Bible Questions

[MUM24/7]

So because some Chrisitans are more knowledgeable than others means that we should just not even bother with understanding it? Sorry, MUM24/7, your reasoning is illogical. I enjoy Shakespeare, but my knowledge of Shakespeare will not be as good as someone who has studied European Theatre, and even then two scholars won't agree on Shakespeare (and this is written in English!!!!). Does that mean I should just not care or not even try to understand Shakespeare because scholars won't even agree? I understand Shakespeare well enough to understand his meaning and see some of the metaphors, I probably understand Shakespeare well enough to teach some of his plays in a High School Drama classroom (though i probably couldn't teach it in an English class, due to the different emphases). But I don't know it that well, and certainly not well enough to compete with the scholars. Yet according to your reasoning, I should just not bother because after all...... "if two scholars can't agree on the meaning of Shakespeare, what chance do we have"?

Just because Christians don't know everything, and just because two different Christians who have different levels of knowledge have different answers (one of which is correct) does not mean that no one has a hope of understanding it. It is true that you may not be able to understand the Bible to the extent that some others do, but that does not mean that you cannot understand it at all, and it certainly does not mean it is an excuse to not even try. Right?

~ Regards, PA

I later realised that what I should have said was, 'I stand by my original point that everyone's interpretation is personal and individual'.......I understand your above post and I certainly agree that there's no reason for someone to not attempt to read the bible, even if they might not understand it as well as yourself for example.....

My basic point was that you might have ten people in a room reading a particular passage and you will get ten different versions of it's meaning.......Just by reading through this thread, I've seen you type, "I must disagree again", a few times......Can I ask you PA, do you think the bible should be read in a group study environment, so people can discuss it together in order to obtain the true and correct interpretation possible ??

BTW You hurt my feelings when you called me 'illogical'......

[Apostle]

lol, that's actually kind of funny when you think about it. Ok stop & think about one thing before you go any further with this line of thought. "Infinite" means no boundaries, no limits, how can you stretch the definition of infinite any further than what it already is?! It takes into account, EVERYTHING. Think of anything you want be it concrete or abstract. That concept must be a part of the infinite because infinite means "No boundaries" to say that it can't contain that concept means that it's boundless EXCEPT for that one concept. But then "Infinite" is no longer infinite is it? You have given it a fence to run around in & something that is truly infinite has no fence because you can't fence it in.

Lol, that is funny, but sad that I didn't even realize it until you pointed it out to me.

Bare with me here & by the way I'm not trying to make you feel inferior or stupid or anything like that, but sometimes, philosophical concepts like these can be a real mind bender to get around so please for the time being, just please follow my lead for a second ok. If God is EVERYWHERE, that indicates it is infinite becuase it has no bounds & thus is everywhere right?

Again please be patient but again, I see 3 EVERYTHINGS in the above quote. This would indicate the infinite again because it deals with EVERYTHING IN EXISTENCE. (I'm not yelling with the capitol letters just emphasizing).

Ok I see we agree that GOD's nature must be infinite by the enboldened & enlarged words I emphasized in the above quote. That's all gravy at this point but in reality your definition of infinite is not the same as mine as your concept is not really infinite. It extends so far & stops. Remember the definition for infinite? NO BOUNDS. No stops in otherwords. Everything must be one thing when dealing with the concept of an infinite being.

I too hope this helps as well.

I guess what I was trying to say is that we are finite. We can't be part of an infinite God because we have physical limitations. God is infinite in the fact that he does not have these limitations. This is what I'm thinking, we can't be a part of God; such as a particle of God. But, God can be a part of us if he chooses, or more importantly, if we choose to let Him because that was his choice; He chose to give us a freewill and He will only come in if we allow Him. When I said that you would have to stretch the definition of infinite to say that we are a part of God, I probably should have said that we are finite, so you would have had to use the antonym of it all together.

Your reply certainly did help, thanks for the input. I hope this makes more sense though.

~Apostle

[+Paranoid Android]

I later realised that what I should have said was, 'I stand by my original point that everyone's interpretation is personal and individual'.......I understand your above post and I certainly agree that there's no reason for someone to not attempt to read the bible, even if they might not understand it as well as yourself for example.....

I don't claim to be an expert know-it-all about the Bible. I don't claim to have all the answers, and I know there are mistakes in my understanding. But thanks for clarifying what you meant. The impression I got was that you were saying taht if two Christians can't agree then what hope does anyone else have. Which is not really accurate because of many of the points I have raised.

