Bible verse by verse

[Guest]

Naaman sees that there is ONLY ONE GOD, as only this Lord of Israel had the ability to heal him.

Yeah, this is just rhetoric, like calling Assyria a "non-people," or saying all people who make idols are "nothing and less than nothing." He also points out that that one God is only in Israel. Looks like the rest of the earth has no access to any deities at all. Kinda sad.

Naaman wanted to take some soil back so that he might honor God with sacrifices as though done in Israel.

Yes, reflecting the notion that the deity was restricted to its homeland.

I told you before that the Israelites had drifted into paganism and had become superstitious. They feared other gods, but not because other gods had any power.

But 2 Kgs 3:27 shows they absolutely were thought to have power, even by authors of the biblical texts.

The Israelites were their own worst enemy and their own fears harmed them. God Says "I AM." Another way to say the same thing is, "They're Not."

No, that's not another way to say the same thing.

The Bible doesn't even give ground to Satan.

He's one of the sons of God (Job 1:6; 2:1), and he's obviously a deity.

You are listening to teachers who do not know God and are trying their best to cast doubt on the Bible as God's Word.

No, I'm reading the texts for what they say and not what a tradition says.

Mormonism builds upon the Book of Mormon as it attempts to reduce the Bible to its level. In other words, the Book of Mormon is nothing but borrowed and made-up tales, and so the Bible must be demonstrated to be the very same (which it can never be).

Thanks for that, but it doesn't address my claims.

Satan is the Cherub God placed in charge of the Earth. The "sons of God" can refers to either angelic beings or human believers. While they may represent God, they are not God in the all powerful, eternal, creator from nothing sense of the word. Interpretations ALWAYS have some point of origin. If one is told that such means such'n such ----- one is likely going to apply that meaning to the pleasure of one's professor/teacher.

[Guest]

I don't see this fraud.

So as far as you're concerned, up means down, right means left, and good means evil. Gotcha. While you're certainly entitled to your own opinions, you're not entitled to your own facts.

These are but educated considerations or possibilities.

No--to assert that "田" represents the Garden of Eden is a clear prevarication. It's like saying cat means dog.

It is like the theory of evolution.

No, this is in no way related to Evolution.

I do not see evolutionists as frauds, what I see is a genuine misunderstanding of data and nothing more.

I'm sure you do, seeing as how you know as little about Evolution as you do about Chinese etymology.

The Book of Mormon is a fraud, as it is not ancient but dates to about the time of the Great Revival, but was promoted as ancient scripture text --- which is most obvious that it is not.

The same applies in equal measure to the Bible's supernatural claims and many of its historical claims.

[_LittleNipper]

I do not see evolutionists as frauds, what I see is a genuine misunderstanding of data and nothing more.

There is a Hungarian saying:
Bagoly mondja verébnek, hogy nagyfejű. = The owl tells the sparrow that her head is big.

Hungarians speak to owls?

[_The Erotic Apologist]

Hungarians speak to owls?

Nipper, why do you find it so difficult to denounce Christians who engage in pious fraud?

[_Roger]

I think it's certainly possible, but not likely. The notion of a vow to sacrifice the first thing that comes through the door of you home to greet you when you get home? And you're shocked when it's a family member? That's just silly. That ancient Israelites practiced child sacrifice is pretty well established, though.

As abhorrent as it sounds, the notion that some Isrealites practiced child sacrifice is not problematic (at least in terms of threatening modern orthodoxy) because the practice is clearly condemned in scripture so they would have been operating outside of YHWH's commands. The idea that in Isreal's early history, YHWH himself commanded it is highly problematic. If your analysis is correct, then even Ezekiel realized it was a problem in his day. Ezekiel's solution sounds pretty weak to me, but unless "you shall give me your first born sons" means "dedicate them in service to me" I see no other alternative. Just because I see no other alternative at this point doesn't mean there isn't one, but it bothers me, nonetheless.

It's creepy, but it doesn't bother me on a devotional level. It was a completely different world back then. I can't fathom having survived in such a world on dozens of different levels.

