Children of Israel

(And, soul, you are coming in a lot clearer -- please don't revert).

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

They way it is explained by the clergy, the Bible was written by secretaries taking down dictation from God. You'd think he would have already had a word processor if he invented the Universe.

Which would be a good argument against a believing christian, 'witty logic' like that is closer to truth than lie.

0 Replies

I think I would get some nervous laughter with little understanding of the concept.

0 Replies

One may read a thing carefully and critically, and remain unconvinced, soul_doc. That one rejects a premise does not entail that one be ignorant of it ... from an intellectual honesty point of view, the contrary is the more valid case, as informed dissent is of more probity than either blind acceptance or uncritical rejection.

0 Replies

soul_doctor73 wrote:

It is english. Literal history actually. If you are unfamiliar with it, how I *know* the OT is the word of Elohim will make no sense to you either.

Now if you took the time to research 'Elohim', you'd see where I was coming from. I am not going to sit here and attempt to 'educate' you when you distrust me in the first place. So don't even ask.

Respectfully, of course. Oh, now if you had read my 'Something of a Revelation' It covers all this in part two. Elohim, Annunaki, Israel, some other stuff. But you didn't read it. Which is why you have absolutely no idea what I am talking about. Which as been the case from the beginning.

You didn't read.

Doc, you really shouldn't try this kind of thing. You're not nearly up to it.

Most of your stuff I don't read. You are correct about that. I have discovered that you think putting words into sentences is the same as "saying something."

It isn't.

I repeat my question:

How do you KNOW that the Old Testament is the word of God -- NO MATTER HOW YOU TRY TO DEFINE GOD?

Try giving an answer instead of an evasion this time.

And to show you "my heart is in the right place" -- lemme give you a hand.

It is almost certain that you do not KNOW anything of the sort -- and your best, most ethical course of action would be to simply acknowledge that.

Of course, there is the tiny chance that you do KNOW it.

If so, please explain.

By the way -- I do not "distrust" you. I think you are a person on an ego trip who says things he/she cannot back up -- in other words, a blowhard.

But distrust?

Nah. I don't take you seriously enough yet for that.

0 Replies

So you say Frank. 'Use my definition to answe *my* question. I demand it! I know better than you!'

Lol. As for how you perceive it. That's cool too. It really doesn't matter what you think frank. And since you have made it so plain that what I think doesn't matter either, why are you *still* here?

Love to hear yourself echo? Like the sound of reading back your posts? Get a kick out of feeling superior? That's what I gather. Either that, or you are bored. But suffice it to say, I'd appreciate it if your tired opinion exited. You've stated it more than once. How many times must you declare it before you are satisfied that you have been heard?

I suppose I have been too considerate. Giving you audience and all by replying to you each time. So, take me even less seriously. Your attentions are beginning to disturb me.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

One may read a thing carefully and critically, and remain unconvinced, soul_doc. That one rejects a premise does not entail that one be ignorant of it ... from an intellectual honesty point of view, the contrary is the more valid case, as informed dissent is of more probity than either blind acceptance or uncritical rejection.

If informed dissent it be, then please supply your informative dissention. I see you have avoided the question of 'merit' still. Seems that your information is either lacking or inferior. Either way, you haven't supplied the first piece.

Do begin with my 'premise'.

0 Replies

The core of my "dissent" is that the critical treatment pertinent to the issue, of which I am broadly (though certainly not exhaustively)informed, is contraindicative of the legitimacy claims of any religion. In thatI have no faith in the paranormal, it having to this point not been established, at least to my satisfaction, unambiguously to exist, unless and untill such circumstance occurs as would alter my faith or lack thereof in regards the paranormal, my opinion will remain that the paranormal is unproven, and therefore unevidential in body and being.

0 Replies

Wow, that is a boxcar sentence with an especially decorative caboose.

0 Replies

soul_doctor73 wrote:

So you say Frank. 'Use my definition to answe *my* question. I demand it! I know better than you!'

Lol. As for how you perceive it. That's cool too. It really doesn't matter what you think frank. And since you have made it so plain that what I think doesn't matter either, why are you *still* here?

Love to hear yourself echo? Like the sound of reading back your posts? Get a kick out of feeling superior? That's what I gather. Either that, or you are bored. But suffice it to say, I'd appreciate it if your tired opinion exited. You've stated it more than once. How many times must you declare it before you are satisfied that you have been heard?

I suppose I have been too considerate. Giving you audience and all by replying to you each time. So, take me even less seriously. Your attentions are beginning to disturb me.

Wouldn't it have been easier for you to write:

I can't think of an answer that won't be laughed at, so I'm going to avoid your question?

