Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sherapy

2+2=4 equates a certainty of god

1,115 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

WARRIOR FOR THE LIGHT

Usually with the advance of civilization, so does our knowkedge advance along with it....

Language becomes more intricate along with other forms of communications giving us choice in how we communicate....etc...

Sometimes we revert back to grunts and groans... hence those stupid cave man insurance commercials I hate so much on TV these days...

One thing that hasnt changed from the days of reccomendation of the Bible, is to be HUMBLE.....

We must recognize that perhaps not everyone learns or retains all info the same as others...

It doesnt mean ones quest and zeal does not equal anothers in wanting to know...It isnt ignorance...But the retention just isnt there..... I certainly dont learn as quick as a 16 year old...and my retention certainly isnt what it used to be either...but it sure is in my heart...And thats all that matters....

Its a humble heart..with a great retention for Love and regard for others....which is what we All should have.....

Blessings all...find peace....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MARAB0D
but one question, where do you find in the bible that the snake had legs or limbs of any kind?

Genesis 3

14And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life

If I tell you "without money shalt thou go, it suggests you had money before meeting me. Besides, can you show any biblical passage, showing that Satan always goes on his belly and bites the dust all the way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo
Yeah sure Leonardo, whatever makes you feel better, but one question, where do you find in the bible that the snake had legs or limbs of any kind?

If you are correct then it should be asimple matter of showing me the passage that says that the serpent had limbs that could be taken from it.

Sometimes what I see here is actually people trying desperately to make the ancient peoples out to be dimwits. People that were not evolved socially and had complex linguistic skills. Are you one of those that says they spoke in snorts and grunts?

History and archeology has demonstrated time and again that these languages were very well developed, even more so than our modern day languages. When you have multiple words to refer to the same thing, then this is a sign of complex language skills inherent to the people who speak a particular language.

In our modern day world, probably only chinese or Japanese can compare themselves in complexity to the Hebrew and Greek of those times, yet here you are saying they were not a complex people incapable of knowing what the word "nksh" implied...

The place where the snake had legs was in Genesis, before God took them away as punishment. Why should there be a mention of snake's legs subsequent to that???

It's a dishonest and surly claim that historical criticism is an attempt to make the ancient Israelites out to be 'dimwits'. They were as sophisticated as other contemporary cultures, such as the Canaanites from which they descended. As I made pains to point out, criticism is not an attempt to paint the people as unintelligent, simply uneducated by modern standards.

And you have exaplantion of the word(s) nksh backwards. Nksh is more than one word, as shown by the different pronounciations, and they meant different things. You are the one trying to 'fit' these different words into one 'nksh'.

Historical scholarship is placing the literature within the context of the times and culture, something many modern Christian scholars do not do by interpreting the bible as a single document with contiguous interpretation in all it's manuscripts. Portions of the Pentateuch were written in the early 1st millenium BCE, other parts of it were written in the middle period of this millenium around the time of King Josiah and the earlier parts were intepreted through his additions to support his dynastic ambitions to the throne of a unified Judah. So much for it being 'divinely inspired'! (for source, read Israel Finklestein)

Scholarship benefits from research, not belief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
The place where the snake had legs was in Genesis, before God took them away as punishment. Why should there be a mention of snake's legs subsequent to that???

It's a dishonest and surly claim that historical criticism is an attempt to make the ancient Israelites out to be 'dimwits'. They were as sophisticated as other contemporary cultures, such as the Canaanites from which they descended. As I made pains to point out, criticism is not an attempt to paint the people as unintelligent, simply uneducated by modern standards.

And you have exaplantion of the word(s) nksh backwards. Nksh is more than one word, as shown by the different pronounciations, and they meant different things. You are the one trying to 'fit' these different words into one 'nksh'.