"Creepy" is an understatement. It's abhorrent and it does bother me on a devotional level. Yes, it was a completely different world back then and we can easily lose sight of that, but it supposedly wasn't a different God. I can't reconcile it if YHWH commanded it. Such a command is too inconsistent with the characteristics of the God I've been taught to believe in. The LDS God changes his mind frequently but not the orthodox God. Ezekiel's solution is weak, but it's all I can see at this point.

Is that the NIV? That's not the best translation of this verse.

No, it's the NEB.

No, it's definitely Ezekiel's own spin on the practice. Exod 22 is pretty nonchalant. That's just the way it is in the eyes of that author.

Mak, again, I'm not a scholar and obviously you are. I see no reason to doubt what you're saying - other than you're LDS and, coincidentally what you're saying is less problematic for the LDS God than the orthodox God - but if what you're saying is true, it really makes me question things.

Not really. I don't view the Bible as inerrant or unilaterally God's word. I believe there's as much human influence as divine.

I actually agree with you that the Bible does not have to be "inerrant" in order for God to use it and speak through it. Obviously God can use flawed humans to proclaim his message. What is problematic, however, is when humans claim to speak for God by actually proclaiming "Thus says the Lord" when they are not really getting inspiration from God. If one author says God commanded it and another says its abominable in God's eyes, there would seem to be a problem. Apparently Ezekiel recognized that problem and his solution is to suggest that God commanded what was abhorrent in his eyes out of disgust and exasperation in the hopes that the shock would produce the positive result of Isreal forsaking the abhorrent (but commanded) practice. This seems phenomenally weak. This would be about like Thomas Monson now proclaiming that God commanded Joseph Smith to take plural wives even though it was abhorrent to him, because he was disgusted with Joseph's constant desire to have additional wives and he knew the shock value would eventually produce a positive result.

[_maklelan]

I don't see this as fraud. These are but educated considerations or possibilities. It is like the theory of evolution.

No, this is absolutely nothing like the theory of evolution. This is demonstrably false, and the theory of evolution is demonstrably true.

I do not see evolutionists as frauds, what I see is a genuine misunderstanding of data and nothing more.

That's because you don't understand the data yourself.

The Book of Mormon is a fraud, as it is not ancient but dates to about the time of the Great Revival, but was promoted as ancient scripture text --- which is most obvious that it is not.

And the same can be said for the Bible. It is demonstrably not what it claims to be.

[_maklelan]

Satan is the Cherub

Nowhere is Satan ever described as a "Cherub."

God placed in charge of the Earth.

Nowhere is such a responsibility mentioned.

The "sons of God" can refers to either angelic beings or human believers.

Nowhere in the Hebrew Bible are the sons of God referred to as angels or as human believers. Both interpretations originated in the Greco-Roman period.

While they may represent God, they are not God in the all powerful, eternal, creator from nothing sense of the word.

Such a sense did not exist until well after the composition of the Bible.

Interpretations ALWAYS have some point of origin. If one is told that such means such'n such ----- one is likely going to apply that meaning to the pleasure of one's professor/teacher.

You continue to misrepresent me and my motivations after I directly asked you not to.

[_Servant]

I don't see this as fraud. These are but educated considerations or possibilities. It is like the theory of evolution.

No, this is absolutely nothing like the theory of evolution. This is demonstrably false, and the theory of evolution is demonstrably true.

I do not see evolutionists as frauds, what I see is a genuine misunderstanding of data and nothing more.

That's because you don't understand the data yourself.

The Book of Mormon is a fraud, as it is not ancient but dates to about the time of the Great Revival, but was promoted as ancient scripture text --- which is most obvious that it is not.

And the same can be said for the Bible. It is demonstrably not what it claims to be.

Since the Bible claims to be God's Word, and your CULT states that it is God's Word in so far as correctly translated, aren't you clearly at odds with the LDS on this subject?

[_Servant]

I think it's certainly possible, but not likely. The notion of a vow to sacrifice the first thing that comes through the door of you home to greet you when you get home? And you're shocked when it's a family member? That's just silly. That ancient Israelites practiced child sacrifice is pretty well established, though.