Certainly that one sentence would capture the spirit of what you said.

0 Replies

Only according to Frank Apisa.

0 Replies

Nah, Doc, I think you are just chicken to answer because you know your response wouldn't stand up to the laugh test.

Do one is buying your nonsense.

Show me I'm wrong!

Answer my question.

How do you KNOW that the Old Testament is the word of God -- NO MATTER HOW YOU TRY TO DEFINE GOD?

By the way, Gato, since I am telling you to define God any way you want, don't you think it is rather idiotic to suggest I am forcing a definition on you.

0 Replies

No, I doubt anything would stand up to Frank Apisa, unless of course Frank stood it up himself.

As I said before, and regardless of how you perceive my 'definition' to be. Elohim means 'gods and godesses', plural. Not singular. And so, that means a whole lot of Elohim. And that further means, *YOU* really have to understand what Elohim *are* before I can even begin to answer your question.

It is your intelligence that is at question here, Frank. Not mine. There is GOD and then there are 'gods'. Follow? Oh wait, no. You're agnostic. Elohim, for all intents and purposes, *is* 'God' to you because that is all you 'know'. And coupled with the fact that you don't belive in 'GOD', what 'Elohim' *are* is equally meaningless to you. So why decry my definition of God when you don't know what you are talking about?

Hopefully, this has convinced you that 'Elohim' and 'GOD' are not one and the same. So ends this lesson in hebrew translation.

Understand *now*, Frank?

0 Replies

That all still begs the question, soul_doc ... Just who says there is a God or any gods or goddesses, period? Don't it strike ya just a little odd that a purported entity of universal consciousness and overall solicitous sentiment toward humanity would be so damned ambiguous, seemingly arbitrary, and evidently exclusionary? I have lots of trouble with that ... sorta like tryin' ta make water run uphill all by itself, and into the wind ta boot, seems ta me. 'Course, while I ain't big on miracles, I s'pose you could always drag them into the discussion too.

0 Replies

You are using human terms to describe what humans have 'believed'. Maybe this is why you are agnostic, or whatever. Evidently, you confuse speculation with fact. Religion isn't fact, and this isn't about religion. It is about religion to you because you are simply acting on assumption.

For instance: "Don't it strike ya just a little odd that a purported entity of universal consciousness and overall solicitous sentiment toward humanity would be so damned ambiguous, seemingly arbitrary, and evidently exclusionary?"

Why did you decide to use these exact terms? Case in point: evidently? Based on what 'evidence'?
Purported? By whom? 'Seemingly' arbitrary? By who's standard? Ambiguous? In what way?

What is further telling, your use of the words 'humanity, universal, overall, and conciousness' in your comment. Each of your comments are based on personal opinion or reflection upon someone else's opinion, but you wrap up multiple opinions into one basket.

It is not odd to me that you would surmise your belief system and then apply it to the world as a 'universal representation' of what you perceive 'reality' to be. If you find it odd that 'purported' information is not quite accurate, was it not you who initially decided to use the information, for good or ill? I did not name 'them' Elohim, nor did I mistranslate the word for you. Further more, I do not define 'god' as you do. So we are talking apples and oranges. Certainly, they are both fruit, but that is where the similarities end.

0 Replies

Certainly, they are both fruit...

Then God is gay?

0 Replies

soul_doctor73 wrote:

No, I doubt anything would stand up to Frank Apisa, unless of course Frank stood it up himself.

As I said before, and regardless of how you perceive my 'definition' to be. Elohim means 'gods and godesses', plural. Not singular. And so, that means a whole lot of Elohim. And that further means, *YOU* really have to understand what Elohim *are* before I can even begin to answer your question.

It is your intelligence that is at question here, Frank. Not mine. There is GOD and then there are 'gods'. Follow? Oh wait, no. You're agnostic. Elohim, for all intents and purposes, *is* 'God' to you because that is all you 'know'. And coupled with the fact that you don't belive in 'GOD', what 'Elohim' *are* is equally meaningless to you. So why decry my definition of God when you don't know what you are talking about?

Hopefully, this has convinced you that 'Elohim' and 'GOD' are not one and the same. So ends this lesson in hebrew translation.

Understand *now*, Frank?

The answer to your last question, Doc, is "NO." And that has nothing to do with my intelligence which I am quite sure surpasses yours by a considerable margin.

In any case, you just said, "Hopefully, this has convinced you that 'Elohim' and 'GOD' are not one and the same. So ends this lesson in hebrew translation."

What made you think that was in doubt? And why create that straw man? Why not deal with the question that was asked?

Originally you said:

Quote:

...Understanding that the bible, although certainly the word of God...

...

...and I asked you how you knew that to be true.

