|
Post by DKTrav88 on Jul 18, 2018 11:11:15 GMT
Exegesis is the exposition or explanation of a text based on a careful, objective analysis. The word exegesis means that the interpreter is led to his conclusions by following the text. Obviously, only exegesis does justice to the context of the Bible.
Eisegesis is the interpretation of a passage based on a subjective, non-analytical reading. The word eisegesis means the interpreter injects his own ideas into the text, making it mean whatever he wants.
Examples of exegesis and eisegesis I’ve personally seen used in scripture by others;
2 Peter 3:8 KJV [8] But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
Eisegesis - each day in the Genesis creation account is actually 1000 years, so God created everything in 6000 years.
Exegesis - God is in and outside of time.
Numbers 14:34 KJV [34] After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years, and ye shall know my breach of promise.
Eisegesis - The day/year principle; every time a day is mentioned in scripture it is to be counted as a year.
Exegesis - The children of Israel will wonder the desert every day of the year for 40 years.
Isaiah 14:12-14 KJV [12] How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! [13] For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: [14] I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
Eisegesis - Lucifer is Jesus Christ
Exegesis - Lucifer is Satan (Isaiah 14:15 KJV [15] Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. Isaiah 14:19-20 KJV [19] But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet. [20] Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned.)
Psalm 141:2 KJV [2] Let my prayer be set forth before thee as incense; and the lifting up of my hands as the evening sacrifice.
Eisegesis - Every time while we pray we are to burn incense.
Exegesis - the word “as” is being used here for simile, so it is the comparison of two unlike things. Many times in the Old Testament incense was burned for an offering to God. Throughout the entire Bible, we never see a single passage that suggests we are to burn incense and pray simultaneously.
(This one is not one I’ve seen used, but was used an example) 2 Chronicles 27:1-2 “Jotham was twenty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem sixteen years. . . . He did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, just as his father Uzziah had done, but unlike him he did not enter the temple of the LORD.”
Eisegesis - First, the interpreter decides on a topic. Today, it’s “The Importance of Church Attendance.” The interpreter reads 2 Chronicles 27:1-2 and sees that King Jotham was a good king, just like his father Uzziah had been, except for one thing: he didn’t go to the temple! This passage seems to fit his idea, so he uses it. The resulting sermon deals with the need for passing on godly values from one generation to the next. Just because King Uzziah went to the temple every week didn’t mean that his son would continue the practice. In the same way, many young people today tragically turn from their parents’ training, and church attendance drops off. The sermon ends with a question: “How many blessings did Jotham fail to receive, simply because he neglected church?”
Exegesis - First, the interpreter reads the passage and, to fully understand the context, he reads the histories of both Uzziah and Jotham (2 Chronicles 26-27; 2 Kings 15:1-6, 32-38). In his observation, he discovers that King Uzziah was a good king who nevertheless disobeyed the Lord when he went to the temple and offered incense on the altar—something only a priest had the right to do (2 Chronicles 26:16-20). Uzziah’s pride and his contamination of the temple resulted in his having “leprosy until the day he died” (2 Chronicles 26:21).
The processes of eisegesis and exegesis;
The process of exegesis involves, 1) observation: what does the passage say? 2) interpretation: what does the passage mean? 3) correlation: how does the passage relate to the rest of the Bible? and, 4) application: how should this passage affect my life?
Eisegesis, on the other hand, involves, 1) imagination: what idea do I want to present? 2) exploration: what Scripture passage seems to fit with my idea? and, 3) application: what does my idea mean? Notice that, in eisegesis, there is no examination of the words of the text or their relationship to each other, no cross-referencing with related passages, and no real desire to understand the actual meaning. Scripture serves only as a prop to the interpreter’s idea.
When interpreting scripture one of these processes is used. The one that should be used is exegesis. Those who believe in sola scriptura are supposed to use the process of exegesis when reading the scriptures. The process of eisegesis is what leads to false interpretations and false doctrines that we see so prevalent today in so many churches, denominations, and institutions, which ultimately leads to unbelief.
Feel free to share any examples of eisegesis and exegesis that you’ve seen.
|
|
Clovis Merovingian
Prestige/VIP
Elder
Posts: 2,689
Likes: 1,757
Meta-Ethnicity: Anglo-American
Ethnicity: Deep Southerner
Country: My State and my Region are my country
Region: The Deep South
Location: South Carolina
Ancestry: Gaelic (patrilineal), English, Ulster Scots/Scots Irish, Scottish, German, Swiss German, Swedish, Manx, Finnish, Norman French/Quebecois (distantly), Dutch (distantly)
Taxonomy: Borreby/Alpine/ Nordid mix
Y-DNA: R-S660/R-DF109
mtDNA: T1a1
Politics: Conservative
Religion: Christian
Hero: Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, James K. Polk
Age: 30
Philosophy: I try to find out what is true as best I can.
|
Post by Clovis Merovingian on Jul 20, 2018 2:40:38 GMT
I'm sorry but in context this is not referring to Jesus Christ. You'd have to back up that claim with some other evidence than Jesus being called metaphorically a cornerstone somewhere else in the Bible. Context matters. God is simply continuing the construction metaphor of God creating the earth. When he asks to what are the earths foundations fastened and who laid its cornerstone he is asking a question to Job to which there is an obvious answer. To the first the answer is, "you have no idea little man," and to the second it is, "Me... I laid its cornerstone. Because I created the earth." Jesus is only mentioned in that he's the one talking (because he's God.) Well it says the angels sang because of the cornerstone and people praised. That's literally what happened with Jesus the cornerstone. Because that's when that part came true. No other part in scripture has angels singing and people rejoicing except when the cornerstone Jesus has come. Straight line to Jesus. No, not a straight line to Jesus. Again even going by an autistic like literal interpretation of what you are saying (not an insult, I'm autistic and take things literally too all the time). The verses you say that are talking about Jesus are obviously referring to Jesus as the cornerstone of a believers faith that if they believe upon him they will not perish (that's literally what it says.) While the cornerstone mentioned in Job is clearly portrayed metaphorically as the physical cornerstone of the EARTH that he is creating. Its a construction metaphor that refers to measurements, laying foundations, and placing a cornerstone to hold up the earth like a house or building being built. One cornerstone is the cornerstone of the faith, the other is the cornerstone of the literal earth. Two different concepts. To connect the two is a stretch.
