# The Bible



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Did anyone see the History Channels portrayal of the Bible? Don't you think they should have read the book first? Was that Jet Li sword fighting in Sodom? :smack


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

I saw ads for it, but did not watch the program.....

You can look at this one of two ways:

1. It's persecution and blasphemy.
2. It's an opportunity for a true Believer to open up The Word, and show the Real Truth to someone who has seen the show, and is asking questions.

Ephesians 5:15-17
Be very careful, then, how you live&#8212;not as unwise but as wise, *making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil*.
Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the Lord&#8217;s will is.

(bold is mine)


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

Wouldn't they love to see the counter-production where the truth is revealed.

The Bible is a grand field guide that goes into great detail in the matter of how to remain free, unshackled from the governments of men.

It is no accident that it has come to be represented as an emasculating emotion-fest, repulsing more than ever it might have opportunity to instruct.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

I was disappointed after really looking forward to watching it. I think it is overly ambitious for a 10 hour (minus commercials) movie series. If you didn't already know the stories, I don't think they would have made much sense. For example, the story of Moses should have been a full 2 hour episode, but was probably close to 30 minutes.

I might or might not watch the other 4 parts.


----------



## Warwalk (May 25, 2011)

I didn't see the series, but forthose that did and didn't like it, I'd be interested in hearing what they didn't like and how they would have changed it to've been different?


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

The show is just that, entertainment. I doubt the producers thought they were going to convert anyone, but maybe provoke a little curiosity.

If you take seriously what you see on TV, you're not thinking deeply enough.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

I didn't like the way they went from creation to Moses in 15 minutes or so. I think the stories they missed are vital to the understanding of the book, like the conflict between Jacob and Esau. It would have been nice to see and hear about some of the laws. Everyone knows all of the big stories in the Bible, but the little ones are where the stuff is. But then, how do you show Moses herding sheep in the desert for 40 years.
Like most movies, the book is better.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

I looked again at Genesis 19 for the destruction of Sodom story and NONE of what they showed is accurate other than Lot, his wife and two daughters lived in the city. But even the daughters they showed were too young because in the Scripture, they are both married.


----------



## WV Farm girl (Nov 26, 2011)

Well I liked it. Sure they left a lot out but it wasn't meant to be a documentary or a conversion tool. It's entertainment, same as the Vikings mini-series after it. I'm just happy that someone dared to put "The Bible" on TV. As to the story of Lot, how do you think ppl would take it if his offer of his daughters to the crowd was portrayed? I don't think that would have gone over with modern sensibilities. Some of the stories were left out to not ruffle too many feathers I'm sure. 
Maybe it will actually make some people pick up The Book, brush the dust off it, and read about God and those stories. I certainly hope so. If more ppl knew the Bible maybe America would be a better place.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

WV Farm girl said:


> As to the story of Lot, how do you think ppl would take it if his offer of his daughters to the crowd was portrayed?


Are we changing the Bible because it's offensive?

But besides that, we see in the Bible:

Lot was sitting at the city gates when the angels came in and he invited them to his home. In the movie, he and his family were escaping the crowd and Lot heard someone crying "Help me!" and found the angels that way.

The angels came into Lot's home while his family was cowering in the corner. But in the Bible, the angels ate with Lot's family and it wasn't until later that the people heard about strangers that they came to his door.

The angels told Lot what was going to happen and to get anyone else in his family to escape with him. So lot went to his sons-in-law to tell them and they didn't believe him. In the movie, Lot's daughters were too young to marry.

In the movie, the angels came out, blinded the people, ninja-ed their way out of their and then went running through the night with Lot and his wife and daughters. In the Bible, they left in the morning and the angles "led them out" without the Chuck Norris moves. 

So there was a LOT that had "creative license" taken instead of the truth. I am not too comfortable with that. It wouldn't have been that hard to stick with the story even if they decided to leave the "offensive" parts out.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

Annsni said:


> I looked again at Genesis 19 for the destruction of Sodom story and NONE of what they showed is accurate other than Lot, his wife and two daughters lived in the city. But even the daughters they showed were too young because in the Scripture, they are both married.


um, just sayin they STILL marry em off as children in the middle east


----------



## Warwalk (May 25, 2011)

That new Vikings show is really cool! I saw it at the end of The Walking Dead... I'm hoping the tone that was set during the first episode keeps going, as it's looking to be a really good series! =)

I don't think I'll watch the Bible thing tho, but I'd wondered what folks thought of it just in case.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

I guess I'm in the minority because I liked it. Of course they didn't cover everything. They are limited on time. As for the sword fight in Sodom, I took it as taking creative license to show that angels were protecting Lot and his family as they fled. I'm looking forward to seeing the rest of the series. BTW, Glen Beck did an interveiw last Friday with the guy that produced it. Him and his wife wanted to try to do something more recent than The Ten Commandments, which is fifty years old, that might hold the kids' interest.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

On the History channel you would expect a little history. The nature of the channel gives verasity to the inaccurate potrayal. Thats my beef.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

wyld thang said:


> um, just sayin they STILL marry em off as children in the middle east


But where were their husbands? In the Bible they were married. In the movie, they were clearly not.


----------



## flowergurl (Feb 27, 2007)

Did anyone else like the actor playing Moses? I'm sorry he just didn't come across as believable to me. Most of the time he just looked deranged. 
I don't like how they showed him sneaking up to the river behind pharaoh's back and turning the water red. Like they doing a child's prank, instead of following God's instructions. 
I wasn't impressed with this show. 
It's great to get people interested in the Bible, but I think you should stick to the facts. I don't think it needs to be politically correct for the viewers of today.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

Annsni said:


> But where were their husbands? In the Bible they were married. In the movie, they were clearly not.


 

*8 *Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them.

*14 *So Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were pledged to marry[a] his daughters.

From Genesis 19, NIV version. The tv show was correct(far as I can tell from hearsay) in its portrayal of Lot's daughters.


----------



## Elffriend (Mar 2, 2003)

Annsni said:


> But where were their husbands? In the Bible they were married. In the movie, they were clearly not.


Lot had more than two daughters. There were the two still in his home "who had not yet known men" and there were married daughters whose husbands did not listen to Lot when he urged them to leave.


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

Ann, Lot's daughters were betrothed, or engaged not yet married. 


> Gen 19:5 And they called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them."
> Gen 19:6 Lot went out to the men at the entrance, shut the door after him,
> Gen 19:7 and said, "I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly.
> Gen 19:8 Behold, I have two daughters who have not known any man. Let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please. Only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof."
> ...


What has always boggled me is, these guys are now blind and yet their desire to do harm is so strong that it does not even make them rethink their goal!


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

wyld thang said:


> *8 *Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them.
> 
> *14 *So Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were pledged to marry[a] his daughters.
> 
> From Genesis 19, NIV version. The tv show was correct(far as I can tell from hearsay) in its portrayal of Lot's daughters.


If you continue on from those Scriptures, you'll find that eventually Lot got drunk and committed incest with his own daughters.

The result of that? Offspring that were condemned to set against each other from then on. One of the offspring was the father of the Ammonites, which eventually got subsumed into the Arab culture (the name of Amman, Jordan, comes from this term) and the other was the father of the Moabites. Ruth was one such Moabite; she was David's great grandmother; and therefore an ancestor of Jesus Christ.

My point? Context is everything. NOWHERE in the Bible does it pretend that everything Lot DID was 'righteous.' It makes it pretty clear that IT WASN'T right. True, Lot is mentioned as a 'righteous' man but a lot of his 'righteousness' was positional (e.g., he was a judge in Sodom/Gomorrah). Studying makes it pretty clear that @ the outset he was a righteous man, but eventually became so backslidden that consequences were paid.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

wyld thang said:


> *8 *Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them.
> 
> *14 *So Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were pledged to marry[a] his daughters.
> 
> From Genesis 19, NIV version. The tv show was correct(far as I can tell from hearsay) in its portrayal of Lot's daughters.


They were betrothed - where were their soon to be husbands? Remember that was part of Genesis 19. It was not a mad dash out in the dark but they left in the morning. Lot spoke to the future SILs the night before.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Kung said:


> If you continue on from those Scriptures, you'll find that eventually Lot got drunk and committed incest with his own daughters.
> 
> The result of that? Offspring that were condemned to set against each other from then on. One of the offspring was the father of the Ammonites, which eventually got subsumed into the Arab culture (the name of Amman, Jordan, comes from this term) and the other was the father of the Moabites. Ruth was one such Moabite; she was David's great grandmother; and therefore an ancestor of Jesus Christ.
> 
> My point? Context is everything. NOWHERE in the Bible does it pretend that everything Lot DID was 'righteous.' It makes it pretty clear that IT WASN'T right. True, Lot is mentioned as a 'righteous' man but a lot of his 'righteousness' was positional (e.g., he was a judge in Sodom/Gomorrah). Studying makes it pretty clear that @ the outset he was a righteous man, but eventually became so backslidden that consequences were paid.


Was there a law against incest when that happened? I don't think there was until Moses gave the laws. One cannot break a law that does not exist. One of Noah's sons committed incest with his mother too but the same applies. Sure ticked Noah off though.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

poppy said:


> Was there a law against incest when that happened? I don't think there was until Moses gave the laws. One cannot break a law that does not exist. One of Noah's sons committed incest with his mother too but the same applies. Sure ticked Noah off though.


I think there were certain exemptions about incest in the many generations before Moses gave the laws. In some cases where there were very few people in a tribe there would have been no other practical recourse except incest if a tribe expected future generations to survive. Babies who were handicapped/disabled or otherwise genetically defective at birth as a result of incest would have been allowed to die while healthy babies were nurtured. By the time of Moses though, under-population would no longer have been a concern since there were so many more people to choose from for breeding stock but genetic defects as a consequence of incest would have been a major concern.

https://www.christiancourier.com/ar...-conflict-with-itself-in-the-matter-of-incest

.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

Kung said:


> If you continue on from those Scriptures, you'll find that eventually Lot got drunk and committed incest with his own daughters.
> 
> The result of that? Offspring that were condemned to set against each other from then on. One of the offspring was the father of the Ammonites, which eventually got subsumed into the Arab culture (the name of Amman, Jordan, comes from this term) and the other was the father of the Moabites. Ruth was one such Moabite; she was David's great grandmother; and therefore an ancestor of Jesus Christ.
> 
> My point? Context is everything. NOWHERE in the Bible does it pretend that everything Lot DID was 'righteous.' It makes it pretty clear that IT WASN'T right. True, Lot is mentioned as a 'righteous' man but a lot of his 'righteousness' was positional (e.g., he was a judge in Sodom/Gomorrah). Studying makes it pretty clear that @ the outset he was a righteous man, but eventually became so backslidden that consequences were paid.


and despite all that flawedness God used the line of Lot to bring about Jesus. thank you for hearing my point.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

naturelover said:


> I think there were certain exemptions about incest in the many generations before Moses gave the laws. In some cases where there were very few people in a tribe there would have been no other practical recourse except incest if a tribe expected future generations to survive. Babies who were handicapped/disabled or otherwise genetically defective at birth as a result of incest would have been allowed to die while healthy babies were nurtured. By the time of Moses though, under-population would no longer have been a concern since there were so many more people to choose from for breeding stock but genetic defects as a consequence of incest would have been a major concern.
> 
> https://www.christiancourier.com/ar...-conflict-with-itself-in-the-matter-of-incest
> 
> .