My basic point was that you might have ten people in a room reading a particular passage and you will get ten different versions of it's meaning.......Just by reading through this thread, I've seen you type, "I must disagree again", a few times......

In some cases you may be right. Sometimes the meaning or application of the passage is unclear. But most of the time, the Bible is not so unclear. Yes, you could get ten different interpretations from one passage, or even a hundred different interpretations. But it is also true taht some interpretations are more correct than others.

Can I ask you PA, do you think the bible should be read in a group study environment, so people can discuss it together in order to obtain the true and correct interpretation possible ??

I believe that the Bible should be read both individually and as a group. Individual study and group study have different purposes. I don't think reading the Bible as a group means that you will come to the correct interpretation. All it will lead you to is the popular opinion, and the popular opinion is not always right. I remember going to a different church and just shaking my head at how little they actually used context. They read one verse and came to a conclusion that had absolutely nothign to do with the passage around it. I started a thread about it a while ago, called "Correct, but not correct", if you wish to look it up some time.

Reading the Bible for yourself can be good, but you are also limited by your own understanding. But it also means you can study at your own pace, go into whatever depth of knowledge that you like. In a group study you don't have the luxury of opening your Greek dictionary and studying the words, or cross-referencing that word with other parts of the Bible. But reading in a group allows you access to other points of view (which may or may not be correct), different experiences, different levels of knowledge. Group study also has different dynamics depending on who is in the group. The more knowledgeable of the group don't usually end up "learning" a great deal at group studies. They usually spend time helping the less knowledgeable to think through some of the questions about the passage. But in taking the less knowledgeable under their wing, they are also engaging in a form of discipleship which has its own positives.

In short, I could not recommend group study over individual study - they are both different, and (imo) both necessary.

BTW You hurt my feelings when you called me 'illogical'......

I didn't call you illogical. I called your reasoning illogical, which it did sound like it. You have explained a little in your first paragraph which has helped explain it, and to an extent I still don't think that two Christians disagreeing is grounds that a non-Christian cannot understand the Bible. But sorry if I did hurt your feelings. Certainly it was not intended

~ Regards, PA

[Apostle]

I also am in confusion about the Mark of the Beast. Does this happen after the seventh seal is opened or before?

To your second question. The book of Revelation is confusing because it does not go chronologically; and I need to study it more. Here what I think the answer is though.

The 6th seal opening is when the rapture happens.

Matthew 24:30-31

"And then [during the 6th seal] the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming upon the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he will send out his angels with a trumpet blast, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other."

The mark of the beast comes around after the rapture. But, I'm not sure if there is a break in between the opening of the seventh seal and the sixth seal. We know there is a break between the opening of the seventh seal and the plagues being poured out.

Revelation 8:1,

"When the Lamb broke the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven for about half an hour."

I think the mark of the beast comes around after the opening of the sixth seal, therefore before the 7th seal. I think it becomes absolutely mandatory at the opening of the seventh seal. I could be wrong, I need to study the end times more, but I think that this information is correct.

~Apostle

[Apostle]

If you two can't even agree on the meanings of passages contained in the Bible, what chance do the rest of us have ??

Once again it comes down to personal and individual interpretations.......

Note that what PA said educated me and I corrected myself. He informed me of something I didn't know; that's part of growing; making mistakes and learning. This had nothing to do with interpretation. Thanks though

~Apostle

[Apostle]

ouch! Well to say that people are misinformed and that he has all the answers is egotistical.

I'm sorry if you were offended. Sometimes truth hurts. The reason I started this post was to help people understand the Bible. I DO NOT BY ANY MEANS have all the answers, but if someone else had some information I needed, I would like them to share it with me. The Bible is so complex and many people will read, "In the beginning..." and quit there. I am trying to motivate people to read the Bible and to study it so that they will be able to find some of the answers they want because I will not be able to give all the answers. I honestly do not want to be egotistical because this topic is not about me and I don't want to hinder God in saying what he wants to say. Hope this changes your impression of me, sorry.

~Apostle

[Kugelblitz]

The First Commandment says "Thou shalt have no other god before me." Does that mean there really are other deities out there, but we're suppose to put Him first?

