14 replies to this topic

[Ben Masada]

THE LORD'S CATCH-22

According to a certain midrash reported by Thomas Mann in his book "Joseph and his Brothers," after a while that Abraham had arrived in Canaan, from his country and folks in Ur of the Chaldeans, he was deeply impressed about the deep love with which the Canaanites would love their gods as to offer their firstborn son in a burn sacrifice. Abraham would go frustrate to think that he could not express his love for Elohim in such a dramatic way.

As Abraham would try to chew that paradox in his mind, he fell asleep and had a dream. Elohim would identify Himself thus: I am Molech, bull-king of the baalites and command you to bring your firstborn son Isaac and offer him in a burn sacrifice to Me. As Abraham set about to do so, the Lord said, "How dare you! Am I Molech bull-king of the baalites? I expected you to know much better. What I have commanded, I did not command so that you would do it, but that you might learn that you should not do it; because it is nothing but an abomination in My sight, instead; and don't confuse the practices of the Gentiles with the People you will sire. Behold a ram; offer it instead.

Another example for the Lord's Catch-22, is found in the tieing of Ulysses by his subjects on a pole in the ship to prevent him from harming himself into jumping into the sea as he would get captivated by the Siren songs. No matter his commands to his subjects to untie himself, they would not obey him till the danger was over. At the end, he would gratefully thank them for not having obeyed him.

That's what a Catch-22 is, a command that must be obeyed in the opposite way of the command itself.

Ignorance is an abomination in the Lord's sight. When Adam and Eve were forbidden to eat of the tree of knowledge, it was the Lord's catch-22 to rather enhance man's appetite for the tree of knowledge. If the prohibition were to be observed, the fruit of that tree would not have been so enticing and the tree would not have been planted in the center of the garden to call the attention of all. And the Lord would not have employed the services of the serpent to explain that they had misunderstood the command which had been meant to be rather the opposite. As Adam and Eve realized what the Lord really meant, the abomination of ignorance had been neutralized. And they were saved because, rather for lack of knowledge, my People perish. (Hosea 4:6)

Ben

[IamsSon]

Actually, a Cath-22, a phrase which comes from the book "Catch-22" by Joseph Heller refers to what is basically a no-win situation.  The book is about a pilot who is concerned about his safety as he flies more and more combat missions.  However, the only reason why he would be grounded is if he was crazy, and all he had to do was claim to be crazy... but if he claimed to be crazy, then he would be proving he was sane since no insane person would claim to be insane, but since he was sane then he would have to continue to fly missions.

Your premise is not a Catch 22 at all, and it also leaves out the immediate outcome of their actions.  If God enticed them to eat from the tree through the use of the serpent, then why does he then curse the serpent?  Why does he punish Adam and Eve?

I do believe God intended to test Adam and Eve, otherwise why have the tree in the garden at all.  But Adam and Eve made the decision to disobey themselves despite having been given explicit instructions not to and been told the dire consequences of their disobedience.  Additionally, they then decided to attempt to hide themselves and their actions from God.  They chose to do that.  Furthermore, once in God's presence they each chose to shift blame, the woman blamed the serpent and the man blamed both the woman and God.  Again, their own choice.  I've often wondered what would have happened if Adam had accepted responsibility for not keeping Eve from eating and for also having then tasted the fruit himself.

[Ben Masada]

IamsSon, on 21 May 2012 - 08:07 PM, said:

Actually, a Cath-22, a phrase which comes from the book "Catch-22" by Joseph Heller refers to what is basically a no-win situation.  The book is about a pilot who is concerned about his safety as he flies more and more combat missions.  However, the only reason why he would be grounded is if he was crazy, and all he had to do was claim to be crazy... but if he claimed to be crazy, then he would be proving he was sane since no insane person would claim to be insane, but since he was sane then he would have to continue to fly missions.

Your premise is not a Catch 22 at all, and it also leaves out the immediate outcome of their actions.  If God enticed them to eat from the tree through the use of the serpent, then why does he then curse the serpent?  Why does he punish Adam and Eve?