Actually, understand that when God created Adam and Eve, they were physically perfect. He didn't make them with any genetic defects so when their children were born and had to make more children, the genetic issue was just not an issue. As time went on and more and more people were around, incest no longer became necessary - AND as more and more people came along in a sinful world, genetic faults came into being and were passed on to children. 

So early incest did not produce children with birth defects like it would now.


----------



## Elffriend (Mar 2, 2003)

My Tanakh translates Genesis 19:14 thus:
"And Lot went out, and spoke unto his sons-in-law, who married his daughters, and said: 'Up, get you out of this place; for the LORD will destroy the city.' But he seemed unto his sons-in-law as one that jested"

It doesn't say they were betrothed or that they were to marry.

Here is someone else's explanation of the number of Lot's children:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_children_did_Lot_from_the_Bible_have


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Annsni said:


> Actually, understand that when God created Adam and Eve, they were physically perfect. He didn't make them with any genetic defects so when their children were born and had to make more children, the genetic issue was just not an issue. As time went on and more and more people were around, incest no longer became necessary - AND as more and more people came along in a sinful world, genetic faults came into being and were passed on to children.
> 
> So early incest did not produce children with birth defects like it would now.


I think your answer is a very good non-scientific answer for unquestioning people who are willing to believe in a sinful world and that God created a physically perfect Adam and Eve as the first 2 humans on earth. 

I think I like my answer better for people like myself who are willing to try to understand some of the history and reasons for practical biblical laws but who don't accept the concept of a sinful world nor believe in the Genesis creation stories nor in a real Adam and Eve due to them all being a little too far fetched, too much "creative license" and too impractical to be realistic.

.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Im just really surprized that nobody has called the destruction of Sodom gay bashing.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

> Im just really surprized that nobody has called the destruction of Sodom gay bashing.


I don't think that will ever happen. That place went far beyond gay, it was a debacle that represented all things that could be considered the very pinnacles of immoralities and perversions. If homosexuality was a sin there then it was the very least of the greater sins that happened there.

.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

flowergurl said:


> Did anyone else like the actor playing Moses? I'm sorry he just didn't come across as believable to me. Most of the time he just looked deranged.
> I don't like how they showed him sneaking up to the river behind pharaoh's back and turning the water red. Like they doing a child's prank, instead of following God's instructions.
> I wasn't impressed with this show.
> It's great to get people interested in the Bible, but I think you should stick to the facts. I don't think it needs to be politically correct for the viewers of today.


Sadly the "real" Moses is gone now... It's going to take a pretty good actor to ever replace Hesston.


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

Annsni said:


> They were betrothed - where were their soon to be husbands? Remember that was part of Genesis 19. It was not a mad dash out in the dark but they left in the morning. Lot spoke to the future SILs the night before.


The two daughters who used Lot (got him drunk, did the deed, leaving their father unaware that he'd committed incest according to the KJV) were his youngest daughters, his older daughters had gone their own way.


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

poppy said:


> Was there a law against incest when that happened? I don't think there was until Moses gave the laws. One cannot break a law that does not exist. One of Noah's sons committed incest with his mother too but the same applies. Sure ticked Noah off though.


 
God had a concept of Law before Moses:

He punished Cain for killing Abel

He punished the Pharoh and other Canaanite kings for taking Sarah and Rebekah as wives even though Abraham and Isaac had presented their respective wives as their sisters, and the kings in questions had basically been deceived. Oddly enough, both Abraham and Issac were rewarded rather than punished for their deceptions.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> The two daughters who used Lot (got him drunk, did the deed, leaving their father unaware that he'd committed incest according to the KJV) were his youngest daughters, his older daughters had gone their own way.


The phrase, "Desperate times call for desperate measures," comes to mind here. ound:


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

willow_girl said:


> The phrase, "Desperate times call for desperate measures," comes to mind here. ound:


 As I recall, they'd been living in a cave, in isolation for two years


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

NoClue said:


> God had a concept of Law before Moses:
> 
> He punished Cain for killing Abel
> 
> He punished the Pharoh and other Canaanite kings for taking Sarah and Rebekah as wives even though Abraham and Isaac had presented their respective wives as their sisters, and the kings in questions had basically been deceived. Oddly enough, both Abraham and Issac were rewarded rather than punished for their deceptions.


But God did not punish Cain according to the law of Moses. Either Abraham or Isaac, can't remember which, did not really lie. His wife was his half sister.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

naturelover said:


> I think your answer is a very good non-scientific answer for unquestioning people who are willing to believe in a sinful world and that God created a physically perfect Adam and Eve as the first 2 humans on earth.
> 
> I think I like my answer better for people like myself who are willing to try to understand some of the history and reasons for practical biblical laws but who don't accept the concept of a sinful world nor believe in the Genesis creation stories nor in a real Adam and Eve due to them all being a little too far fetched, too much "creative license" and too impractical to be realistic.
> 
> .


To view it that way, one would have to think much of the Bible was not true. Adam and Eve are referenced in several places even in the NT.


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

poppy said:


> But God did not punish Cain according to the law of Moses. Either Abraham or Isaac, can't remember which, did not really lie. His wife was his half sister.


Must have been Sarah (although I don't recall the specifics), because Rebekah was Isaac's cousin. 

Marrying cousins is still a common practice throughout the Middle East. The cousin has to be on the father's side though, not the mother's. Marrying a cousin on your Mom's side is still considered incest.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

naturelover said:


> I think your answer is a very good non-scientific answer for unquestioning people who are willing to believe in a sinful world and that God created a physically perfect Adam and Eve as the first 2 humans on earth.
> 
> I think I like my answer better for people like myself who are willing to try to understand some of the history and reasons for practical biblical laws but who don't accept the concept of a sinful world nor believe in the Genesis creation stories nor in a real Adam and Eve due to them all being a little too far fetched, too much "creative license" and too impractical to be realistic.
> 
> .


If we say that there was no real Adam and Eve and no fall in the garden, you need to throw out all of scripture. Jesus Himself spoke of Adam as a real, historic person.


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

Annsni said:


> If we say that there was no real Adam and Eve and no fall in the garden, you need to throw out all of scripture. Jesus Himself spoke of Adam as a real, historic person.


 
Maybe you do, but I don't.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

NoClue said:


> Maybe you do, but I don't.


Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who died for man's sins? Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God?


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

Annsni said:


> Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who died for man's sins? Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God?


Yes, and Yes, although with some qualifications.

I don't believe that the Old Testament, especially Genesis has to be historically fact-based to still be truth in essence.

The story of Adam and Eve is of great significance and importance whether or not it is factually accurate. Put another way, Jesus (God as Son) taught using parables. I don't find it heretical that God as Father did the same in the Old Testament.

The other qualification is that I am not an adherent of sola scriptura.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

NoClue said:


> Yes, and Yes, although with some qualifications.
> 
> I don't believe that the Old Testament, especially Genesis has to be historically fact-based to still be truth in essence.
> 
> ...


Does it make a difference to you that Jesus believed that the Old Testament was historically fact based?

http://carm.org/questions/about-jesus/what-did-jesus-teach-about-old-testament

If Adam was just a parable, then so is the death of Jesus.

Romans 12 tells us clearly that Adam was a historical person, was the cause of sin entering the world. Just as one man brought sin, one man brought life - that was Jesus Christ. If Adam was make believe, then so was Jesus dying for mankind. Just as one is, so is the other according to Romans 12.


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

NoClue said:


> The two daughters who used Lot (got him drunk, did the deed, leaving their father unaware that he'd committed incest according to the KJV) were his youngest daughters, his older daughters had gone their own way.


Do you have scripture back up for this? I have only ever read of the 2 daughters. and of course his wife who looked back. The angel told Lot to get anyone who belongs to him out of the city. He went for the fiancees of his daughters.
I imagine he would have gone after all of his children out in the city as well. He didn't he tried until dawn to convince his soon to be sons in law and hesitated to leave in case they changed their minds. 

Ultimately the angel put him out of the city. With his 2 daughters and his wife.


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

Annsni said:


> Does it make a difference to you that Jesus believed that the Old Testament was historically fact based?
> 
> http://carm.org/questions/about-jesus/what-did-jesus-teach-about-old-testament
> 
> ...


I don't agree with the underlying logic of the argument. 

I believe in original sin, I believe in Jesus. I believe in God as the Creator. I believe in the Bible as a revelation of Truth. I believe in nature as a revelation of Truth. Truth can't contradict itself, and if it appears to do so, the flaw is in the perception. Large parts of the Old Testament contradict the observable Universe, but only if the Old Testament is taken as literal fact.

I don't doubt at all that many of the historical persons in the Bible, both the Old and New Testaments believed that the Old Testament (the only testament there was at the time) was historical fact. Jesus didn't come to teach us history though, he came to teach us Truth.

So personally, I recognize the Truth in the story of Adam, and the historical accuracy is irrelevant to me. The Truth of man's propensity to sin as an inherent burden is so obvious to me (now - it wasn't always) that I don't even think about the how it got to be that way. So, as I see it and believe it "Adam" is so obviously true that a historical Adam as a historical man is incidental. So, the verse is Romans doesn't cause a contradiction to me.

Adam was actually a major stumbling block for me in coming to be a Christian. A historical Adam is simply impossible for me to believe in, because it so obviously contradicts the Truth revealed in nature, and taken as a historical narrative, the story reeks of a setup. Taken as a narrative of illumination, however, it has a much deeper, and truly profound meaning. I believe, personally, that the flash of inspiration that led me to stop thinking in terms of history and see the Bible in terms of Essential Truth came from God, because it was in that instance that I became a Christian and learned to truly cherish the Bible and God.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

NoClue said:


> I don't agree with the underlying logic of the argument.
> 
> I believe in original sin, I believe in Jesus. I believe in God as the Creator. I believe in the Bible as a revelation of Truth. I believe in nature as a revelation of Truth. Truth can't contradict itself, and if it appears to do so, the flaw is in the perception. Large parts of the Old Testament contradict the observable Universe, but only if the Old Testament is taken as literal fact.
> 
> ...