Also, is there really magic? When Moses and Joshua were trying to get their people out of Egypt, they had to use a lot of miracles from God such as turning water into blood and turning a rod into a snake. However, it also says that the pharaoh was able to have his "magicians" produce similar results. I understand that the term "magician" could have been used loosely to include primitive chemists and whatnot, but is it possible that they were really able to use magic?

According to ancient Hebrew mythology, Jehovah defeated the other gods including the Leviathan to be the supreme being. The character of Jesus even refers to this in one of the gospels (best as I can remember).

The over-arching issue to me is that the story of Jesus is a mythological archetype, pieced together from fragments of sayings allegedly stated by the historical figure from a compendium scholars call Q. The general story line to the gospels is essentially like the Hero epic found in all cultures, the only difference being this epic/religion became the adopted state religion of the Roman Empire (around 300 BCE), the most successful super-power to date. That probably has a 'little' more to do with the spread of Christianity than a holy spirit.

As for the magician issue, many of the biblical characters could be properly referred to as magicians. Regarding Jesus, the act of spitting in the mud and making a paste to cure blindness was a common 'trick' of the day according to many scholars.

(Sources: Crossan, Pagels, Mack, Price, Helms, Freke & Gandy)

The most likely, but certainly not the only, description of Christianity is that it was originally a Jewish version of the Hellenistic mystery religions that never really appealed to the Jews (they saw this as a subversive to their culture). However, for the gentiles living along side the Jews who were familiar with cults like Attis and Dionysius apparently found this idea quite to their liking.

Note that the oldest writings, those from Paul, never refer to a historical Jesus, but only a mystical one. Nearly no mention of Jesus life and times or the people whom he was around or were significant in his life.

Oh and that last question, no there are no supernatural powers- in my opinion. Hence things like medicine and food production and science and........

Something to keep in mind, in engineering they call this the gross error check. There are many people who were believers and decided to undertake a historical research into the creation of the bible, the gospels, and Jesus himself. If you look at the people who do this; I personally am unaware of anyone who -not believing- involved themselves in serious, credible research that became a believer. On the other hand, there are many instances of theologians or devout believers who once they became aware of the inadequacies and gaps and distortions required to keep their 'faith' actually became either atheist or so non-orthodox in their view of Jesus that they could scarcely be called Christian. Most of the members of the Jesus Seminar would be of this sort (and myself). Even if there are examples of people becoming believers from scientific inquiry into the bible they would be of an extreme minority and probably many of their conclusions would not gel with the preponderance of scholarly opinion or archeological findings.

So if really digging into archeology and research tends to erode or greatly distort ones view of the bible, what does that tell of the veracity of its' contents?

Standing by for line by line dissection......

Edited February 1, 2008 by Kugelblitz

[doktorhook]

Lol, that is funny, but sad that I didn't even realize it until you pointed it out to me.

I guess what I was trying to say is that we are finite. We can't be part of an infinite God because we have physical limitations. Your reply certainly did help, thanks for the input. I hope this makes more sense though.

~Apostle

NOTE: I didn't include the rest of the quote because really everything depends on these statements.

Ok, I see you're conundrum. People seem to be limited & therefore god cannot be a part of us. This makes sense on the surface but still cannot be correct if we are talking about a truely infinite god. it would only be appearances. Illusion! The hindus call reality maya which is just there word for illusion. Now I'm sorry for having to bring up another religion in the discussion, but I think it sheds light on the matter at hand. Let's say that god is capable of somehow giving the appearance of seperation when in fact none exists. This would give rise to a holographic reality in which the real universe is different from what we percieve. This perception by itself IS the actual illusion. This would in essence "cap" what we could do because our experience of reality & what we can do is based off of our perception. Now let's say that somehow someone overcomes this perception problem They would be all powerful right? Well yes & no. See because our egos (that which you think of as "you") are also based off of those perceptions, it too would not be real & so when this person somehow makes the leap, they no longer have the ego but would instead would simply become one with god. Thus their will would also be one with god. In other words the personality would cease to exist as joe or john etc.

Is their any biblical evidence of this? Amazingly yes there is at least one written account of something similar to this. Enoch. "Enoch walked with God & was not". He came to know the ways of god so well that he simply vanished from the face of the earth. Remember that mankind is also refered to as the "sons of god"? I'll let you chew on this for awhile before continuing.