Historical scholarship is placing the literature within the context of the times and culture, something many modern Christian scholars do not do by interpreting the bible as a single document with contiguous interpretation in all it's manuscripts. Portions of the Pentateuch were written in the early 1st millenium BCE, other parts of it were written in the middle period of this millenium around the time of King Josiah and the earlier parts were intepreted through his additions to support his dynastic ambitions to the throne of a unified Judah. So much for it being 'divinely inspired'! (for source, read Israel Finklestein)

Scholarship benefits from research, not belief.

indeed Leo, very well said .

i'd add that cross cutrual comparison of the myths of the histories of isreal were not written in a vaccum, they were written in a dialogue sometimes in competition of other literatures in the ancient near east , syrian, babylonian and egyptian stories and then later in text greek stories

We have to tread very cautiously with history because the vast majority of this early material has no ancient or archeological support ....

Edited by Tangerine Sheri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon
Genesis 3

14And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life

If I tell you "without money shalt thou go, it suggests you had money before meeting me. Besides, can you show any biblical passage, showing that Satan always goes on his belly and bites the dust all the way?

Does it say it had legs and arms that were removed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cadetak
Does it say it had legs and arms that were removed?

Yes in the shirt lived sitcom God M.D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MARAB0D
Does it say it had legs and arms that were removed?

Genesis is not a textbook on Anatomy - the punishment was for the serpent to start going on the belly, means before he was not. Maybe before he was flying, who knows? As I said, where is this that Devil must crawl on the belly and eat the dust? The same time in the absence of the visual food sources the ancients could really think the desert snakes were eating sand...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D
Does it say it had legs and arms that were removed?

Why is it that in defense of Christianity we are asked to make many assumptions . . . . but in defense of logic, we are asked to abandon it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el
The place where the snake had legs was in Genesis, before God took them away as punishment. Why should there be a mention of snake's legs subsequent to that???

It's a dishonest and surly claim that historical criticism is an attempt to make the ancient Israelites out to be 'dimwits'. They were as sophisticated as other contemporary cultures, such as the Canaanites from which they descended. As I made pains to point out, criticism is not an attempt to paint the people as unintelligent, simply uneducated by modern standards.

And you have exaplantion of the word(s) nksh backwards. Nksh is more than one word, as shown by the different pronounciations, and they meant different things. You are the one trying to 'fit' these different words into one 'nksh'.

Historical scholarship is placing the literature within the context of the times and culture, something many modern Christian scholars do not do by interpreting the bible as a single document with contiguous interpretation in all it's manuscripts. Portions of the Pentateuch were written in the early 1st millenium BCE, other parts of it were written in the middle period of this millenium around the time of King Josiah and the earlier parts were intepreted through his additions to support his dynastic ambitions to the throne of a unified Judah. So much for it being 'divinely inspired'! (for source, read Israel Finklestein)

Scholarship benefits from research, not belief.

Come on Leo, you can do better than that, I've seen you do it before...

The point is you can't quote single passage from ANY book in the bible that even suggests the serpent had limbs of any kind. The rest is a rigmarole to confuse the issue...

As for "nksh", being spelled in different ways because of the different pronounciations, then it should be quite simple to demonstrate to me the different spellings, and don't bother with the pronunciations of each of the different spellings, I want you to show me the different spellings regardless of how the actual word is pronounced.

What you gave me earlier was a phonetic spelling, that is not what counts, what counts is the way the different words for "nksh" or "nachash" are spelled, it should be easy, all you have to do is go back to the source you quoted earlier and get the actual spelling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
Why is it that in defense of Christianity we are asked to make many assumptions . . . . but in defense of logic, we are asked to abandon it?

Dr d is there merit in this line of thinking???

when one is trying to "figure out" the truth or falsehood of a bible story perhaps they are taking the 'story' literal ... should one use care in distinguishing the 'point;' of a stroy from the vehicle its or the medium it is dressed in???... i wonder if religious interpreters often confuses tthe vehicle from what it is being carried which is a "point" .. the story is often catchy or absurd or not true for a reason....

if its beleived as true imo its a sign that its effectiveness has been lost....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ownagebus
I have a converstation going on another thread about this

( lady R's jesus came for the jews.....)

.

many christians on here say I know god just as i know 2+2=4....therefore there is a god..

perhaps with the help of the many brilliant members on here you can help me understand what I am not getting about this..