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Jul 20, 2018 2:56:34 GMT
Well it says the angels sang because of the cornerstone and people praised. That's literally what happened with Jesus the cornerstone. Because that's when that part came true. No other part in scripture has angels singing and people rejoicing except when the cornerstone Jesus has come. Straight line to Jesus. No, not a straight line to Jesus. Again even going by an autistic like literal interpretation of what you are saying (not an insult, I'm autistic and take things literally too all the time). The verses you say that are talking about Jesus are obviously referring to Jesus as the cornerstone of a believers faith that if they believe upon him they will not perish (that's literally what it says.) While the cornerstone mentioned in Job is clearly portrayed metaphorically as the physical cornerstone of the EARTH that he is creating. Its a construction metaphor that refers to measurements, laying foundations, and placing a cornerstone to hold up the earth like a house or building being built. One cornerstone is the cornerstone of the faith, the other is the cornerstone of the literal earth. Two different concepts. To connect the two is a stretch. Why would angels and people rejoice over that? It didn't mention rejoicement after the line was laid on the earth or when the seas appeared...so why would one part of earth's creation be more important than another part? It wouldn't. God waiting to write that part for the cornerstone only. And in genesis no angels or people rejoiced. Never happened. It tells us the creation. Angels weren't present when God made the earth. Only time angels and people rejoiced together were during the birth of the cornerstone. Is an earthly layer more important to celebrate than the birth of Christ? No way!
|
|
Clovis Merovingian
Prestige/VIP
Elder
Posts: 2,689
Likes: 1,757
Meta-Ethnicity: Anglo-American
Ethnicity: Deep Southerner
Country: My State and my Region are my country
Region: The Deep South
Location: South Carolina
Ancestry: Gaelic (patrilineal), English, Ulster Scots/Scots Irish, Scottish, German, Swiss German, Swedish, Manx, Finnish, Norman French/Quebecois (distantly), Dutch (distantly)
Taxonomy: Borreby/Alpine/ Nordid mix
Y-DNA: R-S660/R-DF109
mtDNA: T1a1
Politics: Conservative
Religion: Christian
Hero: Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, James K. Polk
Age: 30
Philosophy: I try to find out what is true as best I can.
|
Post by Clovis Merovingian on Jul 20, 2018 3:07:48 GMT
No, not a straight line to Jesus. Again even going by an autistic like literal interpretation of what you are saying (not an insult, I'm autistic and take things literally too all the time). The verses you say that are talking about Jesus are obviously referring to Jesus as the cornerstone of a believers faith that if they believe upon him they will not perish (that's literally what it says.) While the cornerstone mentioned in Job is clearly portrayed metaphorically as the physical cornerstone of the EARTH that he is creating. Its a construction metaphor that refers to measurements, laying foundations, and placing a cornerstone to hold up the earth like a house or building being built. One cornerstone is the cornerstone of the faith, the other is the cornerstone of the literal earth. Two different concepts. To connect the two is a stretch. Why would angels and people rejoice over that? It didn't mention rejoicement after the line was laid on the earth or when the seas appeared...so why would one part of earth's creation be more important than another part? It wouldn't. God waiting to write that part for the cornerstone only. And in genesis no angels or people rejoiced. Never happened. It tells us the creation. Angels weren't present when God made the earth. Only time angels and people rejoiced together were during the birth of the cornerstone. Is an earthly layer more important to celebrate than the birth of Christ? No way! 2 “Who is this who darkens counsel By words without knowledge? 3 Now prepare yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer Me. 4 “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?
Tell Me, if you have understanding.
5 Who determined its measurements?
Surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?
6 To what were its foundations fastened?
Or who laid its cornerstone,
7 When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted for joy? 8 “Or who shut in the sea with doors, When it burst forth and issued from the womb; 9 When I made the clouds its garment, And thick darkness its swaddling band; 10 When I fixed My limit for it, And set bars and doors. <iframe width="33.38000000000011" height="8.400000000000034" style="position: absolute; width: 33.38000000000011px; height: 8.400000000000034px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none;left: 15px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_65650463" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="33.38000000000011" height="8.400000000000034" style="position: absolute; width: 33.38px; height: 8.4px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1599px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_1419329" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="33.38000000000011" height="8.400000000000034" style="position: absolute; width: 33.38px; height: 8.4px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 15px; top: 356px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_71188731" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="33.38000000000011" height="8.400000000000034" style="position: absolute; width: 33.38px; height: 8.4px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1599px; top: 356px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_21721203" scrolling="no"></iframe> These three verses are obviously supposed to be read together. The following line is the angels singing and shouting for joy in response to all of it not specifically verse six. The sons of god are shouting and singing for joy in response to the act of God creating the earth which we would both agree would be ample reason for angels to shout for joy. God starts with the construction measurements that deal with beginning a project (measurements, laying the foundation, setting the cornerstone) and put them all together to which the angels responded by singing and shouting for joy. Then he begins talking about the sea shutting it in with doors when it burst forth from the womb, made the cloud its garment, and thick darkness its band, when he set its limits with bars and doors. There is a clear structure to these boasts by God that's pretty obvious if you take the time to look at it. The beginnings of the earth project, angels shouting for joy in response to it, then containing the sea and cloacking it with cloud and darkness.
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Jul 20, 2018 3:38:05 GMT
If we have to go back to the Hebrew, that makes God a liar when He said He would preserve His word forever The Hebrew that the OT was written in is a dead language, the Hebrew spoken today is much different. "trusting men who are more learned than we about a subject they specialize in is no different than trusting your preacher or pastor" I trusted a pastor once, and it almost lead me down the wrong path "but that would mean you and I are liars too" We are, you and I have both told lies "The Bible means what it means no matter what we think it says." Exactly, and it says sons of God are believers. It doesn't hint at them being angels one time. "That's why I liked Lamburk's post where he believed that the best way to study the Bible is as a scholar." You should read 1 Corinthians 2 He did preserve his word forever. We have the Dead Sea Scrolls and we know exactly what they say. We have the Greek New Testament texts as well. You talk about God preserving his word forever and then you talk about corrupted translations. How do you know that the translation you're using is the accurate one? How do you decide which translation is corrupted and which one isn't. Which is the the source Bible you are using to compare it to? The first Bible we have in English is the King James Bible. It talks about unicorns, satyrs, Basilisks, dragons and a ton of other mythical creatures that don't exist. Do you know why we don't have these creatures in newer translations, because we went back and saw what the Hebrew actually says and correctly identified the animals within. And yes, the Bible clearly says hints and outright shows that the Sons of God in the three places mentioned are clearly angels as I have shown time and time again. The problem is that you don't seem to want to knowledge the concept of context, and that the old testament was written in Hebrew not English and that we know exactly what it says in Hebrew and what it is referring to. Again the sons of God were there when god laid the foundations of the earth. They were shouting with joy as he was doing it. This is written clear as day even in the English. I have a different story than you. 14 years of my life were screwed up as well as my walk with God because I misunderstood a verse in the Bible due to my own ignorance on the subject. So when I study the Bible I try my hardest to make sure I'm right. “We have the Dead Sea Scrolls and we know exactly what they say.” We do? I don’t understand Ancient Hebrew, do you? I understand English though. So, by the logic you’re using none of the Bible’s today written in English are God’s preserved word. So everyone who knows the English language is at a loss because God only preserved His word in ancient Hebrew and Greek and only those who know those languages can interpret God’s word correctly for everyone who doesn’t know those languages. That is the pure definition of cult if I had ever seen it; relying on gurus to tell us what God’s word actually says because God wasn’t powerful enough to preserve His word in the English language, the most used language in the world, just as Koine Greek was the most used language in the world at the time the New Testament was written. “How do you know that the translation you're using is the accurate one? How do you decide which translation is corrupted and which one isn't. Which is the the source Bible you are using to compare it to?” I already explained this in a previous post on this thread; many bible versions, even in languages other than English, remove whole verses, words, sentences, and change words to make God’s word inconsistent. Would you like examples? Mark 15:28 is removed from many versions, Acts 8:37 is removed from many versions, 1 John 5:7 is removed from many versions, etc. One only needs to put versions side by side and compare them. “The first Bible we have in English is the King James Bible.” No, it wasn’t. The first English Bible was the Wiclyffe Bible translated in the 1300’s. “It talks about unicorns, satyrs, Basilisks, dragons and a ton of other mythical creatures” Satyr is never said once in the KJV. I showed you the definition of unicorn in another thread shrug A basilisk is a huge lizard, pretty much a dinosaur which brings me to my next point that being the word dinosaur didn’t exist when the KJV was written, so they used the word dragon instead(also see Komodo dragon which isn’t a dragon in the mythical sense shrug). “the Bible clearly says hints and outright shows that the Sons of God in the three places mentioned are clearly angels” Then you are saying the Bible is inconsistent shrug. Why would God confuse us by using two different meanings for the same phrase? Oh, but you would say “The Hebrew! The Hebrew!”.. well unfortunately the world doesn’t understand ancient Hebrew, a dead language, so you’re gonna need a better retort shrug Why would God preserve His word so that only people who studied ancient Hebrew and Koine Greek could truly understand it?