Now you have gone (several times, in fact) through a whole bunch of bullshit about Elohim. But you still have not answered the question:

HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT "THE BIBLE IS CERTAINLY THE WORD OF GOD?"

Lemme clue you in on something, Doc.

It is abundantly apparent that you don't know! And if you had any sense of ethics and/or honesty at all, you would simply have acknowledged that when my question originally came up.

Instead you have been trying, exceedingly unsuccessfully, to weasel your way around the question.

If you are doing this for entertainment purposes -- I thank you. I am enjoying it as much as I have ever enjoyed any give and take in A2K. You are hilarious.

But if you are doing it in a bona fide attempt to pull the wool over anyone's eyes -- you are a fool.

Guess which I think it is?

0 Replies

soul_doctor73 wrote:

It is english. Literal history actually. If you are unfamiliar with it, how I *know* the OT is the word of Elohim will make no sense to you either.

Then you don't "know". Knowledge must be based on objective experience and fact. Faith and belief don't equate to knowledge, they only create more faith and belief.

If you want to claim to "know" this, please present your objective evidence to support it.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

soul_doctor73 wrote:
No, I doubt anything would stand up to Frank Apisa, unless of course Frank stood it up himself.

As I said before, and regardless of how you perceive my 'definition' to be. Elohim means 'gods and godesses', plural. Not singular. And so, that means a whole lot of Elohim. And that further means, *YOU* really have to understand what Elohim *are* before I can even begin to answer your question.

It is your intelligence that is at question here, Frank. Not mine. There is GOD and then there are 'gods'. Follow? Oh wait, no. You're agnostic. Elohim, for all intents and purposes, *is* 'God' to you because that is all you 'know'. And coupled with the fact that you don't belive in 'GOD', what 'Elohim' *are* is equally meaningless to you. So why decry my definition of God when you don't know what you are talking about?

Hopefully, this has convinced you that 'Elohim' and 'GOD' are not one and the same. So ends this lesson in hebrew translation.

Understand *now*, Frank?

The answer to your last question, Doc, is "NO." And that has nothing to do with my intelligence which I am quite sure surpasses yours by a considerable margin.

In any case, you just said, "Hopefully, this has convinced you that 'Elohim' and 'GOD' are not one and the same. So ends this lesson in hebrew translation."

What made you think that was in doubt? And why create that straw man? Why not deal with the question that was asked?

Originally you said:

Quote:
...Understanding that the bible, although certainly the word of God...
...

...and I asked you how you knew that to be true.

Now you have gone (several times, in fact) through a whole bunch of bullshit about Elohim. But you still have not answered the question:

HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT "THE BIBLE IS CERTAINLY THE WORD OF GOD?"

Lemme clue you in on something, Doc.

It is abundantly apparent that you don't know! And if you had any sense of ethics and/or honesty at all, you would simply have acknowledged that when my question originally came up.

Instead you have been trying, exceedingly unsuccessfully, to weasel your way around the question.

If you are doing this for entertainment purposes -- I thank you. I am enjoying it as much as I have ever enjoyed any give and take in A2K. You are hilarious.

But if you are doing it in a bona fide attempt to pull the wool over anyone's eyes -- you are a fool.

Guess which I think it is?

It is abundantly apparent that Frank Apisa don't know jack. At least not the Jack I know. Frank Apisa is a spark of intelligence amid a raging inferno, but Frank Apisa has no clue. Frank Apisa thinks that the World According to Frank Apisa is truth, and nothing but the truth, so Help Frank Apisa.

As for entertainment, I think the Frank Apisa Show is doing well enough. Besides, it is hard to compete with a professionals like Frank Apisa. Fool or no.

Let me clue you in on something: what kind of dreams do you have Frank Apisa? Ever have one that makes no sense? That is what talkng to you is like Frank Apisa. You're sleepwaking. Sleeping in your talk. Yep. No mistake.

0 Replies

Cephus wrote:

soul_doctor73 wrote:
It is english. Literal history actually. If you are unfamiliar with it, how I *know* the OT is the word of Elohim will make no sense to you either.

Then you don't "know". Knowledge must be based on objective experience and fact. Faith and belief don't equate to knowledge, they only create more faith and belief.

If you want to claim to "know" this, please present your objective evidence to support it.

The Oxford Dictionary: Knowledge:n. 1a) Familiarity, awareness, or understanding gained through experience or study. 1b) A person's range of information. 2a) Understanding of a subject, language, etc. 2b) The sum of what is known.

Now here it doesn't say anything about 'objective' or 'fact'. And I've given you 'objective' evidence to boot. A dictionary.

0 Replies

Children of Israel

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know