Conquer Club

You have to realize Juan, that when it comes to questions of phrasing (plural, not plural, gender, etc.) that a certain element get's lost in the translation.

There is some truth to the claim that people alter Biblical translations to suit their own politics. Sometimes people make poor word choices as well...

Juan_Bottom wrote: After God kicked Adam and Eve out of Eden, he placed a flaming sword in it which turned every way:
'the flaming sword to keep way of the tree of life'

What does this mean exactly? Is this a reference to Gabriel? I am pretty clueless about what this means too. I this another little thing where there are no direct explanations?

Figured out thanks. Cherubim is a type of angel.

Juan_Bottom wrote:

Is this meant to imply or to say that there is more than one God? Or that there is more than one of his kind? Or is this how people talked back in the day? Or is this God speaking with angels? If I just had this part of the Bible and the part about his children taking wives I would think it were God talking to his God sons. I'm beginning to think that I must have a condensed version of the Bible. There don't seem to be any details here that would help a brother out.

I put it like this: I have a 3 year old. Yesterday, he asked me if Elmo could come visit. I told him "Elmo is just on TV." He looked a bit puzzled and then said "Big bird could not come here, he is too big.. but little bird could come in my house, right?" I said, well, if he were real.

The thing is, to him all of those charaters ARE "real". He can see them on TV, they exist for him. He vaguely understands that there is a difference between them and us, but he also has relatives who he talks to only on the phone, so why not Elmo and Big Bird? I can try to explain, I do try to explain, but he just does not yet "get" it.

On the other hand, there are times when his words seem even more "true", more profound than any explanation I can give. He understands the concept of love, for example, quite well.

I do not mean to imply that Abraham or any of the early "players" in the Bible or those who actually put the words down on paper were like a 3 year old, in truth. However, so much of what we know now is shaded by our understanding of science, history, etc. Some things -- the values, the real truths, they understood quite well. The "details", the specifics .. not so much. It is not that what they wrote was untrue, but just that there are things there that they understood or thought they understood in a way that we would find completely incorrect.

Elmo IS real to my son. He is as real as the grandparents he speaks to on the phone. I can bring him to a different understanding, in time. However, for now, it is just not something that he can explain. And, it is not really critical to his life, either. He talks to his grandparents and enjoys the conversations. He watches Elmo on TV and enjoys that. In time (too soon, of course) he will see that Elmo is just a character on TV and that his grandparents are much more.

The real importance of Genesis is that God is in charge, in control and that all that is here is his creation, ultimately for us. It is also that we have choices.

Juan_Bottom wrote:
After God kicked Adam and Eve out of Eden, he placed a flaming sword in it which turned every way:
'the flaming sword to keep way of the tree of life'

What does this mean exactly? Is this a reference to Gabriel? I am pretty clueless about what this means too. I this another little thing where there are no direct explanations?

I have been taught that this is not a literal sword, instead it is another attempt to explain something outside of humanity to humans.

One interject, though this is not precisely what I believe, many Jews see the entire book of Genesis as allegory. The story of Eden is the story of humanities' passage from a hunter-gatherer society to one of agriculture. But I don't know any other specific interpretation of the "sons of man"/giants bit.

joecoolfrog wrote:From a purely historical perspective there is no great mystery , the OT is a series of written texts that would have originated from a much earlier oral tradion. There is evidence that around 10,000 BC there was migration into central Asia from regions further North , these newcomers were physically taller and stronger, a result it is surmised of the harsher climatic conditions they had evolved through. These relative ' giants ' would have interbred with the local population and over time become part of the Genesis tradition, similar stories abound in tribal societies worldwide.

This seems legit and too coincidental all at the same time.

A lot of early human evolution is being revised, though. Mostly, it appears that humanity has been "human" for far longer than previously thought and that there are many more branches than we once thought. It is fun to speculate over things like giants, but I have the strong feeling that the real truth is something as yet undiscovered.

You guys are so racist

Wait, Elmo and Big Bird aren't real?