[doktorhook]

According to ancient Hebrew mythology, Jehovah defeated the other gods including the Leviathan to be the supreme being. The character of Jesus even refers to this in one of the gospels (best as I can remember).

The over-arching issue to me is that the story of Jesus is a mythological archetype, pieced together from fragments of sayings allegedly stated by the historical figure from a compendium scholars call Q. The general story line to the gospels is essentially like the Hero epic found in all cultures, the only difference being this epic/religion became the adopted state religion of the Roman Empire (around 300 BCE), the most successful super-power to date. That probably has a 'little' more to do with the spread of Christianity than a holy spirit.

As for the magician issue, many of the biblical characters could be properly referred to as magicians. Regarding Jesus, the act of spitting in the mud and making a paste to cure blindness was a common 'trick' of the day according to many scholars.

(Sources: Crossan, Pagels, Mack, Price, Helms, Freke & Gandy)

The most likely, but certainly not the only, description of Christianity is that it was originally a Jewish version of the Hellenistic mystery religions that never really appealed to the Jews (they saw this as a subversive to their culture). However, for the gentiles living along side the Jews who were familiar with cults like Attis and Dionysius apparently found this idea quite to their liking.

Note that the oldest writings, those from Paul, never refer to a historical Jesus, but only a mystical one. Nearly no mention of Jesus life and times or the people whom he was around or were significant in his life.

Oh and that last question, no there are no supernatural powers- in my opinion. Hence things like medicine and food production and science and........

Something to keep in mind, in engineering they call this the gross error check. There are many people who were believers and decided to undertake a historical research into the creation of the bible, the gospels, and Jesus himself. If you look at the people who do this; I personally am unaware of anyone who -not believing- involved themselves in serious, credible research that became a believer. On the other hand, there are many instances of theologians or devout believers who once they became aware of the inadequacies and gaps and distortions required to keep their 'faith' actually became either atheist or so non-orthodox in their view of Jesus that they could scarcely be called Christian. Most of the members of the Jesus Seminar would be of this sort (and myself). Even if there are examples of people becoming believers from scientific inquiry into the bible they would be of an extreme minority and probably many of their conclusions would not gel with the preponderance of scholarly opinion or archeological findings.

So if really digging into archeology and research tends to erode or greatly distort ones view of the bible, what does that tell of the veracity of its' contents?

Standing by for line by line dissection......

You had some good points there kugelblitz, many of which I agree with. Unfortunately I don't have time add to your comments at the moment. Maybe tomorrow

[Kugelblitz]

You had some good points there kugelblitz, many of which I agree with. Unfortunately I don't have time add to your comments at the moment. Maybe tomorrow

Cool, look forward to hearing from you. By the way, forgot the most significant of all the sources that I base my previous magnum-opus on......Joesph Campbell.

[Llucid]

Yep you're right, it was apostle. My apologies

I understand however you are still saying that at one time god was infinite & then chose to restrict itself by becoming finite & then will return to an infinite state. The problems presented by this line of reasoning is that teh infinite cannot become finite. Even if it were to restrict itself in some manner, it's basic infinite nature would still mean that everything IS god. As examples, heaven would be an aspect of god, hell would be an aspect of god, hatred, love, murder, sustanence, life, death, etc., etc.. That's what it means when "all things serve the will of god". Now if god is BOTH infinite & finite simultaneously, that would point to a paradox which I have no quarrel with because a paradox is the closest concept humans can achieve to the concept of infnite. This however still means that even if the universe we percieve is a somehow veiled & loosely defined aspect of god, it is still god & therefore incorruptible from any standpoint, including sin because of it's infinite nature.

No problem I understand you're trying to explain your point of view. I'm just trying to explain mine as well. See an infinite god would mean that you & I & everyone else IS god as well. Theres actually some basis for this belief in the bible itself. If you take the the name of god YHVH, in hebrew & write it verticaly from top to bottom, the name of god looks just like a stick figure of a man.See for yourself

First off, nice pic. You're right, it does look like a man. I've never noticed before

I would lean more towards God being both infinite and finite. A paradox, as you would say. There is nothing greater than God that could limit Him, nor is His power not sufficient to do His Will. He is infinite because that is who He is, and He is finite because He decided that it would be so. You say that He cannot be infinite and finite, but my Biblical studies convince me that that is exactly what He did.

Also, when sin entered into existence, it didn't just enter into us, it entered into creation. Nature itself was effected by it. Examples: animals becoming carnivores, roses grew thorns ect..