The Bible says that sin and death came from Adam. If you do not believe in Adam, where do you think sin and death came from?


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

NoClue said:


> Yes, and Yes, although with some qualifications.
> 
> I don't believe that the Old Testament, especially Genesis has to be historically fact-based to still be truth in essence.
> 
> ...


Can't buy it. When Jesus spoke in parables, the Bible tells you He was speaking in parables.


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

MJsLady said:


> Do you have scripture back up for this? I have only ever read of the 2 daughters. and of course his wife who looked back. The angel told Lot to get anyone who belongs to him out of the city. He went for the fiancees of his daughters.
> I imagine he would have gone after all of his children out in the city as well. He didn't he tried until dawn to convince his soon to be sons in law and hesitated to leave in case they changed their minds.
> 
> Ultimately the angel put him out of the city. With his 2 daughters and his wife.


It's just my understanding of the scriptures of Genesis 19. Lot had sons-in-law, implying daughters already married, so, presumably not virgins. He also offers up two virgin daughters to the crowds. If his daughters were married, they were no longer his to offer up, so the conclusion I draw is that he had more than two daughters.


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

poppy said:


> Can't buy it. When Jesus spoke in parables, the Bible tells you He was speaking in parables.


So don't buy it, I'm not insisting anyone has to believe what I do. I only insist that I have reasons for believing as I do, and didn't simply decide or make something up.


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

Annsni said:


> The Bible says that sin and death came from Adam. If you do not believe in Adam, where do you think sin and death came from?


From the hearts and minds of every human ever born, save Jesus himself.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

NoClue said:


> From the hearts and minds of every human ever born, save Jesus himself.


But you said that you believe in original sin. When the Bible speaks of original sin in Romans 12, it says that it came from "one man". Not every man.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

NoClue said:


> It's just my understanding of the scriptures of Genesis 19. Lot had sons-in-law, implying daughters already married, so, presumably not virgins. He also offers up two virgin daughters to the crowds. If his daughters were married, they were no longer his to offer up, so the conclusion I draw is that he had more than two daughters.


Do you understand betrothal? The men would be considered his sons-in-law even though they hadn't married his daughters. Remember, Joseph was betrothed to Mary, they had not been together or married - and he was considering divorcing her quietly. He was already considered her husband.


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

Annsni said:


> But you said that you believe in original sin. When the Bible speaks of original sin in Romans 12, it says that it came from "one man". Not every man.


 
What exactly are you trying to accomplish here?

I believe with the best of my very active understanding. You believe with the best of your understanding. My faith reconciles all rational contradictions and all of the stumbling blocks that were between myself and God. Presumbably, yours does the same for you, and continuing that presumption, I'm extremely happy for you.


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

Annsni said:


> Do you understand betrothal? The men would be considered his sons-in-law even though they hadn't married his daughters. Remember, Joseph was betrothed to Mary, they had not been together or married - and he was considering divorcing her quietly. He was already considered her husband.


 
What part of 



> It's just my understanding of the scriptures of Genesis


has you confused? 

Nowhere prior to Genesis 19 that I'm aware of does it say how many sons or daughters Lot has, whether they were only betrothed or married. There's no more presumption on my understanding than there is on yours.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

NoClue said:


> What exactly are you trying to accomplish here?
> 
> I believe with the best of my very active understanding. You believe with the best of your understanding. My faith reconciles all rational contradictions and all of the stumbling blocks that were between myself and God. Presumbably, yours does the same for you, and continuing that presumption, I'm extremely happy for you.



But what I'm pointing out is that Scripture - and Jesus Himself attests to the fact that the Old Testament is historically true. If we say that it is parables and stories, we have just knocked out the entire foundation of redemption. We can't pick and choose what we want to believe and disregard the rest.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

NoClue said:


> What part of
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not confused. I'm just stating basic historical facts. I'm not presuming that "son-in-law" means that there were other daughters but in fact stating that these COULD be Lot's sons-in-law even if his daughters were virgins. Sorry you take offense at that.


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

Annsni said:


> But what I'm pointing out is that Scripture - and Jesus Himself attests to the fact that the Old Testament is historically true. If we say that it is parables and stories, we have just knocked out the entire foundation of redemption. We can't pick and choose what we want to believe and disregard the rest.


I just don't agree with your premise.

Looked at your way, that the entire Bible in every single detail has to be literal historical and scientific fact, I couldn't be a Christian, because I could very easily disprove some of those details. Looking at the Bible as a revelation of truth rather than as a history and science book, I can be a Christian. I much prefer being a Christian to not being a Christian. You go your way and I'll go mine.


----------



## Hollowdweller (Jul 13, 2011)

NoClue said:


> I don't agree with the underlying logic of the argument.
> 
> I believe in original sin, I believe in Jesus. I believe in God as the Creator. I believe in the Bible as a revelation of Truth. I believe in nature as a revelation of Truth. Truth can't contradict itself, and if it appears to do so, the flaw is in the perception. Large parts of the Old Testament contradict the observable Universe, but only if the Old Testament is taken as literal fact.
> 
> ...


 
Religion is about faith not about trying to historically prove ancient stories.

Almost all ancient myths, not just those in the bible had some basis in some sort of historical event, sometimes we make mistakes in understanding them because we have lost the context from which they were born, or we make the mistake of interpreting them literally instead of symbolically as something made up to teach some ethical teaching.

What can we deduce from these stories? Return not evil with evil, love your enemy, help the poor, don't steal, don't covet, bear suffering.

The most important thing for me is that we try to live what examples are given not whether one believes that there was some guy names Moses.


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

Annsni said:


> I'm not confused. I'm just stating basic historical facts. I'm not presuming that "son-in-law" means that there were other daughters but in fact stating that these COULD be Lot's sons-in-law even if his daughters were virgins. Sorry you take offense at that.


I'm not taking offense. I'm arguing that there's no particular reason to believe that your interpretation is no more obviously true than mine. You're reading in the implication that his daughters were only betrothed. I'm reading in other daughters.


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

Hollowdweller said:


> Religion is about faith not about trying to historically prove ancient stories.
> 
> Almost all ancient myths, not just those in the bible had some basis in some sort of historical event, sometimes we make mistakes in understanding them because we have lost the context from which they were born, or we make the mistake of interpreting them literally instead of symbolically as something made up to teach some ethical teaching.
> 
> ...


That is almost precisely what I've been trying to say. Thank you.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

NoClue said:


> I just don't agree with your premise.
> 
> Looked at your way, that the entire Bible in every single detail has to be literal historical and scientific fact, I couldn't be a Christian, because I could very easily disprove some of those details. Looking at the Bible as a revelation of truth rather than as a history and science book, I can be a Christian. I much prefer being a Christian to not being a Christian. You go your way and I'll go mine.


If you could "very easily disprove" facts in the Bible, the Bible is unreliable. It is no longer the Word of God and useless.


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

Annsni said:


> If you could "very easily disprove" facts in the Bible, the Bible is unreliable. It is no longer the Word of God and useless.


Again, that's your understanding of the matter, not mine. For the sake of your faith, I'll spare you my humble intellect and the associated demonstration


----------



## Elffriend (Mar 2, 2003)

Annsni said:


> Do you understand betrothal? The men would be considered his sons-in-law even though they hadn't married his daughters. Remember, Joseph was betrothed to Mary, they had not been together or married - and he was considering divorcing her quietly. He was already considered her husband.


But the word used is married, not betrothed.

Did you look at the link in my last post?


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Elffriend said:


> But the word used is married, not betrothed.
> 
> Did you look at the link in my last post?


The English word is "married" but the Hebrew word that is used doesn't necessarily mean "marry". It means "to take to oneself" which COULD mean marry or not. Again, remember that the Hebrew culture was different than ours and there is a period of time between betrothal and consummating the marriage - which could be this case. Or it could not.

However, the bottom line is that the movie completely disregarded the sons-in-law and their refusal to go. I think that is an important part of the story - and it seemed that this entire story in the movie is very different from what the Scriptures say.


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

No Clue, why do you not believe?
I am not trying to be argumentative I just do not understand.
Do you not think God capable of such things or something?


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

No Clue, you rock, you get it, keep the faith (wink)


----------



## WV Farm girl (Nov 26, 2011)

Obviously some are caught up in details of the show. Let it go! The main plot is still there. Sodom was destroyed, the angels rescued Lot and his daughters, Moses got the People out of Egypt, etc.
Personally I don't think Lot's "son-in-laws" being portrayed or not affects the overall story at all. Readers of the Bible know the stories and non-readers are not going to be misled by the details being edited. 
My suggestion? Pick your battles. Its not worth getting riled up over the details of a TV show. Don't watch it if you can't appreciate it for what it is: Entertainment. There are bigger things in this life to worry about.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

WV Farm girl said:


> Obviously some are caught up in details of the show. Let it go! The main plot is still there. Sodom was destroyed, the angels rescued Lot and his daughters, Moses got the People out of Egypt, etc.
> Personally I don't think Lot's "son-in-laws" being portrayed or not affects the overall story at all. Readers of the Bible know the stories and non-readers are not going to be misled by the details being edited.
> My suggestion? Pick your battles. Its not worth getting riled up over the details of a TV show. Don't watch it if you can't appreciate it for what it is: Entertainment. There are bigger things in this life to worry about.


Well, I guess that's the difference. I see the Bible as the very Word of God - not entertainment. So it bothers me when it is reported to be a pretty accurate portrayal of Scripture - but it is not. The ark is a representation of God's work to save us - yet the ark sprung a leak in the movie. The Bible tells us that the Israelites passed on dry land yet we see water spray all over them in the movie. How could the land be dry if there was spray? There were many things that I saw that made me decide the movie was not as great as some thought it might be. I don't know - I'm not comfortable messing with what God has given to us perfectly already.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

Speaking only for myself and not directing this towards anyone else, I have to say that it's the spray and the leaks that drive it all home for me. Because then you truly know the voodoo of "peace be still".


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Anyone notice the similarity between Jesus and Mithra?
Could the bible just be a copy?


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

poppy said:


> To view it that way, one would have to think much of the Bible was not true. Adam and Eve are referenced in several places even in the NT.





Annsni said:


> If we say that there was no real Adam and Eve and no fall in the garden, you need to throw out all of scripture. Jesus Himself spoke of Adam as a real, historic person.