I personally am not seeing how this can be a foregone conclusion that supports a knowing or personal realtionship with god..

all comments are welcomed ....

Possibility.

The state or fact of being possible: the possibility of error.

2+2=4 is Man Made.

2+2=4 is "Faith" in my opinion.

Faith = Hope.

Hope = Possibility.

Possibility is Uncertain.

Uncertain.

Not definitely ascertainable or fixed, as in time of occurrence, number, dimensions, or quality.

God = Man Made.

Now I'm not saying "God" is not real. Man makes things, they become real.

Man Can also make "Fake" things.

We will never know untill we Die... Even then, who's to say we will know after death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Omnaka
Possibility.

The state or fact of being possible: the possibility of error.

2+2=4 is Man Made.

2+2=4 is "Faith" in my opinion.

Faith = Hope.

Hope = Possibility.

Possibility is Uncertain.

Uncertain.

Not definitely ascertainable or fixed, as in time of occurrence, number, dimensions, or quality.

God = Man Made.

Now I'm not saying "God" is not real. Man makes things, they become real.

Man Can also make "Fake" things.

We will never know untill we Die... Even then, who's to say we will know after death.

I know Father and Mother (God) made All spirit in this universe, all spirit makes everything in the physical, Including but not limited to Man.

It may take the freeing of the spirit from the Body to know this for some, Not all.

Spirit is pure consciousness, and this consciousness will hurt and repent for How it has treated his brother while away from Its eternal Home.

Love Omnaka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent. Mulder
I know Father and Mother (God) made All spirit in this universe, all spirit makes everything in the physical, Including but not limited to Man.

It may take the freeing of the spirit from the Body to know this for some, Not all.

Spirit is pure consciousness, and this consciousness will hurt and repent for How it has treated his brother while away from Its eternal Home.

Love Omnaka

i know bigfoots really santa.

see, i can make these claims too. i notice you never seem to back them up with anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo
Does it say it had legs and arms that were removed?

Not arms, just 4 legs like any other beast...

1: Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made.

14: And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

...and from the phrase "upon thy belly shalt thou go" we can infer the serpent had legs to be taken away. Why else would God reduce it's method of locomotion to on it's belly? Do you think the scripture implies the snake originally walked on its' tail? Maybe walked on its' head? The myth of how the snake lost its' legs might be simple, but it's not nonsensical to that degree!

That the serpent was considered a beast in this scripture (albeit a very 'subtil' beast) is made plain by the multiple conjunctions of the mention of 'serpent' and 'beast' in the same phrase or sentence.

Come on Leo, you can do better than that, I've seen you do it before...

The point is you can't quote single passage from ANY book in the bible that even suggests the serpent had limbs of any kind. The rest is a rigmarole to confuse the issue...

As for "nksh", being spelled in different ways because of the different pronounciations, then it should be quite simple to demonstrate to me the different spellings, and don't bother with the pronunciations of each of the different spellings, I want you to show me the different spellings regardless of how the actual word is pronounced.

What you gave me earlier was a phonetic spelling, that is not what counts, what counts is the way the different words for "nksh" or "nachash" are spelled, it should be easy, all you have to do is go back to the source you quoted earlier and get the actual spelling.

Read above Jor-el. That the snake had legs is implied in Genesis. It doesn't take a scholar to reason that.

Now, don't put words in my mouth about nksh. Nowhere did I say it was different words by spelling. I said it was different words by pronunciation. You are reaching with this weak and misdirected attack. I showed earlier how there were several meaning to nksh (which you already knew) because of the pronunciation, which meant the story in Genesis could not carry all the different meanings of the word at once (as you took from Dr Heiser's work) as it was (in all likelihood) meant to be read out loud to the illiterate masses as well as in silence by the priesthood.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Omnaka
i know bigfoots really santa.

see, i can make these claims too. i notice you never seem to back them up with anything.

I notice you have very little experience in Spiritual matters, and can only rely on picking other's experiences apart.

this way suits you Go for it . Just try not to hurt others in the process.

What I share is What I know from conversations with Father of this Universe.

Can you make this same claim, ? and still believe you are telling the truth?