I completely understand the point you are making, and what you are describing is the pre-fall world. It is a paradox that God could be both finite and infinite, and definately hard to wrap one's mind around, but this is what I am inclined to believe.

[MUM24/7]

I don't claim to be an expert know-it-all about the Bible. I don't claim to have all the answers, and I know there are mistakes in my understanding.

Whenever our paths have crossed throughout the past year that I've been on UM, I've always considered you a very knowledgable and intelligent person and certainly well-versed on the Bible. You always presented yourself as laid-back and humble and never self-righteous and arrogant as other Christians on this forum......

I didn't call you illogical. I called your reasoning illogical, which it did sound like it. You have explained a little in your first paragraph which has helped explain it, and to an extent I still don't think that two Christians disagreeing is grounds that a non-Christian cannot understand the Bible. But sorry if I did hurt your feelings. Certainly it was not intended

~ Regards, PA

The last time I checked, my reasoning was my own, so if 'it' is illogical, then I'm illogical.....But that's okay, I'm over it now.....

Now that I've had a few days to mull this over, I originally should have said, "If two Christians can't agree on the meanings, then why should we bother reading it because more likely than not, our interpretation will be wrong anyway...." The truth is you have to want to study the Bible for your own personal reasons and not just because it's expected of you by others around you..... I know you see it as a cop-out and you'll probably tell me as much anyway......

On a more personal note, you seem to have lost some of the qualities we've gotten to know and love about you PA, I hope the stresses of life aren't getting to you.....Take care,

Mum

Edited February 1, 2008 by MUM24/7

[doktorhook]

As promised here are my comments. Sorry it took so long, I've been kind of busy.

According to ancient Hebrew mythology, Jehovah defeated the other gods including the Leviathan to be the supreme being.

Dead on brother, most of these stories were taken directly from hebrew predecessors like the babylonians, sumerians, assyrians, & hittites. I can provide examples to those that would be interested.

The character of Jesus even refers to this in one of the gospels (best as I can remember).

You for the life of me this sounds very familiar but can't place the story your talking about.

The over-arching issue to me is that the story of Jesus is a mythological archetype, pieced together from fragments of sayings allegedly stated by the historical figure from a compendium scholars call Q. The general story line to the gospels is essentially like the Hero epic found in all cultures, the only difference being this epic/religion became the adopted state religion of the Roman Empire (around 300 BCE), the most successful super-power to date. That probably has a 'little' more to do with the spread of Christianity than a holy spirit.

Definitaly the romans had the greatest impact on christianity than anyone! Infact if it had not been for them, Mithrasism most likely would be in christianity's place as we speak. There were however several big contenders for this place & it's not entirely certain as to what would have taken it's spot but Zoroastrianism also had a really good shot at being there.

As for the magician issue, many of the biblical characters could be properly referred to as magicians. Regarding Jesus, the act of spitting in the mud and making a paste to cure blindness was a common 'trick' of the day according to many scholars.

Correct again. Another christ like figure in the 1st century was Appolonius of Tyana & nearly all the miracles associated with christ were associated with him, including the raising of the dead & casting out demons. The name "Jesus" was also a very common name at the time.

The most likely, but certainly not the only, description of Christianity is that it was originally a Jewish version of the Hellenistic mystery religions that never really appealed to the Jews (they saw this as a subversive to their culture). However, for the gentiles living along side the Jews who were familiar with cults like Attis and Dionysius apparently found this idea quite to their liking.

I see you know your stuff! Yes the hellenistic time period was a time of melting pots. Various cultures from around the known world came together & intermixed religions & philosophy. The concept of jesus had been around alot longer than many people would like to admit & there are nearly identical predecessors of him from all sorts of different nations. You mentioned attis, but adonis, apollo, helios, osiris, mithras, & a bunch of others can be seen as pre christian "christs".

Note that the oldest writings, those from Paul, never refer to a historical Jesus, but only a mystical one. Nearly no mention of Jesus life and times or the people whom he was around or were significant in his life.

I partially agree with this but that's not the contention. Christianity is CLEARLY a mystery religion by the fact that jesus basicly told his disciples that he was sharing the inner secrets with them (exactly like the mystery religions) & only told allegorical stories & parables to the uninitiated (again just like the mystery cults). I'll try to find the exact passage if someone wants proof of this but I promise it's there. Some of the christians reading this may already know what I'm talking about.