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Jul 20, 2018 3:47:31 GMT
Why would angels and people rejoice over that? It didn't mention rejoicement after the line was laid on the earth or when the seas appeared...so why would one part of earth's creation be more important than another part? It wouldn't. God waiting to write that part for the cornerstone only. And in genesis no angels or people rejoiced. Never happened. It tells us the creation. Angels weren't present when God made the earth. Only time angels and people rejoiced together were during the birth of the cornerstone. Is an earthly layer more important to celebrate than the birth of Christ? No way! 2 “Who is this who darkens counsel By words without knowledge? 3 Now prepare yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer Me. 4 “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?
Tell Me, if you have understanding.
5 Who determined its measurements?
Surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?
6 To what were its foundations fastened?
Or who laid its cornerstone,
7 When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted for joy? 8 “Or who shut in the sea with doors, When it burst forth and issued from the womb; 9 When I made the clouds its garment, And thick darkness its swaddling band; 10 When I fixed My limit for it, And set bars and doors. <iframe width="33.38000000000011" height="8.400000000000034" style="position: absolute; width: 33.38000000000011px; height: 8.400000000000034px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none;left: 15px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_65650463" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="33.38000000000011" height="8.400000000000034" style="position: absolute; width: 33.38px; height: 8.4px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1599px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_1419329" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="33.38000000000011" height="8.400000000000034" style="position: absolute; width: 33.38px; height: 8.4px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 15px; top: 356px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_71188731" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="33.38000000000011" height="8.400000000000034" style="position: absolute; width: 33.38px; height: 8.4px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1599px; top: 356px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_21721203" scrolling="no"></iframe> These three verses are obviously supposed to be read together. The following line is the angels singing and shouting for joy in response to all of it not specifically verse six. The sons of god are shouting and singing for joy in response to the act of God creating the earth which we would both agree would be ample reason for angels to shout for joy. God starts with the construction measurements that deal with beginning a project (measurements, laying the foundation, setting the cornerstone) and put them all together to which the angels responded by singing and shouting for joy. Then he begins talking about the sea shutting it in with doors when it burst forth from the womb, made the cloud its garment, and thick darkness its band, when he set its limits with bars and doors. There is a clear structure to these boasts by God that's pretty obvious if you take the time to look at it. The beginnings of the earth project, angels shouting for joy in response to it, then containing the sea and cloacking it with cloud and darkness. So every time the word cornerstone is used it mentions Jesus each time except this one time in Job? Ok then you must prove that angels and sons of God rejoiced when earth was made. Go. I proved that angels and sons of God rejoiced during the birth of Jesus the cornerstone. So prove your side. I need verses too as I gave verses which proved Job talking about Jesus. So you must do the same. Good luck!
|
|
Clovis Merovingian
Prestige/VIP
Elder
Posts: 2,689
Likes: 1,757
Meta-Ethnicity: Anglo-American
Ethnicity: Deep Southerner
Country: My State and my Region are my country
Region: The Deep South
Location: South Carolina
Ancestry: Gaelic (patrilineal), English, Ulster Scots/Scots Irish, Scottish, German, Swiss German, Swedish, Manx, Finnish, Norman French/Quebecois (distantly), Dutch (distantly)
Taxonomy: Borreby/Alpine/ Nordid mix
Y-DNA: R-S660/R-DF109
mtDNA: T1a1
Politics: Conservative
Religion: Christian
Hero: Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, James K. Polk
Age: 30
Philosophy: I try to find out what is true as best I can.
|
Post by Clovis Merovingian on Jul 20, 2018 5:13:12 GMT
He did preserve his word forever. We have the Dead Sea Scrolls and we know exactly what they say. We have the Greek New Testament texts as well. You talk about God preserving his word forever and then you talk about corrupted translations. How do you know that the translation you're using is the accurate one? How do you decide which translation is corrupted and which one isn't. Which is the the source Bible you are using to compare it to? The first Bible we have in English is the King James Bible. It talks about unicorns, satyrs, Basilisks, dragons and a ton of other mythical creatures that don't exist. Do you know why we don't have these creatures in newer translations, because we went back and saw what the Hebrew actually says and correctly identified the animals within. And yes, the Bible clearly says hints and outright shows that the Sons of God in the three places mentioned are clearly angels as I have shown time and time again. The problem is that you don't seem to want to knowledge the concept of context, and that the old testament was written in Hebrew not English and that we know exactly what it says in Hebrew and what it is referring to. Again the sons of God were there when god laid the foundations of the earth. They were shouting with joy as he was doing it. This is written clear as day even in the English. I have a different story than you. 14 years of my life were screwed up as well as my walk with God because I misunderstood a verse in the Bible due to my own ignorance on the subject. So when I study the Bible I try my hardest to make sure I'm right. “We have the Dead Sea Scrolls and we know exactly what they say.” We do? I don’t understand Ancient Hebrew, do you? I understand English though. So, by the logic you’re using none of the Bible’s today written in English are God’s preserved word. So everyone who knows the English language is at a loss because God only preserved His word in ancient Hebrew and Greek and only those who know those languages can interpret God’s word correctly for everyone who doesn’t know those languages. That is the pure definition of cult if I had ever seen it; relying on gurus to tell us what God’s word actually says because God wasn’t powerful enough to preserve His word in the English language, the most used language in the world, just as Koine Greek was the most used language in the world at the time the New Testament was written. “How do you know that the translation you're using is the accurate one? How do you decide which translation is corrupted and which one isn't. Which is the the source Bible you are using to compare it to?” I already explained this in a previous post on this thread; many bible versions, even in languages other than English, remove whole verses, words, sentences, and change words to make God’s word inconsistent. Would you like examples? Mark 15:28 is removed from many versions, Acts 8:37 is removed from many versions, 1 John 5:7 is removed from many versions, etc. One only needs to put versions side by side and compare them. “The first Bible we have in English is the King James Bible.” No, it wasn’t. The first English Bible was the Wiclyffe Bible translated in the 1300’s. “It talks about unicorns, satyrs, Basilisks, dragons and a ton of other mythical creatures” Satyr is never said once in the KJV. I showed you the definition of unicorn in another thread A basilisk is a huge lizard, pretty much a dinosaur which brings me to my next point that being the word dinosaur didn’t exist when the KJV was written, so they used the word dragon instead(also see Komodo dragon which isn’t a dragon in the mythical sense ). “the Bible clearly says hints and outright shows that the Sons of God in the three places mentioned are clearly angels” Then you are saying the Bible is inconsistent . Why would God confuse us by using two different meanings for the same phrase? Oh, but you would say “The Hebrew! The Hebrew!”