PLAYER57832 wrote:

jay_a2j wrote: Maybe because the flood ACTUALLY HAPPENED! This is not even up for debate as the scientific evidence of "a great flood" is in.

There is no evidence of the entire world being fully submerged in water at the same time. There is evidence of many very wide-spread floods, shifts in the continents, etc.

I believe it happened, but your claim that it is "not disputed" is just wrong.

You really need to watch the discovery channel more. Because geologists have confirmed through analyzing layers of rock, that there was indeed a great flood.

And it can be disputed till the cows come home. Just as a fetus is a life, the existence of God, the theory of evolution and numerous other things are "disputed".

jonesthecurl wrote:Wait, Elmo and Big Bird aren't real?

Of course they are but what does that have to do with anything in here?

Oh, I just went back and see that Playa6969 doesn't think they are real because she has never met them. Apearently if you're on Television you must be imaginary. I wonder if she figures the same about us. After all we can't come to her house.

2dimes wrote:Oh, I just went back and see that Playa6969 doesn't think they are real because she has never met them. Apearently if you're on Television you must be imaginary. I wonder if she figures the same about us. After all we can't come to her house.

You are all most definitely figments of my imagination.

... and I am arguing with myself, so that makes me ... imaginary, too?

jay_a2j wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

jay_a2j wrote: Maybe because the flood ACTUALLY HAPPENED! This is not even up for debate as the scientific evidence of "a great flood" is in.

There is no evidence of the entire world being fully submerged in water at the same time. There is evidence of many very wide-spread floods, shifts in the continents, etc.

I believe it happened, but your claim that it is "not disputed" is just wrong.

You really need to watch the discovery channel more. Because geologists have confirmed through analyzing layers of rock, that there was indeed a great flood.

And it can be disputed till the cows come home. Just as a fetus is a life, the existence of God, the theory of evolution and numerous other things are "disputed".

Interesting that you consider the theory of evolution as disputed as God.

But Jay, sorry, I get my science from the folks who write those Discovery Channel shows, not discovery. At the time when the Earth was completely flooded, there were no human beings. However, the continents have all been flooded at various times throughout human history.

At the time when the Earth was completely flooded, there were no human beings. However, the continents have all been flooded at various times throughout human history.

First, the whole planet didn't have to flood in order for the entire civilized world to have been flooded. Second, ded people float so I'm doubting Noah and his family went around with a shovel later to bury everyone in order for them to become fossils. You can't know who was or wasn't around during an entire planet flood. Feel free to think other wise.

GabonX wrote:You have to realize Juan, that when it comes to questions of phrasing (plural, not plural, gender, etc.) that a certain element get's lost in the translation.

There is some truth to the claim that people alter Biblical translations to suit their own politics. Sometimes people make poor word choices as well...

I enjoy comparing translations. I find that the differences are just the way things are worded or explianed just like the differences in the 4 gospel accounts. It's like if you have 4 people that personally witnessed anything. They will tell you what happened acording to how they see the situation and through the way they discribe things.

Add the fact that the gospels were oral tradition for an unknown period before they were recorded then copied by hand for centuries, the fact that they are even remotely close is impressive I say. I have never found anything personally that seems like it contradicts the others if you look at them as seperate accounts.

There is only one translation that I have read my self that seems to have had things altered intentionally. I believe that if you're allowed to read it without being told what things mean or take the time to compare it directly word by word to the rest, it will read the same to you. I know that even after some people warned me in a frightened manner, I had to do a lot of comparison to find the difference.

There are a few things that for what ever reason don't have a complete explaination. Sometimes I believe they can't be known by us I have theories on possible explainations for a few.

For example I wonder if the Garden of Eden may be in the bermuda triangle? There has been quite a few planes and boats that never came out. Why? Is there a flaming sword or something in there eliminating them? Eventually someone even found the titanic yet there is a bunch of crafts missing in the triangle with no trace. A few went in looking for the others.

I also wonder if the giants may have been dinasaurs? That one's a strectch but I can't think of many archealocical examples of giants.