I do believe God intended to test Adam and Eve, otherwise why have the tree in the garden at all.  But Adam and Eve made the decision to disobey themselves despite having been given explicit instructions not to and been told the dire consequences of their disobedience.  Additionally, they then decided to attempt to hide themselves and their actions from God.  They chose to do that.  Furthermore, once in God's presence they each chose to shift blame, the woman blamed the serpent and the man blamed both the woman and God.  Again, their own choice.  I've often wondered what would have happened if Adam had accepted responsibility for not keeping Eve from eating and for also having then tasted the fruit himself.

I read the paper-back book "Catch-22" by Joseph Heller. Now, I proceed to prove that my premise is a catch-22.

According to Proverbs 1:7, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge." To literally obey God as the warning had been given, Adam and Eve would be proving that they feared the Lord by abiding by the so-called prohibition. However, they would remain in their ignorance, which is rather the reason why "My people perish," according to Hosea 4:6,  if they did not disobey God.  Since fear of the Lord is  the beginning of knowledge, to rather disobey God was what God had meant. For by doing so, they would prove that they really feared the Lord, as they acquired knowledge by eating of the tree of knowledge. Did they die by eating of the tree of knowledge? Not at all, as they rather acquired life with knowledge.

Now, with regards to who blamed whom, both Adam and Eve blamed God, as we still do today when any distemper or catastrophe happens to us. The question from our lips is usually: "Where was God that allowed such a thing to happen?" We are never ready to blame ourselves, when we, in fact, are the ones blamed for our own wrongdoings or of being on the wrong place at the wrong time. Nothing new under the sun. It has been the same since Creation.

And for your question, "Why does He punish Adam and Eve," He didn't. If you have Genesis 2:17 in mind that "The moment you eat from the tree of knowledge, you will surely die," didn't happen. And if you take Genesis 3:22  as the punishment, be aware that they were banished from the Garden of Eden not because they ate of the tree of knowledge but to prevent them from eating of the tree of life, that they found out was just beside the tree of knowledge in the midts of the Garden. The whole thing, anyway, is an allegory for the granting of attributes: Intellect that man was to have, and eternal life that man was to be denied.
Ben

Edited by Ben Masada, 22 May 2012 - 05:13 PM.

[karmakazi]

Ben Masada, on 21 May 2012 - 07:12 PM, said:

THE LORD'S CATCH-22

According to a certain midrash reported by Thomas Mann in his book "Joseph and his Brothers," after a while that Abraham had arrived in Canaan, from his country and folks in Ur of the Chaldeans, he was deeply impressed about the deep love with which the Canaanites would love their gods as to offer their firstborn son in a burn sacrifice. Abraham would go frustrate to think that he could not express his love for Elohim in such a dramatic way.

As Abraham would try to chew that paradox in his mind, he fell asleep and had a dream. Elohim would identify Himself thus: I am Molech, bull-king of the baalites and command you to bring your firstborn son Isaac and offer him in a burn sacrifice to Me. As Abraham set about to do so, the Lord said, "How dare you! Am I Molech bull-king of the baalites? I expected you to know much better. What I have commanded, I did not command so that you would do it, but that you might learn that you should not do it; because it is nothing but an abomination in My sight, instead; and don't confuse the practices of the Gentiles with the People you will sire. Behold a ram; offer it instead.

Another example for the Lord's Catch-22, is found in the tieing of Ulysses by his subjects on a pole in the ship to prevent him from harming himself into jumping into the sea as he would get captivated by the Siren songs. No matter his commands to his subjects to untie himself, they would not obey him till the danger was over. At the end, he would gratefully thank them for not having obeyed him.

That's what a Catch-22 is, a command that must be obeyed in the opposite way of the command itself.