Oh and that last question, no there are no supernatural powers- in my opinion. Hence things like medicine and food production and science and........

I don't believe in the supernatural either or the paranormal for that matter but I do believe in occult knowledge which can cause SEEMINGLY supernatural occurences, of which I have personal knowledge. Just remember "Occult" means hidden, secretive, not very widely known but never has & does not mean evil.

Something to keep in mind, in engineering they call this the gross error check. There are many people who were believers and decided to undertake a historical research into the creation of the bible, the gospels, and Jesus himself. If you look at the people who do this; I personally am unaware of anyone who -not believing- involved themselves in serious, credible research that became a believer. On the other hand, there are many instances of theologians or devout believers who once they became aware of the inadequacies and gaps and distortions required to keep their 'faith' actually became either atheist or so non-orthodox in their view of Jesus that they could scarcely be called Christian. Most of the members of the Jesus Seminar would be of this sort (and myself). Even if there are examples of people becoming believers from scientific inquiry into the bible they would be of an extreme minority and probably many of their conclusions would not gel with the preponderance of scholarly opinion or archeological findings.

Most definitly. I did a similar research but it was because my personal religious search for the truth required me to do so not because I wanted to find out if jesus was the real deal or not. I simply wanted to know the truth & being very serious here, it was if the material just fell into my lap.

So if really digging into archeology and research tends to erode or greatly distort ones view of the bible, what does that tell of the veracity of its' contents?

Standing by for line by line dissection......

First I hope I haven't disappointed you with the line by line dissesction , & I'm sorry for being a yes man for the most part but I really did agree with your general asessment. On the veracity of it's contents, hmm, well there are several ways to approach that line of reasoning. If your talking about it being word for word true in the physical sense then I would say your right. if on the other hand your talking about the general concepts of the myths presented do not portray their heritage accurately I would disagree. But I think your talking about the former not the later.

Best wishes,

doktorhook

[doktorhook]

Cool, look forward to hearing from you. By the way, forgot the most significant of all the sources that I base my previous magnum-opus on......Joesph Campbell.

ANyone who reads joseph campbell is alright in my book! That man had a keen understanding of mythology & it's underlying meaning. In all honesty, I gathered alot of the same knowledge that campbell did from independant research but I didn't have all the information he had nor did I have his power of expression.

[Krisyn]

I've noticed that many people who are "Christians" have many misunderstandings of the Bible. If you are a Christian then one of your basics beliefs should be that the Bible is the Word of God. So, on this thread I will take any questions from anyone (Christian or other) to help those who may have been misinformed or just want more of an understanding. I'll do my best to answer them thoroughly and accurately. Objections are also welcome, anything really about the Bible.

~Apostle

[Krisyn]

Just curious about one thing in the ten commamendents it says thou shall worship no god above me does he mean that he is the mightest but not the only

[MESTEL]

HELLO WHEN YOU ASK IF THERE ARE OTHER gods I PUT LITTLE LETTERS BECAUSE THEY ARE LITTLE COMPARED TO THE LIVING GOD-YES THERE ARE THOSE THAT WE HAVE MADE gods -IN THE BIBLE IT SAYS THAT SATAN IS A god OF THIS WORLD AND MANY WORSHIP HIM EVEN IF THEY ARE NOT AWARE OF IT ALSO IN THE PAST MANY ALIEN RACES WERE WORSHIPED AS gods BECAUSE OF THEIR SUPERNATURAL POWERS BUT AS YOU NOTICE WHEN YOU STUDY THEY WERE CRUEL AND NEEDED HUMANS BLOOD AND SACRIFICES AS THEY STILL DO TODAY EXCEPT THAT TODAY WE WORSHIP THEM IN A DIFFERENT WAY AND THEY DESTROY US IN A DIFFERENT WAY -ALSO THE MOST HIGH GOD LOVES US WITH A EVERLASTING LOVE NOT LIKE THE LITTLE gods THAT ARE NOT REALLY gods BUT BECAUSE WE MAKE THEM gods OVER US OURSELVES

[MESTEL]

HELLO I AM NEW HERE BUT I AM VERY INTERESTED IN ALL BIBLE DISCUSSIONS MOSTLY ABOUT THE LAST DAYS AND THE FAKE RAPTURE AND ALSO ABOUT ALIENS IN THE BIBLE THANK YOU FOR ALL FEEDBACK POSTED

JEWSTAR

[Apostle]

Just curious about one thing in the ten commamendents it says thou shall worship no god above me does he mean that he is the mightest but not the only

Good question. God clearly shows in Scripture that he is the only God, and there is no one else.