There's at least one new testament verse that speaks of Gods plural and in the context I don't see how it can be a translation error. Also one of the ten comandments specifies No other God before me.

jay_a2j wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

jay_a2j wrote: Maybe because the flood ACTUALLY HAPPENED! This is not even up for debate as the scientific evidence of "a great flood" is in.

There is no evidence of the entire world being fully submerged in water at the same time. There is evidence of many very wide-spread floods, shifts in the continents, etc.

I believe it happened, but your claim that it is "not disputed" is just wrong.

You really need to watch the discovery channel more. Because geologists have confirmed through analyzing layers of rock, that there was indeed a great flood.

And it can be disputed till the cows come home. Just as a fetus is a life, the existence of God, the theory of evolution and numerous other things are "disputed".

Jay could you elaborate on this please ;
1) You say that geologists have identified a flood but to what extent, did they identify identical rock strata across the whole planet ?
2) Also how did they date the flood , I am constantly told by creationists that geologists are wrong because their dating techniques are wildly inaccurate ( by millions of years apparently ) , what makes the timescale of these geologists so accurate ? I patiently await your detailed response though expect, as usual, to be denied that small curtesy.

2dimes wrote:

At the time when the Earth was completely flooded, there were no human beings. However, the continents have all been flooded at various times throughout human history.

First, the whole planet didn't have to flood in order for the entire civilized world to have been flooded. Second, ded people float so I'm doubting Noah and his family went around with a shovel later to bury everyone in order for them to become fossils. You can't know who was or wasn't around during an entire planet flood. Feel free to think other wise.

I am not disputing the flood. I said that right off the bat in my post. I am disputing Jay's assertion that a worldwide flood is proven, is hardly disputed. And, yes, there is definitely a difference between inundating the entire world and inundating civilization.

joecoolfrog wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

jay_a2j wrote: Maybe because the flood ACTUALLY HAPPENED! This is not even up for debate as the scientific evidence of "a great flood" is in.

There is no evidence of the entire world being fully submerged in water at the same time. There is evidence of many very wide-spread floods, shifts in the continents, etc.

I believe it happened, but your claim that it is "not disputed" is just wrong.

You really need to watch the discovery channel more. Because geologists have confirmed through analyzing layers of rock, that there was indeed a great flood.

And it can be disputed till the cows come home. Just as a fetus is a life, the existence of God, the theory of evolution and numerous other things are "disputed".

Jay could you elaborate on this please ;
1) You say that geologists have identified a flood but to what extent, did they identify identical rock strata across the whole planet ?

This is the key point.

2dimes wrote:Oh, I just went back and see that Playa6969 doesn't think they are real because she has never met them. Apearently if you're on Television you must be imaginary. I wonder if she figures the same about us. After all we can't come to her house.

Then George W Bush must be imaginary, because I've only seen him on TV. That's a f*ckin' relief his shows were scary as hell.

neanderpaul14 wrote:

2dimes wrote:Oh, I just went back and see that Playa6969 doesn't think they are real because she has never met them. Apearently if you're on Television you must be imaginary. I wonder if she figures the same about us. After all we can't come to her house.

Then George W Bush must be imaginary, because I've only seen him on TV. That's a f*ckin' relief his shows were scary as hell.

Huh, W was just an imaginary television character? Whew, that's a relief. So the economy is actually stronger than ever? Oh, and the face America lost on the world stage was just a bad dream?

I feel better.

Thanks NeanderPaul

Juan_Bottom wrote:Continuing:
Still in Genesis

and God said "Let us make man in our image"

"Behold that man has become one of us, to know good and evil"

Is this meant to imply or to say that there is more than one God? Or that there is more than one of his kind? Or is this how people talked back in the day? Or is this God speaking with angels? If I just had this part of the Bible and the part about his children taking wives I would think it were God talking to his God sons. I'm beginning to think that I must have a condensed version of the Bible. There don't seem to be any details here that would help a brother out.

Here's both verses again:
1:26 "Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness..."
3:22 "Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil..."