Ignorance is an abomination in the Lord's sight. When Adam and Eve were forbidden to eat of the tree of knowledge, it was the Lord's catch-22 to rather enhance man's appetite for the tree of knowledge. If the prohibition were to be observed, the fruit of that tree would not have been so enticing and the tree would not have been planted in the center of the garden to call the attention of all. And the Lord would not have employed the services of the serpent to explain that they had misunderstood the command which had been meant to be rather the opposite. As Adam and Eve realized what the Lord really meant, the abomination of ignorance had been neutralized. And they were saved because, rather for lack of knowledge, my People perish. (Hosea 4:6)

Ben

You're overlooking a big difference between the two stories you are trying to compare - in the case of Ulysses his command was to be tied up, and that his demands while being tied up were to be ignored.  In the case of God & Abraham, God did not say "I'm going to talk to you in your dream, but you need to ignore whatever I say" and then get angry that Abraham listened.

They are totally different situations and neither is a catch-22, as Iam pointed out.


I agree that the story of Adam and Eve likely bears different meaning than how it reads, but I disagree with your assumptions as to what that meaning is.

[Ben Masada]

karmakazi, on 22 May 2012 - 04:57 PM, said:

You're overlooking a big difference between the two stories you are trying to compare - in the case of Ulysses his command was to be tied up, and that his demands while being tied up were to be ignored.  In the case of God & Abraham, God did not say "I'm going to talk to you in your dream, but you need to ignore whatever I say" and then get angry that Abraham listened.

They are totally different situations and neither is a catch-22, as Iam pointed out.


I agree that the story of Adam and Eve likely bears different meaning than how it reads, but I disagree with your assumptions as to what that meaning is.

Karmakazi, you have all the right in the world to your opinion, but allow me to explain to you that  In the case of Abraham, the Lord did not have to explain that He would be talking to him in a dream. Abraham was a prophet; and that's the way God would talk to His prophets. Read Numbers 12:6. "Should there be a prophet among you, in vision will I reveal Myself to him, in dreams will I speak to him." According to our Scriptures, therefore, there is no such a thing as God speaking face to face to an Israelite prophet. This is possible only in the realm of Greek Mythology. That's in the Iliad of Homer.

In the case of Ulysses, first, he gave the order to tie him up at the pole in the ship. The second order was not to untie him while the sirens were singing. The third order was to untie him under penalty of insurrection if his servants did not obey his order. That's the catch-22. Not to obey an order if one is under the compulsion of a previous order. In the case of Adam and Eve, the previous order was embodied on the fact that the tree of knowledge was planted in the center of the Garden of Eden, with the purpose to attract their attention, made to be the most alluring of all trees with the purpose to make it easier for them to decide to go for it. Therefore, the second order was supposed to be obeyed in the opposite manner from the way it was ordained; just as it happened in the case of Ulysses. Why? Because, with eating of the tree of knowledge, they would acquire knowledge, which is rather what brings life and not death. Hence the words of prophet Hosea: "My people perish for lack of knowledge." (Hosea 4:6)
Ben

[karmakazi]

Ben Masada, on 23 May 2012 - 05:38 PM, said:

Karmakazi, you have all the right in the world to your opinion, but allow me to explain to you that  In the case of Abraham, the Lord did not have to explain that He would be talking to him in a dream. Abraham was a prophet; and that's the way God would talk to His prophets. Read Numbers 12:6. "Should there be a prophet among you, in vision will I reveal Myself to him, in dreams will I speak to him." According to our Scriptures, therefore, there is no such a thing as God speaking face to face to an Israelite prophet.

First of all, Numbers 12:6 occurs chronologically after Abraham, as it involves Moses who came after Abraham.  Also, snipping out one small bit of text is misleading, as the text that follows it specifies that God DOES talk to Moses face to face, and seems to imply that prophets in coming years will only receive visions or dreams.

Quote

Numbers 12:6 And He saith, `Hear, I pray you, My words: If your prophet is of Jehovah -- in an appearance unto him I make Myself known; in a dream I speak with him; ⁷ not so My servant Moses; in all My house he [is] stedfast; ⁸ mouth unto mouth I speak with him, and [by] an appearance, and not in riddles; and the form of Jehovah he beholdeth attentively; and wherefore have ye not been afraid to speak against My servant -- against Moses?'