.. well unfortunately the world doesn’t understand ancient Hebrew, a dead language, so you’re gonna need a better retort Why would God preserve His word so that only people who studied ancient Hebrew and Koine Greek could truly understand it? First, I apologize for getting things factually wrong in my last post. I assure you it was out of ignorance not malice. To explain my position on the Bible. Yes, I believe that the English versions of the Bible do a very good job of portraying the word of God and that it is the word of God. But what you have with the Bible is ancient Hebrew in the old Testament and Greek in the New Testament being translated into English. Now take for example the Greek that the new Testament is written in. There are like four words translated love in English because what else are you going to translate them to? These words for love have different meanings with nuances that are lost in English and to get the full meaning one would have to look up the Greek meaning. www.bibleconnectionnews.com/5-biblical-words-for-love/ The Bible is full of things like that and even in English the word love can refer to a different type of love depending on context. If I were to interpret the world the way you interpret the Bible, "well it says love and every time I hear the word love it means romantic love thus people using it differently are being inconsistent," I would be a complete mad man. Even in English different words have different meanings depending on the context. If you use a word such as "Sons of God" in one context it might mean something different than in another context. One thing may not be a son of God in the same way as another thing. Perhaps the people who've accepted Christ but are obviously mortal men are not the same as the things shouting for joy at the same time God is laying the foundations of the earth before mankind is even created. Now your claim that trusting experts on things they know a lot about is cultish. Do you trust experts when they say that gravity is real? That germ theory is real? That gene theory is real? Do you trust experts when they say that the earth is round? You've never been to space and those pictures might be fabricated after all, all men are liars. The things I've stated regarding the Hebrew are facts. You may not believe them because you have an extremely... strange worldview. But they are facts. I have never in my life run across a Christian who thought looking up the ancient Hebrew or Greek to understand a certain word and its meaning was akin to being a part of heretical cult. Anyways, I don't have to go to the ancient Hebrew to prove my point. The fact is that the sons of God were there when God layed the foundation of the earth. This is clearly written in the bible for you or anyone to see and you have no explanation for it other than sons of god referring to something else somewhere else in an entirely different context to this and an attempt to reinterpret a verse clearly referring to God creating the word into somehow talking about Jesus somewhere else.
|
|
Clovis Merovingian
Prestige/VIP
Elder
Posts: 2,689
Likes: 1,757
Meta-Ethnicity: Anglo-American
Ethnicity: Deep Southerner
Country: My State and my Region are my country
Region: The Deep South
Location: South Carolina
Ancestry: Gaelic (patrilineal), English, Ulster Scots/Scots Irish, Scottish, German, Swiss German, Swedish, Manx, Finnish, Norman French/Quebecois (distantly), Dutch (distantly)
Taxonomy: Borreby/Alpine/ Nordid mix
Y-DNA: R-S660/R-DF109
mtDNA: T1a1
Politics: Conservative
Religion: Christian
Hero: Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, James K. Polk
Age: 30
Philosophy: I try to find out what is true as best I can.
|
Post by Clovis Merovingian on Jul 20, 2018 5:31:11 GMT
2 “Who is this who darkens counsel By words without knowledge? 3 Now prepare yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer Me. 4 “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?
Tell Me, if you have understanding.
5 Who determined its measurements?
Surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?
6 To what were its foundations fastened?
Or who laid its cornerstone,
7 When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted for joy? 8 “Or who shut in the sea with doors, When it burst forth and issued from the womb; 9 When I made the clouds its garment, And thick darkness its swaddling band; 10 When I fixed My limit for it, And set bars and doors. <iframe width="33.38000000000011" height="8.400000000000034" style="position: absolute; width: 33.38000000000011px; height: 8.400000000000034px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none;left: 15px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_65650463" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="33.38000000000011" height="8.400000000000034" style="position: absolute; width: 33.38px; height: 8.4px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1599px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_1419329" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="33.38000000000011" height="8.400000000000034" style="position: absolute; width: 33.38px; height: 8.4px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 15px; top: 356px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_71188731" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="33.38000000000011" height="8.400000000000034" style="position: absolute; width: 33.38px; height: 8.4px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1599px; top: 356px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_21721203" scrolling="no"></iframe> These three verses are obviously supposed to be read together. The following line is the angels singing and shouting for joy in response to all of it not specifically verse six. The sons of god are shouting and singing for joy in response to the act of God creating the earth which we would both agree would be ample reason for angels to shout for joy. God starts with the construction measurements that deal with beginning a project (measurements, laying the foundation, setting the cornerstone) and put them all together to which the angels responded by singing and shouting for joy. Then he begins talking about the sea shutting it in with doors when it burst forth from the womb, made the cloud its garment, and thick darkness its band, when he set its limits with bars and doors. There is a clear structure to these boasts by God that's pretty obvious if you take the time to look at it. The beginnings of the earth project, angels shouting for joy in response to it, then containing the sea and cloacking it with cloud and darkness. So every time the word cornerstone is used it mentions Jesus each time except this one time in Job? Ok then you must prove that angels and sons of God rejoiced when earth was made. Go. I proved that angels and sons of God rejoiced during the birth of Jesus the cornerstone. So prove your side. I need verses too as I gave verses which proved Job talking about Jesus. So you must do the same. Good luck! Except that you've proven nothing. You've taken two unrelated verses that are in the middle of scenarios that have nothing in common and make no reference to one another, and have no apparent relation in any way and lumped them together because they both have the word "cornerstone" and there are angels rejoicing. This passage in Job is about God confronting Job for his arrogance making it completely clear to Job exactly who he is talking to, the creator of the earth. God is saying that he laid the foundation, made the measurements, and laid the cornerstone of earth, he bound its waters, cloaked them in clouds and darkness all while angels rejoiced. The verses you talk about regarding Jesus are talking about Jesus being the cornerstone for the believers faith; the one they believe in to have everlasting life. The verse in Job is God laying the cornerstone for the earth, while the verses in the new testament are about Jesus being the cornerstone of a believers faith. These are completely different things with no apparent connection. There is no mention of any messianic prophesy in this verse because that is not the point of this verse. The point is for Job to understand who he has been complaining to, the creator of the the universe. You need to understand the meaning of context.