The Hebrew word used for "God" in both verses is "Elohim," which is a uni-plural noun (the singular version is "Eloah") used around 2500 times in the Old Testament. The reason God is plural is because He is composed of three Persons in one--God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. We refer to it as the "trinity" (think "tri-unity"). In the verse you mentioned, the three Persons of the trinity were either communicating with each other or simply stating His/Their thoughts for the author (most likely Moses) to write down.

Ray Rider wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:Continuing:
Still in Genesis

and God said "Let us make man in our image"

"Behold that man has become one of us, to know good and evil"

Is this meant to imply or to say that there is more than one God? Or that there is more than one of his kind? Or is this how people talked back in the day? Or is this God speaking with angels? If I just had this part of the Bible and the part about his children taking wives I would think it were God talking to his God sons. I'm beginning to think that I must have a condensed version of the Bible. There don't seem to be any details here that would help a brother out.

Here's both verses again:
1:26 "Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness..."
3:22 "Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil..."

The Hebrew word used for "God" in both verses is "Elohim," which is a uni-plural noun (the singular version is "Eloah") used around 2500 times in the Old Testament. The reason God is plural is because He is composed of three Persons in one--God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. We refer to it as the "trinity" (think "tri-unity"). In the verse you mentioned, the three Persons of the trinity were either communicating with each other or simply stating His/Their thoughts for the author (most likely Moses) to write down.

.. Then why don't the Jews believe in Jesus Christ?

PLAYER57832 wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

jay_a2j wrote: Maybe because the flood ACTUALLY HAPPENED! This is not even up for debate as the scientific evidence of "a great flood" is in.

There is no evidence of the entire world being fully submerged in water at the same time. There is evidence of many very wide-spread floods, shifts in the continents, etc.

I believe it happened, but your claim that it is "not disputed" is just wrong.

You really need to watch the discovery channel more. Because geologists have confirmed through analyzing layers of rock, that there was indeed a great flood.

And it can be disputed till the cows come home. Just as a fetus is a life, the existence of God, the theory of evolution and numerous other things are "disputed".

Interesting that you consider the theory of evolution as disputed as God.

But Jay, sorry, I get my science from the folks who write those Discovery Channel shows, not discovery. At the time when the Earth was completely flooded, there were no human beings. However, the continents have all been flooded at various times throughout human history.

Keep up the fantastic debate on who has the better techmology. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eB5VXJXxnNU

Skittles! wrote:.. Then why don't the Jews believe in Jesus Christ?

Good question. I'm not a Jew and I've never been to Israel, so I'm not the best one to ask. However, as someone already mentioned, many Jews believe that only their rabbis are "qualified" to read the Torah (Old Testament), and of those Jews who do read the Old Testament, many rabbis forbid the reading of certain sections which point to Jesus being their long-awaited Messiah (such as Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53). It also doesn't help that many Jews revere the rabbinical writings as higher than the Word of God itself. At the time of Christ, the Jews were looking for a Messiah who would free them from the rule of Rome (which they found extremely abhorrent) and who would rule and reign over the nations; they didn't understand that Christ had to first come and die for the sins of mankind as the Passover lamb foreshadowed. There are many Jews who do believe in Jesus, however. I had the privilege of being taught by two for a while. Their knowledge of the Bible was unmatched--I and my fellow students were amazed at how much both of them had memorized and knew by heart.

On a side note, the misguided zeal of many who claimed to be Christians over the ages has also contributed to their unbelief. Instead of showing love to those whom God chose to first entrust with His Word, many have ridiculed, scorned, and persecuted them for being "Christ-killers." They fail to understand that most of us would have responded to Christ in the same way back then, and although we don't physically crucify Him today, in essence we do so by choosing to reject His atoning sacrifice and go on living our lives in disobedience to what our consciences tell us is right. He died to save us from our sin, so when we stubbornly continue in sin, we're saying the Son of God died in vain.

2dimes wrote:
Keep up the fantastic debate on who has the better techmology. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eB5VXJXxnNU

"the floater"

"covering it with paper don't make it alright"


Thanks 2dimes, needed a laugh.

