, in its entirety or in portions, has been translated. This does not mean that the translations do not convey the meaning of the Bible. The translations depend upon the translator to use the proper words and phrases to render meaning as close as possible to the text of the original language. It is well-known that a new translation is more or less a new interpretation. For instance, in the English language there are many translations and renderings with different words and phrases, which imply that one translation differs from the other.
Unique characteristics such as idioms and colloquialisms make it impossible for an accurate translation of the meaning of the original Language. Therefore, the translations should be used for, the spiritual guidance of the believers.
But the simple truth is that, Truth does not change and the word of God would be Truth because 'God is Truth.' And so no matter if the original word was translated, retreived or changed, it would remain the same because Truth does not change. So if something changed, it could not have been the word of God.
The word, homosexual is a recent word that appeared in the 20th Century. Yet it is now included in the Bible (or at least, one of the versions I read). Earlier versions of Deutronomy talk mostly about "male lying with a male as if he was a female" being forbidden, which is not the same as homosexuality.
Homosexuality is a person of one gender falling in love and possibly having sex with another person of the same gender. It is far more than a male lying with a male. It could also be female lying with a female. The earlier versions does not forbid female homosexuality.
There, the so called word of God has been perverted recently in modern times. Before it was talking about a specific act, a male treating another as if he was a woman. Submitting him to humiliation through a sexual act. Upon the introduction of the word homosexual into the Bible, the meaning changes to include relationships that are loving with no humiliation.
That is why Bible elective classes should study different translations of Bible and earlier versions of the Bible. Studying just one is no use.
It is like judging humanity in general by looking at just one human being.
Wolf I agree with you completely. I think many people just take the word verbatim from the King James Version and think that this the word of God. To understand the Bible you need to look at the various versions and interpretations and actually think for yourself.
Disclaimer:
This is my message for both sides of the aisle. If the shoe fits. . .
If you need a whole page of material, quoted or otherwise, to make a point capable of being stated in a single sentence, your proposition suffers from argumentum ad avalanchium. (New word; Do you like?)
Even if you do have 50 valid points, you do a disservice to others by whipping them all into an unintelligible whirlwind.
Neat word - I like it. Good point, too, neo.
Heck of it is; now I have to abide by it myself.