The statement that God never spoke face to face with a prophet is not supported by the bible ( I read the YLT, by the way) :

Quote

Genesis18:16 And the men rise from thence, and look on the face of Sodom, and Abraham is going with them to send them away; 18:17 and Jehovah said, `Am I concealing from Abraham that which I am doing, 18:18 and Abraham certainly becometh a nation great and mighty, and blessed in him have been all nations of the earth? 18:19 for I have known him, that he commandeth his children, and his house after him (and they have kept the way of Jehovah), to do righteousness and judgment, that Jehovah may bring on Abraham that which He hath spoken concerning him.' 18:20 And Jehovah saith, `The cry of Sodom and Gomorrah -- because great; and their sin -- because exceeding grievous: 18:21 I go down now, and see whether according to its cry which is coming unto Me they have done completely -- and if not -- I know;' 18:22 and the men turn from thence, and go towards Sodom; and Abraham is yet standing before Jehovah. 18:23 And Abraham draweth nigh and saith, `Dost Thou also consume righteous with wicked? <snip> 18:33 And Jehovah goeth on, when He hath finished speaking unto Abraham, and Abraham hath turned back to his place.

Just one of many scriptures where it does not imply that Jehovah spoke to Abraham in a dream, it implies the opposite, and if someone is receiving vision in a dream it's often noted that it happened "in a dream".

Quote

This is possible only in the realm of Greek Mythology. That's in the Iliad of Homer.

That is your opinion, not fact, since the texts clearly leave that open ended.

Quote

In the case of Ulysses, first, he gave the order to tie him up at the pole in the ship. The second order was not to untie him while the sirens were singing. The third order was to untie him under penalty of insurrection if his servants did not obey his order.

Not quite.

It wasn't actually Ulysses order to begin with, he was instructed by Circe:

Quote

Therefore pass these Sirens by, and stop your men's ears with wax that none of them may hear; but if you like you can listen yourself, for you may get the men to bind you as you stand upright on a cross-piece half way up the mast, and they must lash the rope's ends to the mast itself, that you may have the pleasure of listening. If you beg and pray the men to unloose you, then they must bind you faster.

When he told his men what to do, he was recounting what Circe had said, it wasn't individual orders as you imply.  He told them all that she said, and then he put wax in his men's ears and they bound him up, and it wasn't until after that when the sirens began singing.  Then, after he listened to their song, he began asking to be let loose.

You make it sound like he wrote a list of three orders "1. tie me up, 2. don't untie me, 3. untie me" handed them the list and expected them to try and figure out which one of the statements should be obeyed.  You're just twisting what the text said to suit what you want it to say, and that makes it your opinion.


It wasn't a catch 22, you seem to misunderstand the concept that "catch 22" means you're damned if you do and your damned if you don't - that there's no right or good answer or solution.  In the case of Ulysses and his men, everyone was aware that his demands while listening to the sirens would be TEMPORARY and that the only permanent negative consequences would be if they did untie him... so it's not a catch 22.  In the case of Abraham, it wasn't a catch 22 because the way the scripture is written, God didn't give him two conflicting orders, he gave Abraham one order and then at the last moment said "just kidding, you don't have to kill him but it's totally awesome you have that much loyalty... you and your kind will make excellent drones"

Quote

That's the catch-22. Not to obey an order if one is under the compulsion of a previous order. In the case of Adam and Eve, the previous order was embodied on the fact that the tree of knowledge was planted in the center of the Garden of Eden, with the purpose to attract their attention, made to be the most alluring of all trees with the purpose to make it easier for them to decide to go for it. Therefore, the second order was supposed to be obeyed in the opposite manner from the way it was ordained; just as it happened in the case of Ulysses. Why? Because, with eating of the tree of knowledge, they would acquire knowledge, which is rather what brings life and not death. Hence the words of prophet Hosea: "My people perish for lack of knowledge." (Hosea 4:6)

The tree of knowledge wasn't a catch 22 either.  There were clear instructions from God not to eat from the tree of knowledge.  It is YOUR oppinion that the tree was planted in the center to attract their attention, and that it was made to be the most alluring of trees.  Since that is your opinion, the concept that the planting of the tree was an "order" from God is also your opinion.