Omnaka

Edited by Omnaka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el
Genesis 3

14And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life

If I tell you "without money shalt thou go, it suggests you had money before meeting me. Besides, can you show any biblical passage, showing that Satan always goes on his belly and bites the dust all the way?

Genesis 3:14

14 The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, cursed are you more than all the animals, and more than every living thing of the land; on your belly you will go, and dust you will eat all the days of your life;

Note that the "serpent" is cursed "above all" animals. This is not some minor, insignificant affair, the consequence, must correspond to the magnitude of the crime. A unique and heavy affliction now falls upon the "serpent". The first aspect of the consequence is humiliation. The humiliation the serpent will experience is described by two parts.

Both parts of the curse are pictured in the Ancient Near East of conquered enemies laid face down, prostrate before a conquering king as a footstool for his feet.

Evidence of this can be found in the Amarna Tablets 100:36 written in 1350 B.C.

The Tablet is entitled: "The city of Irqata to the king".

This tablet-(i.e. tablet letter) is a tablet from Irqata. To the king, our lord: Message from Irqata and its el[d]ers. We fall at the feet of the king, our lord, 7 times and 7 times. To our lord, the Sun: Message from Irqata. May the heart of the king, (our) lord, know that we guard Irqata for him.

When the [ki]ng, our lord, sent D[uMU]-Bi-ha-a, he said to s, "Message of the king: "Guard Irqata"! " The sons of the traitor to the king seek our harm; Irqata see[ks] loyalty to the king. As to [ silver ] having been given to Sbaru al[ong with] horses and cha[riots] , may you know the mind of Irqata. When a tablet from the king arrived (saying) to ra[id] the land that the 'A[piru] had taken [from] the king, they wa[ged] war with us against the enemy of our lord, the man whom you pla[ced] over us. Truly—we are guarding the l[and]. May the king, our lord, heed the words of his loyal servants.

May he grant a gift to his servant(s) so our enemies will see this and eat dirt. May the breath of the king not depart from us. We shall keep the city gate barred until the breath of the king reaches us. Severe is the war against us—terribly! terribly!

"You shall go on your belly"

The emphasis of this phrase is being conquered. This is a mark of deepest degradation from an exalted position. This outward curse symbolizes Satan's judgment. He was exalted (Isa. 14:9; Ezk. 28) as the most perfect, wise, and beautiful creature. One of the ways he has abused his lofty position is by orchestrating the fall of man. He will suffer defeat for his rebellion.

"You shall eat dust"

The emphasis of the first phrase is defeat. The emphasis found in this second phrase is disgrace.

Some commentators feel that the humiliation of the serpent is the fact that he will join the humble, creeping things of the created world. However, to say that the serpent will join the creeping things is not enough. God created creeping things, and in Genesis 1:25, He said they were "good." This physical act describes more than just joining a class of creatures which were good in God's sight. The idea of degradation is seen in this statement.

To eat dust speaks of humiliation in the scriptures. When one wants o describe the defeat of an enemy, he says, "He's crawling in the dust." Three examples of this would be Psalm 72:9; Isaiah 49:23; and Micah 7:17.

Psalm 72:9

Let the nomads of the desert bow before him, and his enemies lick the dust

Isaiah 49:23

"Kings will be your guardian, and their princesses your nurses. They will bow down to you with their faces to the earth and lick the dust of your feet; and you will know that I am the LORD; those who hopefully wait for Me will not be put to shame.

Micah 7:17

They will lick the dust like a serpent, like reptiles of the earth. They will come trembling out of their fortresses; to the LORD our God they will come in dread and they will be afraid before You.

The principle at work here and the principle that will be seen throughout the Bible is the principle, "you reap what you sow" (Gal. 6:7). The "serpent" (Satan) deceived Eve into eating from the tree. As a result, he will eat dust. The length of time that the "serpent" will be under this curse is brought out in the next phrase:

"All the days of your life."

The "serpent" will be in this position of humiliation continually, even, according to Isaiah 65:25, during the Millenium.