Yes and no. I don't think all of biblical scriptures needs to be thrown out but I do think that many stories in the bible should be taken with a grain of salt because they are written in metaphorical and fantastical terms for the sake of convenience. It was written by simple men in terms that simple, superstitious, God fearing people could more easily and conveniently accept on faith alone in a time when they would not have been able to comprehend the concepts of practical science and the evolution of the earth and all living things on it due to barriers in their education. Jesus may have spoken of Adam and Eve as real persons but I think that's because he was just repeating the stories that he and his audiences had already been taught in their youth and had accepted on faith without questioning the reality or practicality of the stories. It is what he believed.

If one looks realistically through the metaphors, fantasies, fables and parables and upon close examination can recognize the deeper wisdom hidden within them that is a good thing. In any case, there is still a lot of wisdom and important historical information about that particular civilization contained in the bible and I do not believe that people should think of the bible as untrue or worthless. 

.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

But the metaphors, fantasies, fables and stuff that you mention are historical facts to Jesus Christ. If He regarded it as truth, why would I question Him? Unless I wanted to make up my own faith.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Annsni said:


> But the metaphors, fantasies, fables and stuff that you mention are historical facts to Jesus Christ. If He regarded it as truth, why would I question Him? Unless I wanted to make up my own faith.


You shouldn't. If you are a religious person who is comfortable in your faith that Jesus is your God then you must believe the same things that you think Jesus believed, you cannot question his beliefs and you cannot make up your own faith. You have no reason to. 

By the same token you need to accept there are other people of other cultures and belief systems who do not believe that Jesus is their God and cannot accept everything in the bible as the word of God but who can overlook the fantabulous bits and accept that there is still a lot of realistic wisdom and important history contained in the bible.

If you're comfortable with your faith and your belief in Jesus as your God then what is meaningful for other people who are not like-minded as you shouldn't be an issue for you.

.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

I'm very comfortable in my faith - and not just comfortable but stake my life on it. The Word of God is the truth and Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life and no one comes to the Father but through Him. Yes, people can believe what they want - even if it's not the truth.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Annsni said:


> I'm very comfortable in my faith - and not just comfortable but stake my life on it. The Word of God is the truth and Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life and no one comes to the Father but through Him. Yes, *people can believe what they want - even if it's not the truth*.


I think that if you can amend that bolded part to say _"people can believe what they want_ *- *_even if it's not *MY* truth"_ then you would be speaking your personal truth from a non-prejudiced point of view and without taking issue with what is true for other people with different beliefs. I know it's a big hurdle to jump over but once you can get past that obstacle of accepting that what is true for you is not necessarily true for everyone you will find that you won't need to feel so defensive about your own truths. 

.


----------



## Hollowdweller (Jul 13, 2011)

Annsni said:


> Well, I guess that's the difference. I see the Bible as the very Word of God - not entertainment. *So it bothers me when it is reported to be a pretty accurate portrayal of Scripture - but it is not. *The ark is a representation of God's work to save us - yet the ark sprung a leak in the movie. The Bible tells us that the Israelites passed on dry land yet we see water spray all over them in the movie. How could the land be dry if there was spray? There were many things that I saw that made me decide the movie was not as great as some thought it might be. I don't know - I'm not comfortable messing with what God has given to us perfectly already.


 
Yeah but that's entertainment. The very story of the flood itself is taken from a much older mesopotamian flood story the Gilgamesh epic, which predates the bible. 

It's obvious that there WAS some sort of flood in at one point in mankinds early history and that story was re told again and again in different cultures in different ways. Much the same way you repeat a story by word of mouth and it changes.

As far as the parting of the sea and Moses, I'm not saying it didn't happen that way, but you know, the Egyptians kept really great historical records, and there really isn't any record of large numbers of Jewish slaves or of the red sea story. 

But to me if somebody comes up to me and says "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" that's a great teaching whether it's from a saint or the guy next door.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Hollowdweller said:


> What can we deduce from these stories? Return not evil with evil, love your enemy, help the poor, don't steal, don't covet, bear suffering.


But in doing so, you ignore the core message of the Bible and being a Christian; the resurrection into eternal life through Jesus Christ. It is the one factor that separates Christianity from all other religious beliefs.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Txsteader said:


> But in doing so, you ignore the core message of the Bible and being a Christian; the* resurrection into eternal life* through Jesus Christ. It is the one factor that separates Christianity from all other religious beliefs.


Can someone please explain what happens with resurrection into eternal life? A person dies and then what .... ? Is it a desireable thing to have happen (I guess it apparently is desireable to Christians) and if so why is it a desireable thing, what is the ultimate purpose or goal?

.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

I watch NCIS and Bones occasionally.
There is 'some' truth in these tv shows.
It's small, but it's there.
But the majority of the show is for 'entertainment'.

Now if I ask a police officer, or a forensic scientist, or an anthropologist a question, based upon what I have seen on tv, they will answer one of two ways:

UM that's a tv show idiot. OMGosh I cannot believe how stupid people are that they think TV IS REAL.....ugg.
or
That is an excellent question, although tv is for entertainment, there is a small shred of truth in the question you ask....let me tell you how it really is.

*I* then have a choice.

I can listen to the one, who went to college / school / or was trained....who has chosen this career / lifestyle, lives this day in and day out, and good chances are they possess 'real truth'.
or
I can chose to believe what's on tv cause it's cool.

It's all on me!


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

naturelover said:


> Can someone please explain what happens with resurrection into eternal life? A person dies and then what .... ? Is it a desireable thing to have happen (I guess it apparently is desireable to Christians) and if so why is it a desireable thing, what is the ultimate purpose or goal?
> 
> .


You know Carl Sagan (an atheist) answered this question "best" for me, in the most visceral, get my head around it sort of way: "We are made of star stuff"

I am content with that--it is both very simple and beyond my ken. I look at physics, that law of conservation of energy, and I learn about the powerplants of the body, my mitochondria, billions of little...stars...that fire my living. It is good enough for me to know that my starstuff goes on. 

And I think too another way to live forever it to be fully present in this moment. The concept of "enough" opens up.

But I'm one of those weird Jesus freaks. My answer might not apply ha. I hope I live forever, in some form. In anycase I'm packing as much in as possible, cuz I know life is dang short and precious.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Txsteader said:


> But in doing so, you ignore the core message of the Bible and being a Christian; the resurrection into eternal life through Jesus Christ. It is the one factor that separates Christianity from all other religious beliefs.


Our God's not dead.  

Amen Txsteader. Yes, people like to pick out the pretty truths of the Bible but forget the central message: God created man, man sinned and broke the relationship between him and God, God showed man through laws that he was not good enough to save himself so God sent His Son to pay that penalty of sin, and not only did He pay the penalty but He shattered death in the process. Now we have access to the Father through the Son and our relationship with God can be restored, giving us eternal life through Him.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

WV Farm girl said:


> Obviously some are caught up in details of the show. Let it go! The main plot is still there. Sodom was destroyed, the angels rescued Lot and his daughters, Moses got the People out of Egypt, etc.
> Personally I don't think Lot's "son-in-laws" being portrayed or not affects the overall story at all. Readers of the Bible know the stories and non-readers are not going to be misled by the details being edited.
> My suggestion? Pick your battles. Its not worth getting riled up over the details of a TV show. Don't watch it if you can't appreciate it for what it is: Entertainment. There are bigger things in this life to worry about.


I agree. Too often people focus on the small things and completely miss the big picture. I hope this mini series will encourage people to get into the Bible and study for themselves.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Tonight I watched the first 2 hour episode plus previews of other episodes of the series "The Bible" that this topic was about. The book is definitely much better and I don't think I'll be watching the other episodes when they come on .... but maybe I'll watch the very last episode. I'm afraid the loudness, melodrama and violence and the jealous and fickle god depicted in the TV series will be more likely to discourage and put people off rather than encourage them to become familiar with the bible or with Christianity. That's kind of a shame, and I think they could have done a better job of making the bible stories more appealing.



wyld thang said:


> You know Carl Sagan (an atheist) answered this question "best" for me, in the most visceral, get my head around it sort of way: "We are made of star stuff"
> 
> I am content with that--it is both very simple and beyond my ken. I look at physics, that law of conservation of energy, and I learn about the powerplants of the body, my mitochondria, billions of little...stars...that fire my living. It is good enough for me to know that my starstuff goes on.
> 
> ...


:thumb:

"We are made of star stuff" - yeah, I can relate to that.

God is star stuff. Star stuff is God. We are made of star stuff. We are star stuff living in God and God is star stuff living in us. We are God. Eternal.

I was so curious about the religious perspective of this resurrection and eternal life thing I had to do some research about it. I read a bunch of scriptures (including some scriptures from the old testament that talk about resurrection and eternal life and how to get there {and that was even from before the time that Jesus came on the scene so apparently a belief in Jesus isn't essential to gain eternal life}), and some stuff from the book of Mormon and some other non-scriptural and non-Christian religious articles. A lot of it was rather vague about how "good" a person has to be to achieve resurrection and eternal life or else be judged and sentenced to eternal death but it would appear that most religions, not only Christianity, have some version or another of resurrection and/or eternal life that they believe in. A lot of it fits in with the shamanic view point about life and karma and the many different planes of existence which is what I'm most aligned with. 

Perhaps some day everyone will come to the realization that they already are eternal and always have been and don't have to be religious to achieve eternal life because they're already there.

.


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

MJsLady said:


> No Clue, why do you not believe?
> I am not trying to be argumentative I just do not understand.
> Do you not think God capable of such things or something?


 
I think I've said repeatedly that I do believe, and I believe intensely, to the best of my ability and understanding - and I had to understand before I could believe. (earlier up is a short version of my conversion story, and personally it was as dramatic as the road to Damascus was for Paul.)

I simply resent anyone, anywhere, who says:



> If we say that there was no real Adam and Eve and no fall in the garden, you need to throw out all of scripture.


as simply and as plainly as if they were handing down scripture themselves, declaring that my faith isn't possible, when it is in fact more real to me than any disembodied voice pontificating across the Internet.


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

Annsni said:


> I'm very comfortable in my faith - and not just comfortable but stake my life on it. The Word of God is the truth and Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life and no one comes to the Father but through Him. Yes, people can believe what they want - even if it's not the truth.


And I never said anything that contradicted this belief, and I believe exactly the same thing.


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

Annsni said:


> But the metaphors, fantasies, fables and stuff that you mention are historical facts to Jesus Christ. If He regarded it as truth, why would I question Him? Unless I wanted to make up my own faith.


I don't believe that they were historical facts to Jesus Christ. He certainly never said 'these are historical facts to me and if you do not believe that things are historical then you can not believe in me.'