That's ironic, since you started out telling me I could keep my opinion but clearly implying it's wrong.

I'm not implying anything by the way, I'm stating outright that you're applying ideas to the scripture (and the odyssey) that aren't supported by the text itself.

Edited by karmakazi, 24 May 2012 - 12:31 PM.

[Ben Masada]

karmakazi, on 24 May 2012 - 12:27 PM, said:

Quote

  Also, snipping out one small bit of text is misleading, as the text that follows it specifies that God DOES talk to Moses face to face, and seems to imply that prophets in coming years will only receive visions or dreams.

The expression "face-to-face" with reference to Moses was only in the fashion of the author to enhance Mose's authority, and to imply that Moses was the most important of all the prophets in the history of Israel.

Quote

The statement that God never spoke face to face with a prophet is not supported by the bible ( I read the YLT, by the way) :

Yes, it is. See Num. 24:19. "God is not a like a man that He should change His mind." It also means that God is not like a man that He should speak face-to-face to another.

Quote

Just one of many scriptures where it does not imply that Jehovah spoke to Abraham in a dream, it implies the opposite, and if someone is receiving vision in a dream it's often noted that it happened "in a dream".

The problem here is that you do not understand the difference between dreams and visions. I am posting a thread on the truth about dreams and visions, where I explain that difference. You might find interesting to check it up.

Quote

When he told his men what to do, he was recounting what Circe had said, it wasn't individual orders as you imply.  He told them all that she said, and then he put wax in his men's ears and they bound him up, and it wasn't until after that when the sirens began singing.  Then, after he listened to their song, he began asking to be let loose.

That does not matter for the discussion here. Anyways, how could Ulysses' men hear his voice to untie him if they had wax in their ears? You don't have to answer; it is just a hypothetical question. I don't care for the contradictions in Homer, as he didn't used a Jew to vandalize Judaism with. I care for those in the NT for that reason.

Quote

You make it sound like he wrote a list of three orders "1. tie me up, 2. don't untie me, 3. untie me" handed them the list and expected them to try and figure out which one of the statements should be obeyed.  You're just twisting what the text said to suit what you want it to say, and that makes it your opinion.

The first two ones. Just like in the Garden of Eden. The first silent command given in the making of the tree of knowledge the most alluring of all trees in its desirable character for gaining wisdom. (Gen. 3:6) And in the logic that it would produce life with the acquisition of knowledge rather than death, according to Hosea 4:6.

Quote

It wasn't a catch 22, you seem to misunderstand the concept that "catch 22" means you're damned if you do and your damned if you don't.

Yes, it was. If Adam and Even had obeyed, they would have died in their ignorance. Just like the faithfuls of Jim Jones. If they had disobeyed they would have died, according to their misguided understanding of the command.

Quote

In the case of Abraham, it wasn't a catch 22 because the way the scripture is written, God didn't give him two conflicting orders, he gave Abraham one order and then at the last moment said "just kidding, you don't have to kill him but it's totally awesome you have that much loyalty... you and your kind will make excellent drones"

In a dream every thing is possible, even for God to give a conflicting order to test one's power to reason. Abraham left his homeland Ur, because of idolatry. That was the reason for God's command that Abraham should leave. In Canaan, he gets impressed with the faith of the pagans at burning their firstborn son in sacrifice for their gods, and  has a vision when God commands him to offer his firstborn son in a burning sacrifice. That's a conflicting order, as far as I am concerned.

Ben

[karmakazi]

Ben Masada, on 31 May 2012 - 05:39 PM, said:

The expression "face-to-face" with reference to Moses was only in the fashion of the author to enhance Mose's authority, and to imply that Moses was the most important of all the prophets in the history of Israel.


Yes, it is. See Num. 24:19. "God is not a like a man that He should change His mind." It also means that God is not like a man that He should speak face-to-face to another.

That's not what numbers 24:19 says.

Quote

The problem here is that you do not understand the difference between dreams and visions. I am posting a thread on the truth about dreams and visions, where I explain that difference. You might find interesting to check it up.