Deuteronomy 4:39,

"Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else."

Isaiah 45:18,

"For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else."

Isaiah 44:6,

"Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God."

Isaiah 45:6,

"That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else."

So Scripture is clear that there is only one God, so that better be what the Ten Commandments say and I think it is. Let's look at the verse exactly.

Exodus 20:1-5

"And God spake all these words, saying, 2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. 4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;"

I think from reading verse 4 and 5 it really clears up what God means when he says "gods". It means things made by hands; the works of men. God tells us not to worship those and not to serve those, because then we put them before God, the one and only. He starts out by saying, "which brought thee out of the land of Egypt." The Egyptians served other gods, and every Israelite knew this. In Egypt they worshiped the works of men; statues that aren't alive, can't hear, can't see, etc... God saying put him before any of the works of men. Hope this helps,

~Apostle

PS, When it says in verse 5, "visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation," I believe it means something like alcoholism; which when the parents do it, it is much more likely that their children will. This is not talking about a generational curse or anything like that. If there any more questions, I'll be happy to answer them as best as I can. Thanks.

[doktorhook]

HELLO I AM NEW HERE BUT I AM VERY INTERESTED IN ALL BIBLE DISCUSSIONS MOSTLY ABOUT THE LAST DAYS AND THE FAKE RAPTURE AND ALSO ABOUT ALIENS IN THE BIBLE THANK YOU FOR ALL FEEDBACK POSTED

JEWSTAR

Hey cut down on the capitols please or you'll quickly find yourself ignored. heck I use more capitols than I've seen anyone else use but you take the cake.

[danielost]

Just curious about one thing in the ten commamendents it says thou shall worship no god above me does he mean that he is the mightest but not the only

I believe this was put in mainly because they had just left Egypt and the Egyptians worshiped graven images. Also remember well Moses was getting the first tablets. The Israelites had made themselves a golden lamb to worship.

[OMSHANTI]

Ofcourse, otherwise i would not ask. Believe me im a student of comparative religion, i know there is no religion on this planet, that offers a falsfication test, where as the quran offers 100s. Also, there is no book on this planet, which specifically tells man his purpose, why he was created. You dont believe me, test this for yourself. Poeple searching for the truth like i once was, earnestly, will take the time out to study all religions thoroughly.

Sundog,

Hi mate, hope you well, been a little while, i have been busy with my job. Anyway you say.

"Of course he thinks he can, just like some Christians believe they can prove the bible.

Neither book can be proven completely historically, scientifically, spiritually, or even grammatically correct, as they were written by men, whether inspired or not."

I totally disagree, i agree that the above can be applied to all religions, besides Islam, which gives evidence historically, scientfically (falsification test and more), grammatically, there is nothing like the quran, and no one can ever bring anyting like it, even if we used the whole universes resources and man and djinn put together, we still can not produce even a verse like it. The quran was inspired, god words decendind on muhammed, via gabriel, and then written down immediately, and memorised, the arabs at the time were amazing in aural traditions and memory. Infact out of the muslims population, about 9 million or more, know the quran by heart , word by word, so even if we lost the quran one day in a literal form, we would know it by heart, so it cant be lost, if some one tried to tamper with it, by chanding the arabic and attempts have been made in the past, then we will jump on it quickly, and let them know where its wrong. u see this is back up, the quran in muslims hearts embedded, now tell me is the bible authentic in its orignal form. NO!, the quran Yes!

[louie]

Why is Lillith not mentioned in the newer versions of the bible.

Lillith, Adams first wife.

[OMSHANTI]

..............The quran was inspired, god words decendind on muhammed, via gabriel, and then written down immediately............

Thats NOT what I read ? I read that Muhammed had "emotional" experiences which he then attempted to put into words, and apparently the same experience was given to him repeatidly until, he got it right, or close enough!

[Apostle]

Why is Lillith not mentioned in the newer versions of the bible.

Lillith, Adams first wife.

As far as I know Lillith is not mentioned in any books of the Bible because Adam only had one wife, Eve, the "mother" of all creation.

~Apostle