The wolf and the lamb will graze together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox; and dust will be the serpent's food. They will do no evil or harm in all My holy mountain," says the LORD.

The fact that the serpent will eat dust even during the Messianic Kingdom is a picture of the eternal defeat of Satan.

Even the deuterocanonical book "Wisdom of Solomon" attests to this idea. And it was written around 200 B.C. It is a clear reflection of what Jewish writers thought on the issue before the changes brought about in the 1st century.

Wisdom 2:23-24

"For God formed man to be imperishable;

the image of his own nature he made him.

But by the envy of the devil,

death entered the world,

and they who are in his possession experience it."

We can go further and look at what the early Rabbis thought:

As Thou wentest forth for the salvation of Thy people by the hand of The Messiah the Son of David, who shall wound Satan, the head, the king and prince of the house of the wicked.

Our ancient Rabbis, as with one voice, have declared that by the seed of the woman, who was to bruise the head of the serpent is meant the Messiah. You know as well as I, their common saying, "that before the serpent had wounded our first parents, God had prepared a plaster for their healing; and as soon as sin had made its entrance into our world, the Messiah had made his appearance." Hence both the Targums, that of Onkelos, and that of Jonathan, say "that the voice which our first parents heard walking in the garden, was the Memra Jehovah, ie. the word of the Lord, or the Messiah, who is always meant by this expression;... In the Targum of Jonathan, and that of Jerusalem, it is said, "the seed of the woman shall bruise the head of the serpent, and they shall obtain healing, or a plaster for the heel, (the hurt received by the Serpent,) in the days of Messiah the King."

Joseph Samuel C.F. Frey, Joseph and Benjamin, (Jerusalem: Keren Ahvah Meshihit, 2002), p. 154-155

Both texts above demonstrate two things, that the serpent was Satan and that the context of Genesis 3:14-15 is a Messianic prophecy referring to the Messiah who would bruise the head of the "serpent".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent. Mulder
I notice you have very little experience in Spiritual matters, and can only rely on picking other's experiences apart.

this way suits you Go for it . Just try not to hurt others in the process.

What I share is What I know from conversations with Father of this Universe.

Can you make this same claim, ? and still believe you are telling the truth?

Omnaka

i just dont find people credible when they say they KNOW something, and are basically claiming it as fact, because a voice in their head told them it was.

see my point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Omnaka
i just dont find people credible when they say they KNOW something, and are basically claiming it as fact, because a voice in their head told them it was.

see my point?

I already said it's understandable if you do not believe or agree. Heavenly Father (God ) must think Iam credible To enlighten me to what he Has, It matters not if you agree with me.

For Iam That Iam, and You are that you are.

I will continue to share what I know, and you can continue to pick apart my experience. It won't change Who Iam to God You or the Universe, Or what I Know though.

Maybe try sharing some of your spiritual experience or Knowledge......

Bro Jesus did as many did, and they were ostracised and killed for their sharing.. If judging others experiences of what you have no clue, helps your spirit. I'm all for it, I know there is a lesson in it somewhere for your spirit, even if it is the hard Lesson of what judging others can do. Just Glad it is now and not then.

Less pain for me.

I have described In detail about How I came to know much Of what I share, Some who understand and Have ears to listen, grasp it, as for the skeptic, All I can figure is he was not meant to get it, and Im not gonna break my back or fingers trying to Make you understand.

Not that I don't love you My bro also, But its not love if It's forced. Only you can do that, only you can experience your spirit. Experience does not come from picking others experience apart.

Search and you will; find.

Pick others experience apart, and you will be skeptic. Not enlightened, unless one wants to be enlightened On what it's like to be skeptical of others experience.

Ask the right Questioins, and Have respect.

Or not, Up to you.

Even I, when Talking To Father God had Great respect, Love, and Had to ask Questions.

This is work Of the highest kind.

Much harder than just saying , Thats BS, Then moving on to the next persons experience and saying THat's Bs.

You may have to do some real work instead of Judging those who have, and reaped The reward Of Knowledge.

Like I said It's understandable

Love Omnaka

Ps, When I HeaR Father or Mother, It is in My heart I hear them. But for a couple Years I was having Nightly Etherial, and Physical Visits with God, For My enlightenment.