I do understand the difference.  I'm saying that your interpretation of the bible isn't supported by the actual text.  It has nothing to do with misunderstanding the difference between a dream and a vision.

Quote

That does not matter for the discussion here. Anyways, how could Ulysses' men hear his voice to untie him if they had wax in their ears? You don't have to answer; it is just a hypothetical question. I don't care for the contradictions in Homer, as he didn't used a Jew to vandalize Judaism with. I care for those in the NT for that reason.

If absoultely matters.  If you're trying to take a single line from a text or your interpretation of it and use it as an example, the context MUST be considered.
Otherwise, it's nothing more than you supporting your opinion with your opinion... oh wait.  You're already doing that.

Oh... and it's interesting that the contradictions of the NT bug you, but when your opinion completely contradicts the text of the OT, that's acceptable.  With regards to Paul, you're the pot calling the kettle black.

Quote

The first two ones. Just like in the Garden of Eden. The first silent command given in the making of the tree of knowledge the most alluring of all trees in its desirable character for gaining wisdom. (Gen. 3:6) And in the logic that it would produce life with the acquisition of knowledge rather than death, according to Hosea 4:6.

Silent commands?  LOL.  Try that in court, see how it holds up.  That's like saying a woman dressing provacatively means it's ok to rape her.

Quote

Yes, it was. If Adam and Even had obeyed, they would have died in their ignorance. Just like the faithfuls of Jim Jones. If they had disobeyed they would have died, according to their misguided understanding of the command.

You can't possibly know what would have happened had they not eaten from that tree.  Were you there?  Are you God?

Quote

In a dream every thing is possible, even for God to give a conflicting order to test one's power to reason. Abraham left his homeland Ur, because of idolatry. That was the reason for God's command that Abraham should leave. In Canaan, he gets impressed with the faith of the pagans at burning their firstborn son in sacrifice for their gods, and  has a vision when God commands him to offer his firstborn son in a burning sacrifice. That's a conflicting order, as far as I am concerned.

If two things that are both your opinion conflict, I guess I can't argue with that.


All you've done is repeat quotes from the bible and then claim they mean something different than what they say... drastically different.  You've inserted so much opinion into these stories that you've convinced yourself the words say what you think in your head.

[Ben Masada]

karmakazi, on 01 June 2012 - 10:36 AM, said:

  

Quote

That's not what numbers 24:19 says.

I am sorry. My mistake. I meant Numbers 23:19. As any one can see, a mistake in my fingers but not in my mind.

Quote

I do understand the difference.  I'm saying that your interpretation of the bible isn't supported by the actual text.  It has nothing to do with misunderstanding the difference between a dream and a vision.

Again, check up the thread about Visions and Dreams and you will see how much more you can learn.

Quote

If absoultely matters.  If you're trying to take a single line from a text or your interpretation of it and use it as an example, the context MUST be considered. Otherwise, it's nothing more than you supporting your opinion with your opinion... oh wait.  You're already doing that.

I said that, what does not matter are the contradictions in Greek Mythology as I found in the Iliad of Homer. He is not using a Jew to promote his Hellenistic myths. I am concerned about the contradictions of the NT for its attempts to vandalize Judaism with Greek Mythology.

Quote

Oh... and it's interesting that the contradictions of the NT bug you, but when your opinion completely contradicts the text of the OT, that's acceptable.  With regards to Paul, you're the pot calling the kettle black.

Prove to me that my Biblical views contradict the Tanach. They would contradict it if I was a member of the literal interpretation club. I am emancipated of that method of interpretation.

Quote

Silent commands?  LOL.  Try that in court, see how it holds up.  That's like saying a woman dressing provacatively means it's ok to rape her.

As I can see, you also do not understand what I mean by "Silent command." Let me see if I can help you. A seller has two houses on sale. The only difference between them is that one has a new painting. In the fact that the seller painted one and not the other, is the silent command for the buyer to buy the painted one. Clear now?

Quote

You can't possibly know what would have happened had they not eaten from that tree.  Were you there?  Are you God?