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

naturelover said:


> I was so curious about the religious perspective of this resurrection and eternal life thing I had to do some research about it. I read a bunch of scriptures (including some scriptures from the old testament that talk about resurrection and eternal life and how to get there {and that was even from before the time that Jesus came on the scene so apparently a belief in Jesus isn't essential to gain eternal life}), .........
> 
> .


Those OT scriptures were prophecies, which were later fulfilled by Jesus' birth, death and resurrection. Before Jesus, sins were forgiven through animal sacrifices and sin offerings. Jesus became the final {ultimate) sacrifice for all time, for all mankind. 

It cannot be understood through mere 'research'.

1 Corinthians 1:18-21
_*18*For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. *19*For it is written:_
_âI will destroy the wisdom of the wise;_
_the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.âc_ 
_*20*Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? *21*For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe._


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

NoClue said:


> I don't believe that they were historical facts to Jesus Christ. He certainly never said 'these are historical facts to me and if you do not believe that things are historical then you can not believe in me.'


The fact that He spoke of these men as real people doesn't matter? He had to say that they were historical facts first? When I teach my children, do I need to say "This is historical fact" before I teach them about Booker T. Washington or does the fact that I am referring to him as a real person enough?


----------



## bridget (May 10, 2002)

I watched it, enjoyed it, thought some was a bit over the top.

When the asian angel guy starting kicking some butt my very first thought was "Homesteading Today is not gonna like this." :duel:


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

bridget said:


> I watched it, enjoyed it, thought some was a bit over the top.
> 
> When the asian angel guy starting kicking some butt my very first thought was "Homesteading Today is not gonna like this." :duel:


We laughed and the kids said "It's like Power Rangers with swords!" LOL


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

naturelover said:


> Tonight I watched the first 2 hour episode plus previews of other episodes of the series "The Bible" that this topic was about. The book is definitely much better and I don't think I'll be watching the other episodes when they come on .... but maybe I'll watch the very last episode. I'm afraid the loudness, melodrama and violence and the jealous and fickle god depicted in the TV series will be more likely to discourage and put people off rather than encourage them to become familiar with the bible or with Christianity. That's kind of a shame, and I think they could have done a better job of making the bible stories more appealing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes

You know that old connundrum, what about the aborigine on the deserted island that never hears about Jesus, doesn't God love him too and give him a chance for eternal life? C S Lewis addressed this as Yes and No. We are created to (be able to) experience the fulness of what is. We have the free will to say Yes or No to this. To be Awake, or Asleep. Doesn't matter what the names are, because there are many names. 

YES to the I Am, We Are, Love.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Txsteader said:


> Those OT scriptures were prophecies, which were later fulfilled by Jesus' birth, death and resurrection. Before Jesus, sins were forgiven through animal sacrifices and sin offerings. Jesus became the final {ultimate) sacrifice for all time, for all mankind.
> 
> It cannot be understood through mere 'research'.
> 
> 1 Corinthians 1:18-21.....


I think you misunderstood my post. I already know about resurrection and eternal life, I have known about it all my life from a spiritual but non-religious perspective, so that's not what I was researching. What I was looking up about it was the different religious perspectives and how it applies to Christianity and other religions (including pagan religions) as well as other spiritual but non-religious belief systems (i.e. Buddhism for example), and the reasons and explanations for why people believe in it and what they all expect from it when it happens.

The Christian belief in ressurection and eternal life is only one aspect and one set of beliefs about it but there are many others, all with varying reasons and expectations.

You don't know what I was reading in the OT but I can assure you that they were not prophecies and there is no mention of Jesus in the OT. It's better for me to not comment much to you on the animal sacrifices and the blood sacrifice of Jesus as I think the concept of blood sacrifice is nothing more than a blood thirsty and barbaric practise for a barbaric and totally imaginary reason. Certainly not a noble thing and nothing for anyone to be proud of. No good religion should be born out of such violence.

.


----------



## Hollowdweller (Jul 13, 2011)

Txsteader said:


> But in doing so, you ignore the core message of the Bible and being a Christian; the resurrection into eternal life through Jesus Christ. It is the one factor that separates Christianity from all other religious beliefs.


 
Well that's one Christian belief but others more emphasize the actual teachings.

Remember they were arguing about this even way back when.

Like when James dissed Paul saying faith was the most important in James 2: 14 thru 26.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

This came across my Facebook today. Operative word "religion", please.

&#8220;Religion has convinced people that there's an invisible man ... living in the sky. Who watches everything you do every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten specific things he doesn't want you to do. And if you do any of these things, he will send you to a special place, of burning and fire and smoke and torture and anguish for you to live forever, and suffer, and suffer, and burn, and scream, until the end of time. But he loves you. He loves you. He loves you and he needs money.&#8221;

&#8213; George Carlin


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

naturelover said:


> You don't know what I was reading in the OT but I can assure you that they were not prophecies and *there is no mention of Jesus in the OT*.
> 
> .


Actually, there is.

Isaiah 7: 10-14
_10 Again the Lord spoke to Ahaz, 11 âAsk the Lord your God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights.â_
_12 But Ahaz said, âI will not ask; I will not put the Lord to the test.â_
_ 13 Then Isaiah said, âHear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will you try the patience of my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you[c] a sign: The virgin[d] will conceive and give birth to a son, and[e] will call him Immanuel._

Isaiah 9: 6-7
_"For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given. And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of His government and peace there will be no end. Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom, to order it and establish it with judgment and justice from that time forward, even forever. "

_There are many more scattered throughout the OT that are more cryptic, but they're there.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Txsteader said:


> Actually, there is.
> 
> Isaiah 7: 10-14
> _10 Again the Lord spoke to Ahaz, 11 âAsk the Lord your God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights.â_
> ...


Amen!

Even Jesus tells us that Moses wrote about Him (John 5:46 - "For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me.")


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

Hollowdweller said:


> Well that's one Christian belief but others more emphasize the actual teachings.
> 
> Remember they were arguing about this even way back when.
> 
> Like when James dissed Paul saying faith was the most important in James 2: 14 thru 26.





> Jas 2:14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?
> Jas 2:15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food,
> Jas 2:16 and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that?
> Jas 2:17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
> ...


He didn't diss Paul at all.
He made it clear that IF your Faith is real you will do outward things that show it. 
Like study and help others to see that God is real and there are things you can do in HIS name that show you are different from others.

Paul never said Ok you have Faith now go sit on your bum and do nothing. If your Faith is true it motivates you to act differently than the world around you. 
James' point was a person can say they are a convert and not really be one. Hebrews discusses this too. How some say they follow God but their hearts are not in it.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

MJsLady said:


> He didn't diss Paul at all.
> He made it clear that IF your Faith is real you will do outward things that show it.
> Like study and help others to see that God is real and there are things you can do in HIS name that show you are different from others.
> 
> ...


Amen!! Just like life has breath, faith has feet. When you have faith in Christ, you become a new creation - and you are going to WANT to do the works that God has prepared for you. But you don't earn "credit" for salvation through those works. You are already a child of the King - adopted into His family. Now He gives you the ability to act like one of His kids.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Txsteader said:


> > Originally Posted by *naturelover*
> > _You don't know what I was reading in the OT but I can assure you that they were not prophecies and *there is no mention of Jesus in the OT*. _
> 
> 
> ...


I know about those scriptures but I'm kind of a stickler about things said or meant literally though, so I have to disagree that the above was in reference to the man Jesus. In the OT there is plenty of mention of an un-named messiah, and there is mention of a messiah who would be named Immanuel (which translated literally means "God is with us") but there is no mention in the OT of the name Jesus (which translated literally means "Jehovah is salvation"). Those names mean two different things. When it was time for the baby Jesus to be named an angel came to Joseph in a dream and told him that the child was specifically to be named Jesus, not Emmanuel. I know there's been a lot of speculation, arguing and reasoning about it over the centuries but I have to go along with the literalists, that if Jesus was intended to have been the messiah foretold in the OT then the angel would have told Joseph to name the child Immanuel, not Jesus.

I think that if and when a true messiah eventually makes an appearance on earth that she/he might be known by the name Immanuel or some other name ending in '-el' or some other name that may also be loosely translated as meaning "God is with us", but not by the name Jesus which has a much different meaning. 

Be that as it may, I'll reiterate that the OT scriptures that I was looking at about resurrection and eternal life were about just that, they weren't referencing or naming any kind of messiah and I wasn't looking for information about any messiah.

.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

naturelover said:


> I know about those scriptures but I'm kind of a stickler about things said or meant literally though, so I have to disagree that the above was in reference to the man Jesus. In the OT there is plenty of mention of an un-named messiah, and there is mention of a messiah who would be named Immanuel (which translated literally means "God is with us") but there is no mention in the OT of the name Jesus (which translated literally means "Jehovah is salvation"). Those names mean two different things. When it was time for the baby Jesus to be named an angel came to Joseph in a dream and told him that the child was specifically to be named Jesus, not Emmanuel. I know there's been a lot of speculation, arguing and reasoning about it over the centuries but I have to go along with the literalists, that if Jesus was intended to have been the messiah foretold in the OT then the angel would have told Joseph to name the child Immanuel, not Jesus.
> 
> I think that if and when a true messiah eventually makes an appearance on earth that she/he might be known by the name Immanuel or some other name ending in '-el' or some other name that may also be loosely translated as meaning "God is with us", but not by the name Jesus which has a much different meaning.
> 
> ...


Then Jesus was a liar when He said that Moses spoke of Him?


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Annsni said:


> Then Jesus was a liar when He said that Moses spoke of Him?


Did Moses speak of Jesus by the name Jesus or did Moses speak of a person named Immanuel or of an un-named messiah? When Moses spoke of one to come that should be listened to did he ever mention a name? Did Moses say that person would be a prophet or a messiah? All Jesus said was that if you believed in Moses then you would believe in Jesus because Moses had written about him, but what exactly did Moses write about him - what words did he use? Was Jesus ever able to prove that Moses wrote about him or did he just think that he was the one that Moses wrote about and therefore made the claim based on his own belief.

I don't think Jesus was a liar but without exact proof of what Moses may or may not have said specifically about Jesus I have to consider that Jesus may have been mistaken about who or what he thought Moses was talking about.

Maybe Moses was talking about Jesus. What did Moses say about him? Can you show me?

.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

doubt is what makes faith so powerful 

yin yang n all that

take away doubt and faith is emasculated

IMO of course ha. spray and leaks.


----------



## Elffriend (Mar 2, 2003)

The passages from Isaiah refer to King Hezekiah.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

wyld thang said:


> doubt is what makes faith so powerful
> 
> yin yang n all that
> 
> ...