Skittles! wrote:.. Then why don't the Jews believe in Jesus Christ?

Actually there are many who do believe in Jesus and they are commonly referred to as Messianic Jews because they believe that Jesus was the Messiah.

As to why the Jews did not accept him as a whole (nation) goes back to a simple misunderstanding. The Jews did not realize that the Scriptures relating to Jesus' coming (the Messiah's coming) was speaking about two different and distinct events. The first being when Jesus would come and be the sacrificial lamb and the second when he is coming as the King of Kings. Since they thought this was one in the same, although they did not fully understand the concept of the Messiah being a sacrifice, they were looking for a conquering king to come. When Jesus came, even given all the signs that he was the Messiah, they rejected him because he did not free them from the Roman rule and conquer their enemies. This is why even the Apostles asked him if he was going to restore (conquer the Romans and set Israel free and make them the dominant nation on the earth) his kingdom at that time.

That is it in a nutshell.

Love in Christ,
JH

I have no problem with people questioning or disagreeing with the Bible, but here is the thing. The Bible is one of the most outlawed books around the world. If it were just a bunch of stories, why would you outlaw it? There are many fairytales, and they are not outlawed. There must be a reason that you would outlaw a simple book, if that were all it is. Here is the reason. The Bible is not just a book, not just a bunch of stories. The reason why it is illegal in so many countries is that it is powerful. It is changing lives. It is one of the most disputed books as to wether or not it is true, yet we have more ancient manuscripts for it then any other book of comparable age. Why is its authenticity questioned so much? Because no one wants it to be true, because if it were true, it would change their life, and they like their life how it is. The Bible is a powerful book, and no simple book could be this powerful, so it must not just be a book. So, I have concluded that it must be what is says it is, which is the word of God himself.

Ducttapers4JC wrote:I have no problem with people questioning or disagreeing with the Bible, but here is the thing. The Bible is one of the most outlawed books around the world. If it were just a bunch of stories, why would you outlaw it? There are many fairytales, and they are not outlawed. There must be a reason that you would outlaw a simple book, if that were all it is. Here is the reason. The Bible is not just a book, not just a bunch of stories. The reason why it is illegal in so many countries is that it is powerful. It is changing lives. It is one of the most disputed books as to wether or not it is true, yet we have more ancient manuscripts for it then any other book of comparable age. Why is its authenticity questioned so much? Because no one wants it to be true, because if it were true, it would change their life, and they like their life how it is. The Bible is a powerful book, and no simple book could be this powerful, so it must not just be a book. So, I have concluded that it must be what is says it is, which is the word of God himself.

Anddddddddddddddd this doesn't explain how all the other Holy Books from the other religions are still in existence, cause if only the Bible were true, why would all these other books exist?

Skittles! wrote:

Ducttapers4JC wrote:I have no problem with people questioning or disagreeing with the Bible, but here is the thing. The Bible is one of the most outlawed books around the world. If it were just a bunch of stories, why would you outlaw it? There are many fairytales, and they are not outlawed. There must be a reason that you would outlaw a simple book, if that were all it is. Here is the reason. The Bible is not just a book, not just a bunch of stories. The reason why it is illegal in so many countries is that it is powerful. It is changing lives. It is one of the most disputed books as to wether or not it is true, yet we have more ancient manuscripts for it then any other book of comparable age. Why is its authenticity questioned so much? Because no one wants it to be true, because if it were true, it would change their life, and they like their life how it is. The Bible is a powerful book, and no simple book could be this powerful, so it must not just be a book. So, I have concluded that it must be what is says it is, which is the word of God himself.

Anddddddddddddddd this doesn't explain how all the other Holy Books from the other religions are still in existence, cause if only the Bible were true, why would all these other books exist?

well, obviously they're wrong because the Bible says so.

jay_a2j wrote:

2dimes wrote:
Keep up the fantastic debate on who has the better techmology. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eB5VXJXxnNU

"the floater"

"covering it with paper don't make it alright"


Thanks 2dimes, needed a laugh.

Oh look
Jay neglected to answer my simple questions ......again