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Jul 20, 2018 6:23:57 GMT
So every time the word cornerstone is used it mentions Jesus each time except this one time in Job? Ok then you must prove that angels and sons of God rejoiced when earth was made. Go. I proved that angels and sons of God rejoiced during the birth of Jesus the cornerstone. So prove your side. I need verses too as I gave verses which proved Job talking about Jesus. So you must do the same. Good luck! Except that you've proven nothing. You've taken two unrelated verses that are in the middle of scenarios that have nothing in common and make no reference to one another, and have no apparent relation in any way and lumped them together because they both have the word "cornerstone" and there are angels rejoicing. This passage in Job is about God confronting Job for his arrogance making it completely clear to Job exactly who he is talking to, the creator of the earth. God is saying that he laid the foundation, made the measurements, and laid the cornerstone of earth, he bound its waters, cloaked them in clouds and darkness all while angels rejoiced. The verses you talk about regarding Jesus are talking about Jesus being the cornerstone for the believers faith; the one they believe in to have everlasting life. The verse in Job is God laying the cornerstone for the earth, while the verses in the new testament are about Jesus being the cornerstone of a believers faith. These are completely different things with no apparent connection. There is no mention of any messianic prophesy in this verse because that is not the point of this verse. The point is for Job to understand who he has been complaining to, the creator of the the universe. You need to understand the meaning of context. I still need verses about angels and sons of God (so 2 separate verses) being rejocing over creation. But we have the creation in the bible so verses should be easy to find for you. But God created alone I believe and then just rested. Shrug However, creation didn't bring good for anyone to be rejoicing over it anyway. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. Romans 8:22
|
|
Clovis Merovingian
Prestige/VIP
Elder
Posts: 2,689
Likes: 1,757
Meta-Ethnicity: Anglo-American
Ethnicity: Deep Southerner
Country: My State and my Region are my country
Region: The Deep South
Location: South Carolina
Ancestry: Gaelic (patrilineal), English, Ulster Scots/Scots Irish, Scottish, German, Swiss German, Swedish, Manx, Finnish, Norman French/Quebecois (distantly), Dutch (distantly)
Taxonomy: Borreby/Alpine/ Nordid mix
Y-DNA: R-S660/R-DF109
mtDNA: T1a1
Politics: Conservative
Religion: Christian
Hero: Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, James K. Polk
Age: 30
Philosophy: I try to find out what is true as best I can.
|
Post by Clovis Merovingian on Jul 20, 2018 6:38:03 GMT
Except that you've proven nothing. You've taken two unrelated verses that are in the middle of scenarios that have nothing in common and make no reference to one another, and have no apparent relation in any way and lumped them together because they both have the word "cornerstone" and there are angels rejoicing. This passage in Job is about God confronting Job for his arrogance making it completely clear to Job exactly who he is talking to, the creator of the earth. God is saying that he laid the foundation, made the measurements, and laid the cornerstone of earth, he bound its waters, cloaked them in clouds and darkness all while angels rejoiced. The verses you talk about regarding Jesus are talking about Jesus being the cornerstone for the believers faith; the one they believe in to have everlasting life. The verse in Job is God laying the cornerstone for the earth, while the verses in the new testament are about Jesus being the cornerstone of a believers faith. These are completely different things with no apparent connection. There is no mention of any messianic prophesy in this verse because that is not the point of this verse. The point is for Job to understand who he has been complaining to, the creator of the the universe. You need to understand the meaning of context. I still need verses about angels and sons of God (so 2 separate verses) being rejocing over creation. But we have the creation in the bible so verses should be easy to find for you. But God created alone I believe and then just rested. However, creation didn't bring good for anyone to be rejoicing over it anyway. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. Romans 8:22 Well, honestly I could explain again why one will suffice, but honestly I'm tired of arguing. I'm really freaking tired. I stayed up literally all night yesterday and then went to Charleston, then came home and started this debate. Honestly its going nowhere and I've got to sleep or I'll start hallucinating. Anyways I don't think we'll get anywhere anyhow. I think looking at the original Hebrew and Greek of the Bible to gain a clearer understanding of the Bible and trusting the field of linguistics and biblical and Hebrew scholarship is a valid way to interpret the Bible and you two seem to think that studying the original languages is cultic somehow. Whatever, you do you. Live and let live is my philosophy. The verse we are arguing over isn't important anyhow. Who cares if it was angels or people? Doesn't really matter, they're all freaking dead now. Thank you for keeping this debate to a certain level of respect. I'll say my piece to DKtrav88 and end this tiresome debate when he responds.
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Jul 20, 2018 6:53:10 GMT
I still need verses about angels and sons of God (so 2 separate verses) being rejocing over creation. But we have the creation in the bible so verses should be easy to find for you. But God created alone I believe and then just rested. However, creation didn't bring good for anyone to be rejoicing over it anyway. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. Romans 8:22 Well, honestly I could explain again why one will suffice, but honestly I'm tired of arguing. I'm really freaking tired. I stayed up literally all night yesterday and then went to Charleston, then came home and started this debate. Honestly its going nowhere and I've got to sleep or I'll start hallucinating. Anyways I don't think we'll get anywhere anyhow. I think looking at the original Hebrew and Greek of the Bible to gain a clearer understanding of the Bible and trusting the field of linguistics and biblical and Hebrew scholarship is a valid way to interpret the Bible and you two seem to think that studying the original languages is cultic somehow. Whatever, you do you. Live and let live is my philosophy. The verse we are arguing over isn't important anyhow. Who cares if it was angels or people? Doesn't really matter, they're all freaking dead now. Thank you for keeping this debate to a certain level of respect. I'll say my piece to DKtrav88 and end this tiresome debate when he responds. Well, you can always try to find it later. Since genesis just seems to tell of a lonesome creation by God and then Him resting. Seems a quiet event. But if angels and the sons of God had a party over it then would be cool to know. However, Job doesn't only mention Earth as part of the creation there (up to verse 10 I mean). It mentions 5 distinct things. 1. Things on the earth (like the line/equator) 2. The cornerstone that brought angels and the sons of God together to rejoice over it because cornerstone was so awesome 3. The water (set the seas in place) 4. Things in the sky (clouds) 5. His very own place in heaven So things pertaining to Him as well are mentioned here. Plus, He mentions it out of order. His own place couldn't be number 5 but number 1. So other things could be out of order too.