As abhorrent as it sounds, the notion that some Isrealites practiced child sacrifice is not problematic (at least in terms of threatening modern orthodoxy) because the practice is clearly condemned in scripture so they would have been operating outside of YHWH's commands. The idea that in Isreal's early history, YHWH himself commanded it is highly problematic. If your analysis is correct, then even Ezekiel realized it was a problem in his day. Ezekiel's solution sounds pretty weak to me, but unless "you shall give me your first born sons" means "dedicate them in service to me" I see no other alternative. Just because I see no other alternative at this point doesn't mean there isn't one, but it bothers me, nonetheless.

It's creepy, but it doesn't bother me on a devotional level. It was a completely different world back then. I can't fathom having survived in such a world on dozens of different levels.

"Creepy" is an understatement. It's abhorrent and it does bother me on a devotional level. Yes, it was a completely different world back then and we can easily lose sight of that, but it supposedly wasn't a different God. I can't reconcile it if YHWH commanded it. Such a command is too inconsistent with the characteristics of the God I've been taught to believe in. The LDS God changes his mind frequently but not the orthodox God. Ezekiel's solution is weak, but it's all I can see at this point.

Is that the NIV? That's not the best translation of this verse.

No, it's the NEB.

No, it's definitely Ezekiel's own spin on the practice. Exod 22 is pretty nonchalant. That's just the way it is in the eyes of that author.

Mak, again, I'm not a scholar and obviously you are. I see no reason to doubt what you're saying - other than you're LDS and, coincidentally what you're saying is less problematic for the LDS God than the orthodox God - but if what you're saying is true, it really makes me question things.

Not really. I don't view the Bible as inerrant or unilaterally God's word. I believe there's as much human influence as divine.

I actually agree with you that the Bible does not have to be "inerrant" in order for God to use it and speak through it. Obviously God can use flawed humans to proclaim his message. What is problematic, however, is when humans claim to speak for God by actually proclaiming "Thus says the Lord" when they are not really getting inspiration from God. If one author says God commanded it and another says its abominable in God's eyes, there would seem to be a problem. Apparently Ezekiel recognized that problem and his solution is to suggest that God commanded what was abhorrent in his eyes out of disgust and exasperation in the hopes that the shock would produce the positive result of Isreal forsaking the abhorrent (but commanded) practice. This seems phenomenally weak. This would be about like Thomas Monson now proclaiming that God commanded Joseph Smith to take plural wives even though it was abhorrent to him, because he was disgusted with Joseph's constant desire to have additional wives and he knew the shock value would eventually produce a positive result.

Many Israelites adopted pagan practices, that is not to say that YHWH was not their revealed God, or that YHWH ordered child or human sacrifices. Many fell into Molech worship. But you'd be a fool to question things because of maklelan, who has repeatedly declared that he does not believe the Bible to be God's Word. How foolish is one who places his trust in those who do not know the living Christ. God condemned Israel for its repeated lapses into pagansim, but there was always a faithful remnant who remained faithful to the True and Living God of Isa. 43:10.. Try basing your hope on what the faithful remnant has to say and did, rather than on some biased Mormon who is out to degrade God's Word.

[_Servant]

But when your claims are nothing but Arian rubbish, and you dismiss out of hand as "rhetoric" texts contradicting your "claim", what's the purpose of even trying to debate someone who thinks he has all the answers!

I have made full and lengthy cases for exactly why those verses are just rhetoric on literally dozens of occasions, Catherine, and no one at CARM has ever even tried to engage them. If I've posted them in Mormonism, I have been banned for being off-topic and told to post them in the appropriate forum. If I post them in the appropriate forum, none of you come out from your hiding places to engage me, even when I directly and repeatedly invite you. I'm certainly not going to waste my time making those cases here with you while you're on this campaign of sectarianism.

I think nobody actually reads what you post on CARM - your "full and lengthy cases" are usually the higher critics' drivel that we've encountered previously on the net. If you can't get applause, you lapse into your talking donkey routine and floating ax heads. Do you really think you impress anybody with that garbage? Nobody is really interested anymore, mak. Learn to write without all the ad homs and personal attacks and maybe you'd get a hearing. There is one agnostic on CARM who is polite and gets his point across, and everybody is fond of him, and prays for his salvation. On the other hand, when one posts with this huge chip on one's shoulder, demanding that people respect his opinion because, after all, he is who he is, people laugh and shrug their shoulders and say, "oh, it's only him again."