LOL, Wyld. That made me laugh. Spray and leaks indeed! :hysterical:

I have no doubt that Jesus is a God to Christians and has the power of God over Christians who have faith in Jesus as their God. I also have no doubt that humans create their own gods as it suits their purposes and that it is their faith in their gods that gives those gods power over them, enough power even to make miracles happen. GOD is within us so humans do have that capacity to create gods or become gods. So I can recognize and accept that Jesus is a god but that doesn't necessarilly mean - to me - that Jesus is GOD the Big Boss or that Abraham's God and Jesus' God who he calls his Father is GOD the Big Boss. I mean that god was the Big Boss for Abraham and Jesus and other Jews and Christians because that's what they wanted and therefore made it so, but that God is not the Big Boss GOD for me, the GOD that is the Big Boss over all other gods, including over Jesus and the God of Jesus.

I think if it was otherwise then I would know it. 

.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Elffriend said:


> The passages from Isaiah refer to King Hezekiah.


Thank you.

.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Elffriend said:


> The passages from Isaiah refer to King Hezekiah.


????

Who was the son, conceived of a virgin, referred to in Isaiah 7:14?


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

Prophesy is what will come. Isaiah was a contemporary of Hezekiah and was not predicting his birth. 
I find it so funny how hard people work to find ways NOT to believe what God says.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

MJsLady said:


> I find it so funny how hard people work to find ways NOT to believe what God says.


 And how quickly they accept 'alternate' explanations, without question.


----------



## Elffriend (Mar 2, 2003)

Txsteader said:


> And how quickly they accept 'alternate' explanations, without question.


That the verses in Isaiah refer to King Hezekiah is not an alternative explanation. It's the original explanation.

There is no virgin birth referenced in Isaiah 7:14. The Hebrew word used is alma, which means a young woman. It doesn't mean virgin. If Isaiah meant virgin, the word used would have been bethulah.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Elffriend said:


> That the verses in Isaiah refer to King Hezekiah is not an alternative explanation. It's the original explanation.
> 
> There is no virgin birth referenced in Isaiah 7:14. The Hebrew word used is alma, which means a young woman. It doesn't mean virgin. If Isaiah meant virgin, the word used would have been bethulah.


Actually, this is not correct. There is a Greek translation of Isaiah 7:14 that was made about 200 years before Christ was born (LXX). It was written by 70 Hebrew scholars. Remember that this was BEFORE Christ was born. They translated the word "alma" to "parthenos" which means virgin. "Alma" can also mean virgin, maiden or young woman. These terms are pretty interchangeable for virgin in the culture. If Hebrew scholars translated the word from their own language into Greek as "virgin", then the common understanding of the passage as it was written would have been that it is speaking of a young virginal woman.


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

Elffriend said:


> That the verses in Isaiah refer to King Hezekiah is not an alternative explanation. It's the original explanation.
> 
> There is no virgin birth referenced in Isaiah 7:14. The Hebrew word used is alma, which means a young woman. It doesn't mean virgin. If Isaiah meant virgin, the word used would have been bethulah.


 
First they want you to take the words literally, and when you take the words literally, they want you to go back to the Hebrew, and when you go back to the Hebrew, then you have to go to the numerical values of the Hebrew words, and then... I thought I would head a lot of this business off at the pass by learning Hebrew myself (Greek too, which is far easier, but most of this discussion has been on the Old Testament), and it's actually coming along fairly well and I'm getting to the point that I can get a few verses along before hitting the dictionary.

I've gone deep into this because I firmly believe in the message of the Bible. But the details of the words... the more I learn, the more I believe that they are not to be taken literally



> 26 Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, &#8220;Go south to the road&#8212;the desert road&#8212;that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.&#8221; 27 So he started out, and on his way he met an Ethiopian[a] eunuch, an important official in charge of all the treasury of the Kandake (which means &#8220;queen of the Ethiopians&#8221. This man had gone to Jerusalem to worship, 28 and on his way home was sitting in his chariot reading the Book of Isaiah the prophet. 29 The Spirit told Philip, &#8220;Go to that chariot and stay near it.&#8221;
> 30 Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. &#8220;Do you understand what you are reading?&#8221; Philip asked.
> 31 *&#8220;How can I,&#8221; he said, &#8220;unless someone explains it to me?&#8221; So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.*


_Acts Chapter 8_

I have help from a Jewish man and Jewish woman, to get me through the hurdles.

The most recent oddity I came across was in Exodus 7:1, which in the KJV is translated:



> And the Lord said unto Moses, See, *I have made thee a god to Pharaoh*: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.


But which most other translations render *I have made thee a Lord over Pharaoh*

The Hebrew word used is &#1488;&#1500;&#1492;&#1497;&#1501;_ elohim_ which is one of the Hebrew words used as the name of God, because one simply doesn't utter the name of God. 

So, I call up my friend Lev, and I ask for an explanation. Lev explains that 'THERE'S ONLY ONE GOD, so it can't possibly mean God in this case." I object though, for example, in Exodus 20:3,(&#1500;&#1488; &#1497;&#1492;&#1497;&#1492;&#1470;&#1500;&#1498; &#1488;&#1500;&#1492;&#1497;&#1501; &#1488;&#1495;&#1512;&#1497;&#1501; &#1506;&#1500;&#1470;&#1508;&#1504;&#1497; ) , commonly translated as 'Thou shalt have no other gods before me', again, the word &#1488;&#1500;&#1492;&#1497;&#1501;_ elohim_ is used, referring to the other gods. So again, how do we know that God didn't make Moses a god?'

Lev's answer "You Christians worry too much about the words when you already know what it has to mean! The truth isn't in the words, the words are in the truth..."


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

MJsLady said:


> I find it so funny how hard people work to find ways NOT to believe what God says.





Txsteader said:


> And how quickly they accept 'alternate' explanations, without question.


Those comments went over my head so could you elaborate on how those comments pertain to in this conversation? Were they directed at someone here in particular or just thrown out there as an observation about people in general?

If it was just a 'general' comment then I agree because it works both ways. I think it's funny how many people will accept gods on faith alone just because somebody else said "believe" without questioning or wanting to see proof with their own eyes.

By the way, does either one of you know where the information can be found about what it was that Moses wrote about Jesus?

.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

naturelover said:


> By the way, does either one of you know where the information can be found about what it was that Moses wrote about Jesus?
> 
> .


I'm not the others but I know a man who can answer this question quite well. You can listen, watch or read his sermon on this very passage. It is John Piper, a man that I respect very much and who is a great pastor and theologian:

http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/sermons/if-you-believed-moses-you-would-believe-me


----------



## siberian (Aug 23, 2011)

Seems like a lot of those folks are a lot better off than me. Im Irish and can burn underneath a 60 watt light. Many of the folks seem to have alot of suntan lotion for being in the desert


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> That's kind of a shame, and I think they could have done a better job of making the bible stories more appealing.


Perhaps they should have devoted more time to the Song of Solomon? :shrug:


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

Now that I would like to see.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Annsni said:


> I'm not the others but I know a man who can answer this question quite well. You can listen, watch or read his sermon on this very passage. It is John Piper, a man that I respect very much and who is a great pastor and theologian:
> 
> http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/sermons/if-you-believed-moses-you-would-believe-me


Thanks for that link. I did read through that and found it interesting. While I didn't find the particular information that I was looking for I can certainly understand why you respect John Piper so much. He is very erudite and passionate about what he's talking about.

.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

naturelover said:


> Those comments went over my head so could you elaborate on how those comments pertain to in this conversation? Were they directed at someone here in particular or just thrown out there as an observation about people in general?
> 
> If it was just a 'general' comment then I agree because it works both ways. I think it's funny how many people will *accept gods on faith alone just because somebody else said "believe" without questioning or wanting to see proof with their own eyes.*
> 
> ...


It is my understanding that is how it works.

2 Corinthians 5:7
We live by faith, not by sight.

I know quoting the Bible may not influence you, but to some of us, that is all we have. It is enough.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

naturelover said:


> Thanks for that link. I did read through that and found it interesting. While I didn't find the particular information that I was looking for I can certainly understand why you respect John Piper so much. He is very erudite and passionate about what he's talking about.
> 
> .


He's very good! I'd recommend him for someone who would like to listen to a pastor online. He just retired from the pulpit but he's still speaking and writing. He's very well thought out, a clear speaker and as you said, passionate.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

NoClue said:


> The most recent oddity I came across was in Exodus 7:1, which in the KJV is translated:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



_*Elohim*_ (&#1488;&#1457;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1428;&#1497;&#1501;) is a grammatically singular or plural noun for "god" or "gods" in both modern and ancient Hebrew language.
When used with singular verbs and adjectives _elohim_ is usually singular, "god" or especially, _the_ God. When used with plural verbs and adjectives _elohim_ is usually plural, "gods" or "powers".[1][2] It is generally thought that Elohim is a formation from _eloah_, the latter being an expanded form of the Northwest Semitic noun _il_ (&#1488;&#1461;&#1500;, _&#702;&#275;l_[3]). It is usually translated as "God" in the Hebrew Bible, referring with singular verbs both to the one God of Israel, and also in a few examples to other singular pagan deities. With plural verbs the word is also used as a true plural with the meaning "gods".[3] The related nouns _eloah_ (&#1488;&#1500;&#1493;&#1492 and _el_ (&#1488;&#1461;&#1500 are used as proper names or as generics, in which case they are interchangeable with _elohim_.[3 _*Elohim*_ (&#1488;&#1457;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1428;&#1497;&#1501;) is a grammatically singular or plural noun for "god" or "gods" in both modern and ancient Hebrew language.
When used with singular verbs and adjectives _elohim_ is usually singular, "god" or especially, _the_ God. When used with plural verbs and adjectives _elohim_ is usually plural, "gods" or "powers".[1][2] It is generally thought that Elohim is a formation from _eloah_, the latter being an expanded form of the Northwest Semitic noun _il_ (&#1488;&#1461;&#1500;, _&#702;&#275;l_[3]). It is usually translated as "God" in the Hebrew Bible, referring with singular verbs both to the one God of Israel, and also in a few examples to other singular pagan deities. With plural verbs the word is also used as a true plural with the meaning "gods".[3] The related nouns _eloah_ (&#1488;&#1500;&#1493;&#1492 and _el_ (&#1488;&#1461;&#1500 are used as proper names or as generics, in which case they are interchangeable with _elohim_.[3


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

poppy said:


> _*Elohim*_ (&#1488;&#1457;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1428;&#1497;&#1501;) is a grammatically singular or plural noun for "god" or "gods" in both modern and ancient Hebrew language.
> When used with singular verbs and adjectives _elohim_ is usually singular, "god" or especially, _the_ God. When used with plural verbs and adjectives _elohim_ is usually plural, "gods" or "powers".[1][2] It is generally thought that Elohim is a formation from _eloah_, the latter being an expanded form of the Northwest Semitic noun _il_ (&#1488;&#1461;&#1500;, _&#702;&#275;l_[3]). It is usually translated as "God" in the Hebrew Bible, referring with singular verbs both to the one God of Israel, and also in a few examples to other singular pagan deities. With plural verbs the word is also used as a true plural with the meaning "gods".[3] The related nouns _eloah_ (&#1488;&#1500;&#1493;&#1492 and _el_ (&#1488;&#1461;&#1500 are used as proper names or as generics, in which case they are interchangeable with _elohim_.[3 _*Elohim*_ (&#1488;&#1457;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1428;&#1497;&#1501;) is a grammatically singular or plural noun for "god" or "gods" in both modern and ancient Hebrew language.
> When used with singular verbs and adjectives _elohim_ is usually singular, "god" or especially, _the_ God. When used with plural verbs and adjectives _elohim_ is usually plural, "gods" or "powers".[1][2] It is generally thought that Elohim is a formation from _eloah_, the latter being an expanded form of the Northwest Semitic noun _il_ (&#1488;&#1461;&#1500;, _&#702;&#275;l_[3]). It is usually translated as "God" in the Hebrew Bible, referring with singular verbs both to the one God of Israel, and also in a few examples to other singular pagan deities. With plural verbs the word is also used as a true plural with the meaning "gods".[3] The related nouns _eloah_ (&#1488;&#1500;&#1493;&#1492 and _el_ (&#1488;&#1461;&#1500 are used as proper names or as generics, in which case they are interchangeable with _elohim_.[3


Which is exactly what I saying, so the Bible says that God made Moses a god - at least with regards to Pharaoh, and by extension to Egyptioans. But that doesn't make _sense _in the context of the Bible. I don't think that God made Moses a god; the Jews don't think Moses was made a god; no Christian that I've ever met thinks Moses was a God, and no Egyptian (although, admittedly, ancient Egyptians are hard to find, I've only talked to the modern sort) thinks Moses was a god, but that's what the Bible says.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

NoClue said:


> Which is exactly what I saying, so the Bible says that God made Moses a god - at least with regards to Pharaoh, and by extension to Egyptioans. But that doesn't make _sense _in the context of the Bible. I don't think that God made Moses a god; the Jews don't think Moses was made a god; no Christian that I've ever met thinks Moses was a God, and no Egyptian (although, admittedly, ancient Egyptians are hard to find, I've only talked to the modern sort) thinks Moses was a god, but that's what the Bible says.


You are creating a question which doesn't exist. " I have made thee a god to Pharaoh " simply means He made pharaoh think of Moses as a god.


----------



## Elffriend (Mar 2, 2003)

While the Septuagint is the earliest translation into Greek, it is not the only early translation. There are three others that use young woman, not virgin, as the translation.

There is scholarly debate on this very issue and has been for a very long time.


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

poppy said:


> You are creating a question which doesn't exist. " I have made thee a god to Pharaoh " simply means He made pharaoh think of Moses as a god.


And I find that to be a very convenient tapdance from those championing that the Bible is the literal word of God - that is, an interpreted reading, not a literal reading. And this is a relatively simple example of the problems that arise from getting too caught up in the explicit wording. One could continue to ask then, did God make Moses a god? He made Aaron Moses' prophet, but he actually gave Moses no power, only exercised power through him (e.g Moses lifted up his hand and God caused the waters to turn to blood) supports the interpretation that God made Moses _appear_ as a god to the Pharaoh, but that isn't what God said to Moses, i.e 'I have made you a god to Pharaoh' and it's not as if the Hebrews didn't have a word for 'appear' or 'seem as' or 'like unto', or that they didn't have a grammatical subjunctive - it's a simple declarative sentence: "I have made you a god to Pharaoh"

So again, I agree with your interpretation of the meaning, but it's not what the Bible actually says. Obviously, going to the trouble to learn Hebrew and Greek (eventually, probably, Aramaic too), I believe that there is significance to the actual words, or I wouldn't go to the trouble to learn them and study them. Even in this passage, I believe that there is a deeper meaning - I just don't know what it is yet, and it's hardly the first time that an odd turn of phrase in the Scripture has led me on a voyage of prayer, study, meditation, and eventual revelation, and I don't expect that it will be the last. The words are important, but the Truth and the meaning that they represent is bigger, deeper, and more meaningful than the actual words.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Again, it is very simple as written. The Egyptians had many gods and would come up with new ones quite often. God shows He influenced Pharaoh's thinking when He said "I have hardened Pharaoh's heart". It would be easy to make Pharaoh think Moses was a god. He did not believe in YHVH and credit Him for the things Moses was able to do. Pharaoh was all powerful in the land and here was someone (Moses) who could seemingly do things Pharaoh couldn't.


----------



## Warwalk (May 25, 2011)

I personally don't believe in any of it. It's an interesting set of documents given over to history, but I simply don't believe that life started with two people, a talking snake, and an apple in a garden. I don't believe that there was ever a tin or copper bowl covering the earth a la "The Truman Show". I think that Moses was an interesting story, but one borrowed from a long list of myths in that region of the world. I think the expulsion of the Israelites if anything is based on the expulsion of the Hyksos, and even then the Hyksos weren't the Israelites.

I think, for those that want it or need it to put their world view and day to day affairs in better order or understanding, I'm glad that it works for them. I was there once... kinda...


----------



## Warwalk (May 25, 2011)

I think the stories of the flood are interesting, but it's not much of a stretch to see where they came from. The Egyptians, who substantially influenced early Israel, based their whole kingdom around the annual flooding of the Nile. The Babylonians likewise relied on flooding from the Tigris and Euphrates. Sometimes these floods were nice and easy, and it provided nutrients to the soil and things turned green and pretty in the arid landscape. Other times the floods could be big and nasty, slowly climbing out of the river bed and working it's way inland, enveloping not only farms but houses and towns and possibly even cities. It's not too much of a stretch to imagine two guys sitting on top of a ziggurat drinking a Budweiser, and one says to the other "hey Earl", "Yea Bobbie?"... "Imagine if that water there just kept riiiiiight on risin"...


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Warwalk said:


> I personally don't believe in any of it. It's an interesting set of documents given over to history, but I simply don't believe that life started with two people, a talking snake, and an apple in a garden. I don't believe that there was ever a tin or copper bowl covering the earth a la "The Truman Show". I think that Moses was an interesting story, but one borrowed from a long list of myths in that region of the world. I think the expulsion of the Israelites if anything is based on the expulsion of the Hyksos, and even then the Hyksos weren't the Israelites.
> 
> I think, for those that want it or need it to put their world view and day to day affairs in better order or understanding, I'm glad that it works for them. I was there once... kinda...


Perhaps if you really understood the beginning as written in the Bible....nah, probably not.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

poppy said:


> Perhaps if you really understood the beginning as written in the Bible....nah, probably not.


Some learn by faith, some learn by study and some may never learn.


----------



## Warwalk (May 25, 2011)

Poppy, feel free to explain it to me. I've heard just over the course of this thread several versions of it; with some claiming it happened verbatim to the story, and others considering it a parable. I'm not opposed to listening to anothers view ~ tell me your thoughts?


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

NoClue said:


> So again, I agree with your interpretation of the meaning, but it's not what the Bible actually says. Obviously, going to the trouble to learn Hebrew and Greek (eventually, probably, Aramaic too), *I believe that there is significance to the actual words*, or I wouldn't go to the trouble to learn them and study them. Even in this passage, I believe that there is a deeper meaning - I just don't know what it is yet, and it's hardly the first time that an odd turn of phrase in the Scripture has led me on a voyage of prayer, study, meditation, and eventual revelation, and I don't expect that it will be the last. *The words are important, but the Truth and the meaning that they represent is bigger, deeper, and more meaningful than the actual words*.


You hit the nail square on the head there. There is significance to the actual words, there is more than that, there is significance and power in the very sounds of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet. They all have mystical meanings on their own and even more meanings and power when put together as words. A long time ago (40 years or so) I started out to learn the Kabbalah, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabbalah see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_life_(Kabbalah)#Jewish_Kabbalah_interpretations also known as the 10 Sephirot which I eventually gave up on after absorbing the very basics of it because it was way too deep and intensive for me to devote so much time and study to and try to fit that in with my working mother lifestyle. But I still learned some important things from it and I know the Kabbalah is something that the writers of the bible (and other scholarly works) would have known about and utilized because as scholars it would have been required of them to understand the mystical effects and the power of the alphabetical letters and the words they wrote or spoke out loud. Even Jesus as a student would have been expected to learn somewhat and understand the Kabbalah and the power of the written and spoken word.

.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Warwalk said:


> Poppy, feel free to explain it to me. I've heard just over the course of this thread several versions of it; with some claiming it happened verbatim to the story, and others considering it a parable. I'm not opposed to listening to anothers view ~ tell me your thoughts?


It is both. Some parts are parable, some may be metaphors. I have some beliefs that upset Christians that are very literal in their interpretations. Some of the Bible was written in a way that explained things with the grasp of things that existed at the time of its writing. To argue the nits and nats is a waste of time in my opinion. It has nothing to do with going to church.

The Ten Commandments are unarguably good to live by.

The basic requirement is faith and belief that Jesus is God's son, sent to live a human life, giving us path to forgiveness and provide a way to heaven when our works cannot.

When you study his life, Jesus lived an example for us to follow, but we are but human and need the availed forgiveness.

It is a matter of choice, and you have the right and ability to make your own choice. Jesus offers one choice, and you have many others.


----------



## Warwalk (May 25, 2011)

@HD ~ Back when I used to believe that's the way I interpreted things as well. That some parts of the book are meant to be taken literally, and others are meant to be taken as parables. Still others portions make no sense whatsoever, and I was taught when I was younger that, rather than skipping past these parts, that these should be pondered over or researched in greater detail.