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Jul 20, 2018 7:02:03 GMT
“We have the Dead Sea Scrolls and we know exactly what they say.” We do? I don’t understand Ancient Hebrew, do you? I understand English though. So, by the logic you’re using none of the Bible’s today written in English are God’s preserved word. So everyone who knows the English language is at a loss because God only preserved His word in ancient Hebrew and Greek and only those who know those languages can interpret God’s word correctly for everyone who doesn’t know those languages. That is the pure definition of cult if I had ever seen it; relying on gurus to tell us what God’s word actually says because God wasn’t powerful enough to preserve His word in the English language, the most used language in the world, just as Koine Greek was the most used language in the world at the time the New Testament was written. “How do you know that the translation you're using is the accurate one? How do you decide which translation is corrupted and which one isn't. Which is the the source Bible you are using to compare it to?” I already explained this in a previous post on this thread; many bible versions, even in languages other than English, remove whole verses, words, sentences, and change words to make God’s word inconsistent. Would you like examples? Mark 15:28 is removed from many versions, Acts 8:37 is removed from many versions, 1 John 5:7 is removed from many versions, etc. One only needs to put versions side by side and compare them. “The first Bible we have in English is the King James Bible.” No, it wasn’t. The first English Bible was the Wiclyffe Bible translated in the 1300’s. “It talks about unicorns, satyrs, Basilisks, dragons and a ton of other mythical creatures” Satyr is never said once in the KJV. I showed you the definition of unicorn in another thread A basilisk is a huge lizard, pretty much a dinosaur which brings me to my next point that being the word dinosaur didn’t exist when the KJV was written, so they used the word dragon instead(also see Komodo dragon which isn’t a dragon in the mythical sense ). “the Bible clearly says hints and outright shows that the Sons of God in the three places mentioned are clearly angels” Then you are saying the Bible is inconsistent . Why would God confuse us by using two different meanings for the same phrase? Oh, but you would say “The Hebrew! The Hebrew!”.. well unfortunately the world doesn’t understand ancient Hebrew, a dead language, so you’re gonna need a better retort Why would God preserve His word so that only people who studied ancient Hebrew and Koine Greek could truly understand it? First, I apologize for getting things factually wrong in my last post. I assure you it was out of ignorance not malice. To explain my position on the Bible. Yes, I believe that the English versions of the Bible do a very good job of portraying the word of God and that it is the word of God. But what you have with the Bible is ancient Hebrew in the old Testament and Greek in the New Testament being translated into English. Now take for example the Greek that the new Testament is written in. There are like four words translated love in English because what else are you going to translate them to? These words for love have different meanings with nuances that are lost in English and to get the full meaning one would have to look up the Greek meaning. www.bibleconnectionnews.com/5-biblical-words-for-love/ The Bible is full of things like that and even in English the word love can refer to a different type of love depending on context. If I were to interpret the world the way you interpret the Bible, "well it says love and every time I hear the word love it means romantic love thus people using it differently are being inconsistent," I would be a complete mad man. Even in English different words have different meanings depending on the context. If you use a word such as "Sons of God" in one context it might mean something different than in another context. One thing may not be a son of God in the same way as another thing. Perhaps the people who've accepted Christ but are obviously mortal men are not the same as the things shouting for joy at the same time God is laying the foundations of the earth before mankind is even created. Now your claim that trusting experts on things they know a lot about is cultish. Do you trust experts when they say that gravity is real? That germ theory is real? That gene theory is real? Do you trust experts when they say that the earth is round? You've never been to space and those pictures might be fabricated after all, all men are liars. The things I've stated regarding the Hebrew are facts. You may not believe them because you have an extremely... strange worldview. But they are facts. I have never in my life run across a Christian who thought looking up the ancient Hebrew or Greek to understand a certain word and its meaning was akin to being a part of heretical cult. Anyways, I don't have to go to the ancient Hebrew to prove my point. The fact is that the sons of God were there when God layed the foundation of the earth. This is clearly written in the bible for you or anyone to see and you have no explanation for it other than sons of god referring to something else somewhere else in an entirely different context to this and an attempt to reinterpret a verse clearly referring to God creating the word into somehow talking about Jesus somewhere else. "But what you have with the Bible is ancient Hebrew in the old Testament and Greek in the New Testament being translated into English." So? God did say He would preserve His word forever, right? So if we have all of our faith in God and what He said He would do, then we won't need to go back to these languages that hardly anyone knows, we can trust that God had His word preserved FOREVER like He said He would. It doesn't matter what the ancient Hebrew and Koine Greek say because God preserved His word so those who don't and won't ever know those languages can pick up a Bible in their language and read it and understand it. "There are like four words translated love in English because what else are you going to translate them to? These words for love have different meanings with nuances that are lost in English and to get the full meaning one would have to look up the Greek meaning. The Bible is full of things like that and even in English the word love can refer to a different type of love depending on context. If I were to interpret the world the way you interpret the Bible, "well it says love and every time I hear the word love it means romantic love thus people using it differently are being inconsistent," I would be a complete mad man." Does the word 'sons' have any other meaning than children besides the obvious reference to gender? "at the same time God is laying the foundations of the earth" The context isn't suggesting this. That's an interjection to fit your idea. The creation account in Genesis 1 doesn't give us witness to angels singing and shouting for joy, unless you think when God says "us", "our", and "our" you think those are angels included there in the plurality. "Do you trust experts when they say that gravity is real?" I can experience gravity, I don't need an expert to tell me it's real. "Do you trust experts when they say that the earth is round?" I can witness this myself during the sunset. There was an issue with this in Dubai where Muslims didn't know if they were supposed to pray at the same time as everyone else because the sun set at a later time at the top of their tallest building than it did on the ground.. point being the sun wouldn't set at a later time at the top of the building if the earth were flat. This is simple observation. I don't need an expert to tell me what can be seen plainly. "I have never in my life run across a Christian who thought looking up the ancient Hebrew or Greek to understand a certain word and its meaning was akin to being a part of heretical cult." You don't quite understand my position; it is that if we have to rely on just a few men who are 'experts' in ancient Hebrew and Koine Greek for God's true word, then we are relying on men, gurus, to interpret God's word for us in every sense, which would then make Christianity a cult. Islam is like this, in that Muslims say you must read the quran in Arabic to get the full understanding of it, otherwise, you have to go to an Imam so he can explain it to you(again, relying on a guru to tell you what God's word says... and NO I am NOT saying that the quran is God's word, I was just using that as an example). "The fact is that the sons of God were there when God layed the foundation of the earth." The creation account in Genesis 1 does not give us witness of this claim. "This is clearly written in the bible for you or anyone to see and you have no explanation for it other than sons of god referring to something else somewhere else in an entirely different context to this and an attempt to reinterpret a verse clearly referring to God creating the word into somehow talking about Jesus somewhere else." Again, does the word 'sons' have any other meaning than 'children' other than the obvious reference to gender? If you can show me another verse in the Bible that refers to 'sons' as angels other than in the phrase "sons of God", please do.
|
|
Clovis Merovingian
Prestige/VIP
Elder
Posts: 2,689
Likes: 1,757
Meta-Ethnicity: Anglo-American
Ethnicity: Deep Southerner
Country: My State and my Region are my country
Region: The Deep South
Location: South Carolina
Ancestry: Gaelic (patrilineal), English, Ulster Scots/Scots Irish, Scottish, German, Swiss German, Swedish, Manx, Finnish, Norman French/Quebecois (distantly), Dutch (distantly)
Taxonomy: Borreby/Alpine/ Nordid mix
Y-DNA: R-S660/R-DF109
mtDNA: T1a1
Politics: Conservative
Religion: Christian
Hero: Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, James K. Polk
Age: 30
Philosophy: I try to find out what is true as best I can.