No, one does not have to be God to realize such a simple thing. All I needed was to check with the Prophets. Hosea says that people perish for lack of knowledge. (Hos. 4:6) By eating of the tree of knowledge one would acquire knowledge, which brings life, according to Hosea. Before eating from it, Eve had been told that the fruit from that tree would bring them wisdom. (Gen. 3:6) So, how hard is it to know what would happen if they ate from that tree? No need to be God, you see?

Quote

If two things that are both your opinion conflict, I guess I can't argue with that.

I am all ears to your claim about the things in my opinions that conflict to each other.

Quote

All you've done is repeat quotes from the bible and then claim they mean something different than what they say... drastically different.  You've inserted so much opinion into these stories that you've convinced yourself the words say what you think in your head.

If what some quotes say in a page contradict quotes in another, they must be interpreted metaphorically. Only the unlearned takes every thing literally.

Ben

Edited by Ben Masada, 01 June 2012 - 06:02 PM.

[karmakazi]

Ben Masada, on 01 June 2012 - 05:57 PM, said:

I am emancipated of that method of interpretation.

Now, if you had said that from the beginning we could have skipped the entire discussion.


In response to everything else you've said, I have only this to say;

Over and over, all that you have done is present your opinion and then support it with more of your opinion.  You call it interpretation in an attempt to make it sound more important than "opinion", but the ancient astronaut idea is better supported by scripture than what you have said.

Not that I believe AA either.

[unit]

hehe.. why did God make me to be interested in stuff like this?

i read most of everything thus far and aim to return for the rest (a little tired now)

i saw the conversation was brief albiet heavy.. there is time for a small interjection on my part?

you say that God would not talk to a man face to face... but in the old testament, there is an account of the God and 2 of his fellows having face to face talks with (i forgot, but he offers God and the 2 men food and shelter and they accept, but are in a hurry to move on) sorry for being a little glib, it's been a long time since i've studied and my brain is a little scattered these days.

thanks for being here
shalom

[Ben Masada]

karmakazi, on 01 June 2012 - 07:30 PM, said:

Now, if you had said that from the beginning we could have skipped the entire discussion.


In response to everything else you've said, I have only this to say;

Over and over, all that you have done is present your opinion and then support it with more of your opinion.  You call it interpretation in an attempt to make it sound more important than "opinion", but the ancient astronaut idea is better supported by scripture than what you have said.

Not that I believe AA either.

Nevertheless, opinions that you are unable to refute either in the Scriptures or from the logical point of view.
Ben

[Ben Masada]

unit, on 01 June 2012 - 07:54 PM, said:

hehe.. why did God make me to be interested in stuff like this?

i read most of everything thus far and aim to return for the rest (a little tired now)

i saw the conversation was brief albiet heavy.. there is time for a small interjection on my part?

you say that God would not talk to a man face to face... but in the old testament, there is an account of the God and 2 of his fellows having face to face talks with (i forgot, but he offers God and the 2 men food and shelter and they accept, but are in a hurry to move on) sorry for being a little glib, it's been a long time since i've studied and my brain is a little scattered these days.

thanks for being here
shalom

No wonder. First of all, the man was Abraham. Since Abraham was a prophet, the method for God to communicate with the prophets was by way of dreams and visions. God is not like a man to talk to another face-to-face. (Num. 12:6; 23:19)
Ben

Edited by Ben Masada, 02 June 2012 - 05:18 PM.

[karmakazi]

Ben Masada, on 02 June 2012 - 05:11 PM, said:

Nevertheless, opinions that you are unable to refute either in the Scriptures or from the logical point of view.
Ben

I did refute it, you then fell back on your argument that literal interpretation is "beneath you".

Why bother reading the scripture Ben?  You ignore what it says and then come up with your own ideas, so the scripture itself is worthless.

[Ben Masada]

karmakazi, on 03 June 2012 - 01:55 PM, said:

I did refute it, you then fell back on your argument that literal interpretation is "beneath you".

Why bother reading the scripture Ben?  You ignore what it says and then come up with your own ideas, so the scripture itself is worthless.

You can't imagine how my method to study the Scriptures enhences the worth of the Scriptures.
Ben