It was for My comfort. some Dont want God's love, Again it's understandable and those who dont Love God do not have to HaVe God's love or Love Back.' God still loves all God's xcreation Unconditionally. Talk about a painfull realization, To some this may be a great comfot, to others A great misunderstanding and To those who outright diss The creator of their eternal spirit, a painful conscious experience, Afdtetr this life ends...

Not saying you will damn your self for doing this forever, But yopur conscious Spirit once Knows the truth will feel Remorse of the greates Kine.

Believe this or Not. Just stating what I know.

Yup You know I didnt say anything about Father Or Mother(God) But I Made fun Of a Spirit brother who was Having great remorse, and I ended up right besides him. With greater remorse.

I Can only tell Of this By experience. I have Told it somewhere in the forum, Search and you will find, I already did the work of Experiencing, writing about it.

The Least you can do is Find it and read it. But maybe easier to just dismiss it, and Be a skeptic. O-

It's not love i f Forced sold Or Solicited.

Edited by Omnaka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el
Not arms, just 4 legs like any other beast...

...and from the phrase "upon thy belly shalt thou go" we can infer the serpent had legs to be taken away. Why else would God reduce it's method of locomotion to on it's belly? Do you think the scripture implies the snake originally walked on its' tail? Maybe walked on its' head? The myth of how the snake lost its' legs might be simple, but it's not nonsensical to that degree!

That the serpent was considered a beast in this scripture (albeit a very 'subtil' beast) is made plain by the multiple conjunctions of the mention of 'serpent' and 'beast' in the same phrase or sentence.

I agree that many see it this way, what I am saying is that this is not the only interpretation and in this respect Dr. Heiser faces the logic of that interpretation and defeats it with something that is much clearer, but not acceptable to you since it would make the Hebrews more complex than you give them credit for.

As for beast, the Hebrew is "chay" which also means "living thing" as in all living things, human and animal, including spiritual beings.

See my previous post for more details regarding the curse of the serpent.

Read above Jor-el. That the snake had legs is implied in Genesis. It doesn't take a scholar to reason that.

Scholars saw that and never took it to be just a serpent, but a figure of Satan. Even many Rabbis say the same and said the same even before the time of Jesus.

Now, don't put words in my mouth about nksh. Nowhere did I say it was different words by spelling. I said it was different words by pronunciation. You are reaching with this weak and misdirected attack. I showed earlier how there were several meaning to nksh (which you already knew) because of the pronunciation, which meant the story in Genesis could not carry all the different meanings of the word at once (as you took from Dr Heiser's work) as it was (in all likelihood) meant to be read out loud to the illiterate masses as well as in silence by the priesthood.

Ok, I won't put words in your mouth, I'll just quote you...

And you have exaplantion of the word(s) nksh backwards. Nksh is more than one word, as shown by the different pronounciations, and they meant different things. You are the one trying to 'fit' these different words into one 'nksh'

Did I read it wrong by any chance? If so could you be clearer then...

PS - I just thought of something further, the words "The serpent" indicates in the grammar that there was only one of its kind. Can you perhaps tell me where all the other serpents were then?

Since we know that this is a species and an individual unless it is very unique, cannot be referred to as "the" serpent, but rather "a" serpent, one of many, it stands to reason that this serpent by way of grammar was unique and could not be equated with the other serpents that populated the earth or even eden.

Let me give an example. We never say "The Lion" because it is one of many. At most we can say "A Lion" or "That Lion", but never "The" when referring to an individual because it is one of many.

Edited by Jor-el

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent. Mulder
I already said it's understandable if you do not believe or agree. Heavenly Father (God ) must think Iam credible To enlighten me to what he Has, It matters not if you agree with me.

For Iam That Iam, and You are that you are.

I will continue to share what I know, and you can continue to pick apart my experience. It won't change Who Iam to God You or the Universe, Or what I Know though.

Maybe try sharing some of your spiritual experience or Knowledge......