|
Post by Clovis Merovingian on Jul 20, 2018 7:14:14 GMT
Well, honestly I could explain again why one will suffice, but honestly I'm tired of arguing. I'm really freaking tired. I stayed up literally all night yesterday and then went to Charleston, then came home and started this debate. Honestly its going nowhere and I've got to sleep or I'll start hallucinating. Anyways I don't think we'll get anywhere anyhow. I think looking at the original Hebrew and Greek of the Bible to gain a clearer understanding of the Bible and trusting the field of linguistics and biblical and Hebrew scholarship is a valid way to interpret the Bible and you two seem to think that studying the original languages is cultic somehow. Whatever, you do you. Live and let live is my philosophy. The verse we are arguing over isn't important anyhow. Who cares if it was angels or people? Doesn't really matter, they're all freaking dead now. Thank you for keeping this debate to a certain level of respect. I'll say my piece to DKtrav88 and end this tiresome debate when he responds. Well, you can always try to find it later. Since genesis just seems to tell of a lonesome creation by God and then Him resting. Seems a quiet event. But if angels and the sons of God had a party over it then would be cool to know. However, Job doesn't only mention Earth as part of the creation there (up to verse 10 I mean). It mentions 5 distinct things. 1. Things on the earth (like the line/equator) 2. The cornerstone that brought angels and the sons of God together to rejoice over it because cornerstone was so awesome 3. The water (set the seas in place) 4. Things in the sky (clouds) 5. His very own place in heaven So things pertaining to Him as well are mentioned here. Plus, He mentions it out of order. His own place couldn't be number 5 but number 1. So other things could be out of order too. I honestly have no interest in continuing this conversation. I sense this becoming a ***** fight like the ones that happen between DKtrav88 and Diamond. I don't want no part of that and its dawned on me how pointless this debate is. Neither one of us is going to convince the other because we accept different standards of evidence. I think looking at the Hebrew is valid and he and you don't. And who gives a crap if the people who shagged the man daughters were angels or really horny men? Is this really a pillar stone in the Christian faith? Besides all these endless religious debates are ticking people off and driving people away from God if anything. I remember a quote by Romeo that has stuck with me and another by Eugene. These debates are tiresome and devolve into incivility real fast and they are tiresome especially when they go nowhere. There are three reasons to debate, to convince someone that your point is correct (that ain't happening, we have different things that we accept as proof), to convince the people who are reading this that your point is correct (I don't think anyone is convincing anyone of anything except that were a bunch of tools arguing about insignificance), or to test your opinion against the other person to come to the truth and refine your opinions (iron sharpens iron). I don't sense that happening. And does it really help anyone outside the faith to see self professed Christians bickering for page after page over minute details like this. Its like Romeo said, "read all of those pages and ask yourself why on earth you would want to associate with such a community." And you know what? I started this so mea culpa. I'm now going to end it before it gets out of hand.
|
|
Clovis Merovingian
Prestige/VIP
Elder
Posts: 2,689
Likes: 1,757
Meta-Ethnicity: Anglo-American
Ethnicity: Deep Southerner
Country: My State and my Region are my country
Region: The Deep South
Location: South Carolina
Ancestry: Gaelic (patrilineal), English, Ulster Scots/Scots Irish, Scottish, German, Swiss German, Swedish, Manx, Finnish, Norman French/Quebecois (distantly), Dutch (distantly)
Taxonomy: Borreby/Alpine/ Nordid mix
Y-DNA: R-S660/R-DF109
mtDNA: T1a1
Politics: Conservative
Religion: Christian
Hero: Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, James K. Polk
Age: 30
Philosophy: I try to find out what is true as best I can.
|
Post by Clovis Merovingian on Jul 20, 2018 7:27:01 GMT
First, I apologize for getting things factually wrong in my last post. I assure you it was out of ignorance not malice. To explain my position on the Bible. Yes, I believe that the English versions of the Bible do a very good job of portraying the word of God and that it is the word of God. But what you have with the Bible is ancient Hebrew in the old Testament and Greek in the New Testament being translated into English. Now take for example the Greek that the new Testament is written in. There are like four words translated love in English because what else are you going to translate them to? These words for love have different meanings with nuances that are lost in English and to get the full meaning one would have to look up the Greek meaning. www.bibleconnectionnews.com/5-biblical-words-for-love/ The Bible is full of things like that and even in English the word love can refer to a different type of love depending on context. If I were to interpret the world the way you interpret the Bible, "well it says love and every time I hear the word love it means romantic love thus people using it differently are being inconsistent," I would be a complete mad man. Even in English different words have different meanings depending on the context. If you use a word such as "Sons of God" in one context it might mean something different than in another context. One thing may not be a son of God in the same way as another thing. Perhaps the people who've accepted Christ but are obviously mortal men are not the same as the things shouting for joy at the same time God is laying the foundations of the earth before mankind is even created. Now your claim that trusting experts on things they know a lot about is cultish. Do you trust experts when they say that gravity is real? That germ theory is real? That gene theory is real? Do you trust experts when they say that the earth is round? You've never been to space and those pictures might be fabricated after all, all men are liars. The things I've stated regarding the Hebrew are facts. You may not believe them because you have an extremely... strange worldview. But they are facts. I have never in my life run across a Christian who thought looking up the ancient Hebrew or Greek to understand a certain word and its meaning was akin to being a part of heretical cult. Anyways, I don't have to go to the ancient Hebrew to prove my point. The fact is that the sons of God were there when God layed the foundation of the earth. This is clearly written in the bible for you or anyone to see and you have no explanation for it other than sons of god referring to something else somewhere else in an entirely different context to this and an attempt to reinterpret a verse clearly referring to God creating the word into somehow talking about Jesus somewhere else. "But what you have with the Bible is ancient Hebrew in the old Testament and Greek in the New Testament being translated into English." So? God did say He would preserve His word forever, right? So if we have all of our faith in God and what He said He would do, then we won't need to go back to these languages that hardly anyone knows, we can trust that God had His word preserved FOREVER like He said He would. It doesn't matter what the ancient Hebrew and Koine Greek say because God preserved His word so those who don't and won't ever know those languages can pick up a Bible in their language and read it and understand it. "There are like four words translated love in English because what else are you going to translate them to? These words for love have different meanings with nuances that are lost in English and to get the full meaning one would have to look up the Greek meaning. The Bible is full of things like that and even in English the word love can refer to a different type of love depending on context. If I were to interpret the world the way you interpret the Bible, "well it says love and every time I hear the word love it means romantic love thus people using it differently are being inconsistent," I would be a complete mad man." Does the word 'sons' have any other meaning than children besides the obvious reference to gender? "at the same time God is laying the foundations of the earth" The context isn't suggesting this. That's an interjection to fit your idea. The creation account in Genesis 1 doesn't give us witness to angels singing and shouting for joy, unless you think when God says "us", "our", and "our" you think those are angels included there in the plurality. "Do you trust experts when they say that gravity is real?" I can experience gravity, I don't need an expert to tell me it's real. "Do you trust experts when they say that the earth is round?" I can witness this myself during the sunset. There was an issue with this in Dubai where Muslims didn't know if they were supposed to pray at the same time as everyone else because the sun set at a later time at the top of their tallest building than it did on the ground.. point being the sun wouldn't set at a later time at the top of the building if the earth were flat. This is simple observation. I don't need an expert to tell me what can be seen plainly. "I have never in my life run across a Christian who thought looking up the ancient Hebrew or Greek to understand a certain word and its meaning was akin to being a part of heretical cult." You don't quite understand my position; it is that if we have to rely on just a few men who are 'experts' in ancient Hebrew and Koine Greek for God's true word, then we are relying on men, gurus, to interpret God's word for us in every sense, which would then make Christianity a cult. Islam is like this, in that Muslims say you must read the quran in Arabic to get the full understanding of it, otherwise, you have to go to an Imam so he can explain it to you(again, relying on a guru to tell you what God's word says... and NO I am NOT saying that the quran is God's word, I was just using that as an example). "The fact is that the sons of God were there when God layed the foundation of the earth." The creation account in Genesis 1 does not give us witness of this claim. "This is clearly written in the bible for you or anyone to see and you have no explanation for it other than sons of god referring to something else somewhere else in an entirely different context to this and an attempt to reinterpret a verse clearly referring to God creating the word into somehow talking about Jesus somewhere else." Again, does the word 'sons' have any other meaning than 'children' other than the obvious reference to gender? If you can show me another verse in the Bible that refers to 'sons' as angels other than in the phrase "sons of God", please do. Listen man, I could do this all day, but I don't really want to. Thank you for the the debate and for your time. You made some good points in places but we aren't gonna see eye to eye on this because we don't have the same standard of evidence and we interpret the Bible through different methods. I hate these long drawn out debates; I don't have Diamond's energy and I am afraid that this could turn into another uncivil debate. And yeah, I started it. But anyways I'm going to end this here before this becomes a repeat of last time. God bless.