One such example is there's a story about Jesus walking out of some town and coming across a fig tree, and there wasn't any fruit on the fig tree, only leaves, so Jesus caused it to wither and die. This story made absolutely no sense to me, and we were told to ponder over the meaning... apparently a fig tree is one of the only trees (or one of only a few trees) to blossom internally... i.e., the flower is on the inside, I guess inside the fruit, don't really know. So anyhoo, the point was that if I was merely conscious of the leafy show I was putting on, rather than my internal development or blossoming, then I was in essence withering and dying (or, at least, not going anywhere). Anyhoo, it was a cool story I remembered.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Warwalk said:


> @HD ~ Back when I used to believe that's the way I interpreted things as well. That some parts of the book are meant to be taken literally, and others are meant to be taken as parables. Still others portions make no sense whatsoever, and I was taught when I was younger that, rather than skipping past these parts, that these should be pondered over or researched in greater detail.
> 
> One such example is there's a story about Jesus walking out of some town and coming across a fig tree, and there wasn't any fruit on the fig tree, only leaves, so Jesus caused it to wither and die. This story made absolutely no sense to me, and we were told to ponder over the meaning... apparently a fig tree is one of the only trees (or one of only a few trees) to blossom internally... i.e., the flower is on the inside, I guess inside the fruit, don't really know. So anyhoo, the point was that if I was merely conscious of the leafy show I was putting on, rather than my internal development or blossoming, then I was in essence withering and dying (or, at least, not going anywhere). Anyhoo, it was a cool story I remembered.


Not beat up the subject, but some Bibles are easier to read and understand. 

I have a new one written in very easy to understand modern language. It is called The Message. Old & New Testaments. 

I read about the fig tree a couple of day ago. It was a continuation of other stories he told his first disciples about how faith gives power and he killed the fig tree to demonstrate the smallest of powers that would be theirs with faith in God.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> I think, for those that want it or need it to put their world view and day to day affairs in better order or understanding, I'm glad that it works for them.


OTOH ... I was listening to a Christian call-in radio show ("New Life Live") last week, and one of the callers was a Christian man seeking help with marital problems. He said he had dated a Jewish girl in college, but the relationship went nowhere, presumably because of their religious differences. He then married a Christian woman who turned out to be a cold fish and primarily was interested in his ability to provide. He desperately wanted a divorce (and for good cause, it seems) but believed "God hates divorce." Of course, the Christian counselors advised him to stay and to work on his marriage. 

It occurred to me what a shame it was that this fellow is making (apparently poor) life decisions on the basis of a 2,000-year-old mythology, and perhaps is wasting the only shot at life he's gonna get. I felt bad for him ...


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

willow_girl said:


> OTOH ... I was listening to a Christian call-in radio show ("New Life Live") last week, and one of the callers was a Christian man seeking help with marital problems. He said he had dated a Jewish girl in college, but the relationship went nowhere, presumably because of their religious differences. He then married a Christian woman who turned out to be a cold fish and primarily was interested in his ability to provide. He desperately wanted a divorce (and for good cause, it seems) but believed "God hates divorce." Of course, the Christian counselors advised him to stay and to work on his marriage.
> 
> It occurred to me what a shame it was that this fellow is making (apparently poor) life decisions on the basis of a 2,000-year-old mythology, and perhaps is wasting the only shot at life he's gonna get. I felt bad for him ...


God does hate divorce. He is divorced Himself and therefore knows the pain it causes. However, when a man and woman marry, they become one. If they are not willing to share everything as man and wife, one partner is not fulfilling his/her obligation to the marriage and I believe that would be grounds for divorce.


----------



## Warwalk (May 25, 2011)

Wait, okay, now I'm getting confused (?)... You're saying god was married Poppy? Who is / was god married to, and when did he get a divorce?


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Warwalk said:


> Wait, okay, now I'm getting confused (?)... You're saying god was married Poppy? Who is / was god married to, and when did he get a divorce?


God (that is the god that you guys are talking about) divorced the house of Israel. http://asis.com/users/stag/divorce.html

.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Warwalk said:


> Wait, okay, now I'm getting confused (?)... You're saying god was married Poppy? Who is / was god married to, and when did he get a divorce?


Read Ezekiel 15. God loved and married Jerusalem. He used the example of a man watching a young girl grow from birth and marrying her. He also divorced the House of Judah and the House of Israel. He will take them back. Under God's law, when Christ died on the cross they became free to marry again.


----------



## Warwalk (May 25, 2011)

g'yaaawd I can only imagine what their alimony was like!


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Warwalk said:


> g'yaaawd I can only imagine what their alimony was like!


:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:

Good one! :thumb:

.


----------



## bridget (May 10, 2002)

Well this is an interesting interpretation since we're discussing tv shows about the bible:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXeeAOw4yN4[/ame]


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

willow_girl said:


> It occurred to me what a shame it was that this fellow is making (apparently poor) life decisions


You can eschew the second part and stick to this. I know plenty of non-Christians who get married for the wrong reasons, and don't 'vet' their spouses adequately before hand. It's got nothing to do with the Bible...it's got to do with knowing them better, having common sense, etc.

I'm a Christian and *almost* went down the same path. The reason I DIDN'T is because I used this spiffy thing called my conscience (the "Holy Spirit's leaning" or what have you) and talked to a few others, and all agreed she wasn't the one.

Just because a guy makes a mistake and gets locked into his marriage on his insistence to provide does not mean it's the fault of the religion. He could have left BEFORE he got married in the first place.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> It's got nothing to do with the Bible...


It had everything to do with the Bible, as far as I could tell. He didn't marry his college girlfriend because she wasn't a Christian. He was reluctant to leave his wife because of the Biblical prohibition on divorce. 

Absent his religion, he might have made much better choices. :shrug:


----------



## Barnhouse (Feb 24, 2012)

Ok, after being vastly disappointed in part one, I tried watching part 2 and it was even worse. They should have called this movie, Snippets of the Bible- Hollywood Translation.

This is aweful!


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Barnhouse said:


> Ok, after being vastly disappointed in part one, I tried watching part 2 and it was even worse. They should have called this movie, Snippets of the Bible- Hollywood Translation.
> 
> This is aweful!


Like so many movies, The Book is much, much better.


----------



## Barnhouse (Feb 24, 2012)

Is it just me or did anyone else find themselves having to remind yourself that God is supposed to have something to do with all of this?


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

willow_girl said:


> It had everything to do with the Bible, as far as I could tell. He didn't marry his college girlfriend because she wasn't a Christian. He was reluctant to leave his wife because of the Biblical prohibition on divorce.
> 
> Absent his religion, _*he might have made much better choices.*_ :shrug:


Emphasis on those specific words mine. 

I dated one or two non-Christians and one or two Christians before getting married. I waited until I found the 'right' one; for me, that meant the same thing it means to most - someone who will care for you, stand by you, etc. I didn't just pick the first woman that came along because "Ooh! Ooh! She's a Christian."

That's my point. Obviously his faith is a huge influence on him, no question about it. If that's the case, then why is it I ended up with a nice, caring, 'selfless' wife?

Simple. I didn't just use faith as the ONLY qualifier for a mate. I used faith PLUS all of the other 'normal' reasons. He CHOSE to marry a Christian woman, evidently, based on that qualifier alone...and that's not the fault of Christianity.

I can't argue with the second part - remaining with her because he doesn't believe in divorce - though I CAN say that as a Christian, given a choice between remaining in a loveless marriage with a woman who wanted me for money, and divorcing her, I'd absolutely divorce her.

And that's even considering my faith. Yes, I know what the Bible says about divorce...but I also know that there's one unforgivable sin, and divorce isn't it. I would NOT allow myself or my son to suffer needlessly for years because of my stance on divorce. I may take heat for this...but as someone who was abused for 7 years because his father tried to make it work as a Christian husband (and I DO NOT blame my father at all for this - he didn't know), I simply would not stand for it in my own marriage.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Simple. I didn't just use faith as the ONLY qualifier for a mate. I used faith PLUS all of the other 'normal' reasons. He CHOSE to marry a Christian woman, evidently, based on that qualifier alone...


I'm not sure that was the case, based on what he revealed on the radio.

He did say that on their wedding night, his wife presented him with a list of specific things she was willing to do sexually, as well as what was off-limits. It appeared he was ... disappointed ... with his options. Another situation that might have been avoided had he not subscribed to the Biblical prohibition against premarital sex ...


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

willow_girl said:


> Another situation that might have been avoided had he not subscribed to the Biblical prohibition against premarital sex ...


Wrong. While I don't really need to go into detail heh suffice to say that my wife and I had some 'intelligent conversation' prior to marriage, and I was well aware of what we both expected and wanted.

Therefore, there were no surprises after marriage. Yeah we 'fooled around' some prior to marriage, but I did not, in fact, have premarital sex, and yet both my wife and I have been totally happy where that subject is concerned.

Again...not the fault of Biblical prohibitions so much as it had to do with open and honest conversation. :shrug:


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

I agree with Kung. Religion doesn't mean that you will make poor choices. Ignorance and selfishness tends to do that. I married young and married a man of faith. This June will be 28 years of being happily married. Our faith has been a large part of our marriage and how we live our lives and it has been the glue that holds us together both individually and as a couple. 

As for divorce, unless there is a really good Biblical reason for divorce, I do think we need to get off our butts and work at our marriages. Two sinners will not make an ideal marriage and when we marry outside of wisdom, we will cause ourselves more difficulty so we must go into marriage with eyes wide open and work hard to keep it good. Divorce doesn't mean happiness and actually, studies show the opposite.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Again...not the fault of Biblical prohibitions so much as it had to do with open and honest conversation.


"Honest" is the key word here, I think. Perhaps she expressed a great deal of enthusiasm before marriage. It would be pretty easy to fake in conversation ... a little harder in practice (although not impossible ... remember the old joke about why the bride is smiling as she walks down the aisle?). 

Either way, it seems the dude got something of a raw deal, and his faith was keeping him in a situation most wouldn't find tolerable. Of course, lots of nonbelievers stay in less-than-ideal marriages, too, for whatever reasons, so ... ? :shrug:


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

P.S. 



> Two sinners will not make an ideal marriage and when we marry outside of wisdom, we will cause ourselves more difficulty so we must go into marriage with eyes wide open and work hard to keep it good.


Marriage is a lot trickier than it looks, that's for sure! :hysterical:


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

willow_girl said:


> "Honest" is the key word here, I think. Perhaps she expressed a great deal of enthusiasm before marriage. It would be pretty easy to fake in conversation ... a little harder in practice (although not impossible ... remember the old joke about why the bride is smiling as she walks down the aisle?).


Eh, depends upon the guy. There's a VERY good reason my wife and I both dated each other for 3 years before marriage. It's easy to fool guys; not so easy to fool them for three YEARS. LOL



> Either way, it seems the dude got something of a raw deal, and his faith was keeping him in a situation most wouldn't find tolerable. Of course, lots of nonbelievers stay in less-than-ideal marriages, too, for whatever reasons, so ... ? :shrug:


Well, and therefore the reason I point out the lack of common sense, or (proper and continued) communication, etc. As I've often said before, lack of common sense and stupidity transcend race, creed, color, religion, gender, etc. :gaptooth:


----------



## flowergurl (Feb 27, 2007)

I watched about 2 mins of the second show and changed the channel.


----------