Bro Jesus did as many did, and they were ostracised and killed for their sharing.. If judging others experiences of what you have no clue, helps your spirit. I'm all for it, I know there is a lesson in it somewhere for your spirit, even if it is the hard Lesson of what judging others can do. Just Glad it is now and not then.

Less pain for me.

I have described In detail about How I came to know much Of what I share, Some who understand and Have ears to listen, grasp it, as for the skeptic, All I can figure is he was not meant to get it, and Im not gonna break my back or fingers trying to Make you understand.

Not that I don't love you My bro also, But its not love if It's forced. Only you can do that, only you can experience your spirit. Experience does not come from picking others experience apart.

Search and you will; find.

Pick others experience apart, and you will be skeptic. Not enlightened, unless one wants to be enlightened On what it's like to be skeptical of others experience.

Ask the right Questioins, and Have respect.

Or not, Up to you.

Even I, when Talking To Father God had Great respect, Love, and Had to ask Questions.

This is work Of the highest kind.

Much harder than just saying , Thats BS, Then moving on to the next persons experience and saying THat's Bs.

You may have to do some real work instead of Judging those who have, and reaped The reward Of Knowledge.

Like I said It's understandable

Love Omnaka

i experienced it. a voice in my head told me there is no god. no nothing. and i beleived it. why shouldnt i?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon
Why is it that in defense of Christianity we are asked to make many assumptions . . . . but in defense of logic, we are asked to abandon it?

Ah, here we go. Why are you suddenly bringing all of Christianity into, this discussion of the serpent? This almost seems like you've decided you can't really support your point so now you're trying some misdirection.

There is no passage that describes the serpent as having had legs or arms and legs. It's OK, you can admit this, we all know it's true, so no harm, no foul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D
Dr d is there merit in this line of thinking???

when one is trying to "figure out" the truth or falsehood of a bible story perhaps they are taking the 'story' literal ... should one use care in distinguishing the 'point;' of a stroy from the vehicle its or the medium it is dressed in???... i wonder if religious interpreters often confuses tthe vehicle from what it is being carried which is a "point" .. the story is often catchy or absurd or not true for a reason....

if its beleived as true imo its a sign that its effectiveness has been lost....

There can be no doubt that the problems surrounding an understanding of Scripture . . . . or many other ancient documents . . . . are complex and multi-layered. Even when it is suspected that a Biblical story originated with another culture using a different language, we find the same linguistic difficulties occurring. Multiple meanings for words . . . . some languages understood in their written form only . . . . multiplicity of translations with varying expertise by scribes . . . . manuscripts being corrupted for personal or doctrinal interests . . . . the intrusion of liberal exegesis . . . .

Remember that I have repeated on various occasions that there are no experts on the Bible. I insist that this posture is true and can be proven. One does not reach back through the centuries and accurately grasp historic events or understand Biblical characters through words alone. As with all human events, there was much more at work than the superficial view we are given.

We can debate whether or not the snake had legs . . . . but it is much like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Are the words literal or allegorical? Can the question be truly resolved?

So it is with most theology. We place our faith within a world sponsored by the conviction that all we know that cannot be true was indeed once true. Under the banner of miracles our imaginations are stretched into the realm of faith and there we dwell, insulated from citics only by what we believe. For some, that is enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Omnaka
i experienced it. a voice in my head told me there is no god. no nothing. and i beleived it. why shouldnt i?

Next time check it against your Heart, Thats where God Resides in You.

The Heart does not Lie.

I Edited The Last reply

LOve Omnaka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent. Mulder
Next time check it against your Heart, Thats where God Resides in You.

The Heart does not Lie.

I Edited The Last reply

LOve Omnaka

i did that too. heard a voice in my head, listened to my heart, and thought it was right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Omnaka
i did that too. heard a voice in my head, listened to my heart, and thought it was right.

And what Hasppened?

What did you Hear?

Please Be Honest, That is what Iam with you. If I Joke I say Iam joking because you cant see my Face to know.

I ask questions, But wont tell you your experience is not true, if you think it is ,

NOW WHAT Did God Or some spirit tell you! LOL ;)

Love Omnaka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.