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Jul 20, 2018 7:28:49 GMT
Well, you can always try to find it later. Since genesis just seems to tell of a lonesome creation by God and then Him resting. Seems a quiet event. But if angels and the sons of God had a party over it then would be cool to know. However, Job doesn't only mention Earth as part of the creation there (up to verse 10 I mean). It mentions 5 distinct things. 1. Things on the earth (like the line/equator) 2. The cornerstone that brought angels and the sons of God together to rejoice over it because cornerstone was so awesome 3. The water (set the seas in place) 4. Things in the sky (clouds) 5. His very own place in heaven So things pertaining to Him as well are mentioned here. Plus, He mentions it out of order. His own place couldn't be number 5 but number 1. So other things could be out of order too. I honestly have no interest in continuing this conversation. I sense this becoming a ***** fight like the ones that happen between DKtrav88 and Diamond. I don't want no part of that and its dawned on me how pointless this debate is. Neither one of us is going to convince the other because we accept different standards of evidence. I think looking at the Hebrew is valid and he and you don't. And who gives a crap if the people who shagged the man daughters were angels or really horny men? Is this really a pillar stone in the Christian faith? Besides all these endless religious debates are ticking people off and driving people away from God if anything. I remember a quote by Romeo that has stuck with me and another by Eugene. These debates are tiresome and devolve into incivility real fast and they are tiresome especially when they go nowhere. There are three reasons to debate, to convince someone that your point is correct (that ain't happening, we have different things that we accept as proof), to convince the people who are reading this that your point is correct (I don't think anyone is convincing anyone of anything except that were a bunch of tools arguing about insignificance), or to test your opinion against the other person to come to the truth and refine your opinions (iron sharpens iron). I don't sense that happening. And does it really help anyone outside the faith to see self professed Christians bickering for page after page over minute details like this. Its like Romeo said, "read all of those pages and ask yourself why on earth you would want to associate with such a community." And you know what? I started this so mea culpa. I'm now going to end it before it gets out of hand. I have a quick hypothetical question for you, if you don't mind. I'm going to give my answer to it as well, and we can see if we agree... If all of the people who know and studied ancient Hebrew and Koine Greek(scholars) died tomorrow and all their journals/studies/books/publications disappeared with them and coincidentally all of the manuscripts written in ancient Hebrew and Koine Greek were destroyed at the same time, would God's word be preserved unto this day? A simple yes or no is all that is needed. My answer is Yes.
|
|
Clovis Merovingian
Prestige/VIP
Elder
Posts: 2,689
Likes: 1,757
Meta-Ethnicity: Anglo-American
Ethnicity: Deep Southerner
Country: My State and my Region are my country
Region: The Deep South
Location: South Carolina
Ancestry: Gaelic (patrilineal), English, Ulster Scots/Scots Irish, Scottish, German, Swiss German, Swedish, Manx, Finnish, Norman French/Quebecois (distantly), Dutch (distantly)
Taxonomy: Borreby/Alpine/ Nordid mix
Y-DNA: R-S660/R-DF109
mtDNA: T1a1
Politics: Conservative
Religion: Christian
Hero: Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, James K. Polk
Age: 30
Philosophy: I try to find out what is true as best I can.
|
Post by Clovis Merovingian on Jul 20, 2018 7:31:38 GMT
I honestly have no interest in continuing this conversation. I sense this becoming a ***** fight like the ones that happen between DKtrav88 and Diamond. I don't want no part of that and its dawned on me how pointless this debate is. Neither one of us is going to convince the other because we accept different standards of evidence. I think looking at the Hebrew is valid and he and you don't. And who gives a crap if the people who shagged the man daughters were angels or really horny men? Is this really a pillar stone in the Christian faith? Besides all these endless religious debates are ticking people off and driving people away from God if anything. I remember a quote by Romeo that has stuck with me and another by Eugene. These debates are tiresome and devolve into incivility real fast and they are tiresome especially when they go nowhere. There are three reasons to debate, to convince someone that your point is correct (that ain't happening, we have different things that we accept as proof), to convince the people who are reading this that your point is correct (I don't think anyone is convincing anyone of anything except that were a bunch of tools arguing about insignificance), or to test your opinion against the other person to come to the truth and refine your opinions (iron sharpens iron). I don't sense that happening. And does it really help anyone outside the faith to see self professed Christians bickering for page after page over minute details like this. Its like Romeo said, "read all of those pages and ask yourself why on earth you would want to associate with such a community." And you know what? I started this so mea culpa. I'm now going to end it before it gets out of hand. I have a quick hypothetical question for you, if you don't mind. I'm going to give my answer to it as well, and we can see if we agree... If all of the people who know and studied ancient Hebrew and Koine Greek(scholars) died tomorrow and all their journals/studies/books/publications disappeared with them and coincidentally all of the manuscripts written in ancient Hebrew and Koine Greek were destroyed at the same time, would God's word be preserved unto this day? A simple yes or no is that that is needed. My answer is Yes. Well, it'd take a bit more explanation than that but my answer is Yes.
|
|