|
|
|
|
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| ||||||||||||||||
Date: 1/31/2004 9:28:00 AM
From Authorid: 16671
I'm sure lots of us would be happy to explain it to you, EXCEPT for the fact that you really DONT wish to learn but contridict. Enjoy your post.  |
Date: 1/31/2004 9:56:00 AM
From Authorid: 54987
Seems to me that the writers of the Bible weren't too clever and they got all the passages and times mixed up. Very few people could read and write so proof readers were at a premium. It's what we call in the trade as a 'botched up job.'  |
Date: 1/31/2004 10:00:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 11528
Hi Koolade, Your problably quite right but if thats the case then why is it taught that the bible is the perfect unerring word of god when its clear there are errors in it?  |
Date: 1/31/2004 10:01:00 AM
From Authorid: 62433
Isn't it true that you believe Enki that book that was written by that author? He contradicts everything that the Bible teaches, so why are you trying to cause a dilemma with something we know you obviously don't believe? But from what I've read, it seems to be they're talking about what happened in the past, but I'm not saying that's true cuz I've never read that in the Bible before.  |
|
Date: 1/31/2004 10:07:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 11528
Hi 62433, So what exactly are You asking or saying. Are You suggesting that since I dont believe in the bible that I am not allowed to ask questions about it or point out contradictions, errors etc? Are we non believers supposed to remain silent because the bible cannot stand up to close scrutiny? I dont think so. |
Date: 1/31/2004 10:11:00 AM
From Authorid: 51173
Pilch and Malina in the Handbook of Biblical Social Values note that in modern Western society, culture is tied to precision; time is a commodity, and dramatic orientation wastes time by not getting to the point. Unlike in the ancient world, when dramatic speech and eloquence were held in high esteem, "Creativity, imagination, and boasting are activities that waste precious time" and "have no place in a society driven by productivity: machines will tolerate no exaggeration, imprecision, or tardiness." Critics often attack citations in the Bible that use exclusive or hyperbolic language. (I.e., "all", "none", "utterly") In general it is enough to note that such language may be legitimately construed as rhetorical, whether it be in modern times ("Everyone likes chocolate ice cream!") or ancient times ("Cretans are always liars, vicious brutes, lazy gluttons."). In the second case, and elsewhere, the rhetorical principle of brevity accounts for many such phrases. Emphasis is needed, but to spell out exceptions or to explain that the exclusivity is made for the sake of emphasis would dull the point. Thus exceptions can not be ruled out on the basis of exclusive language, and contradictions cannot be asserted because of it. |
|
Date: 1/31/2004 10:21:00 AM
From Authorid: 62433
No that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that since you don't believe in it, you shouldn't try and contradict something you haven't thoroughly studied and anyways understanding the Bible requires faith. No you're not allowed to point out errors Enki, the Bible hasn't any errors! A true believer would realize that, I'm just standing up for my faith and telling you that. The Bible does not contradict itself, a person contradicts the Bible and that's what you're trying to do. You can ask questions but not try and contradict it or tell me or anyone that the Bible has errors. You can however ask why but not just flat out say that it's an error or contradict it just for the fact that you don't understand it. And just for that fact you can't understand it obviously doesn't mean certain things aren't true or that they have an error. |
|
Date: 1/31/2004 10:23:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 11528
Sorry Papabryant but that does not apply here because Gods instructions to Saul were clear and precise. God said "Now go and smite Amalek,and utterly destroy all that they have,and spare not; but slay both man and women, infant and suckling,,," if God was using hyperbole or dramatic speech then Saul would have had a case against god because the reason he fell into disfavour was because he and his soldiers did not follow the instructions of god to the letter. In Davids invasion we are told that David invaded and smote the land and left neither man or women alive but as we see when we read further along in the book of Samuel those pesky Amalekites were still around and thriving. The problem here is that we are told the bible is the perfect unerring word of god but the passages clearly demonstrate that it isnt. |
|
Date: 1/31/2004 10:29:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 11528
62433, perhaps you arent aware of my past. I was a christian for 17 years. I have studied the bible quite a bit and still read it and study it and books about it in the 11 years since I quit the faith. I have studied it problably a lot more than You have. I am not contradicting the bible in this post. I am asking for an explanation of a contradiction within the pages of the bibles itself, a contradiction placed there by the hebrew scribes themselves or god himself if the bible is actually the word of god. |
|
Date: 1/31/2004 10:34:00 AM
From Authorid: 51173
Wrong Enki. Ancient Semitic literature is part of my field of study and this is TYPICAL of the genre. You are viewing the text with 21st century Western eyes - not with an eye on the culture it was presented in. You cannot claim error or contradiction until you see such by THEIR eyes. |
Date: 1/31/2004 10:35:00 AM
From Authorid: 59876
even non believers study the bible. so what of it. enki is far more knowledgeable in scripture than i am and i am a believer. there re several people on here that get together and discuss scripture. because one person's understanding differs from anothers does not make their interpretation wrong. it is a valid question.  |
|
Date: 1/31/2004 10:37:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 11528
62433 You wrote, "No Your not allowed to point out errors Enki, there are no errors". If there were no errors then why make a rule that says Im not allowed to point them out? And on whose authority are You making up this rule? You do realise that last week I sat here and read a post that spoke of my beliefs. It said things like half breeds, spawn of Satan, and spoke of the gods and goddesses as being satans evil horde and how they had fallen from heaven etc etc. At least I am far more polite in my post and merely asking for an explanation. |
|
Date: 1/31/2004 10:40:00 AM
From Authorid: 59876
what past/beleifs was that enki? |
|
Date: 1/31/2004 10:40:00 AM
From Authorid: 59876
*post |
|
Date: 1/31/2004 10:41:00 AM
From Authorid: 51173
Compare the 1 Samuel passages to an inscription by the Egyptian Pharaoh Ramesses III (taken from Moshe and Trude Dothan, Peoples of the Sea, as quoted on tektonics.org): ---- I slew the Denyon in their islands, while the Tjekker and Philistines were made ashes. The Sherden and the Washesh of the sea were made non-existent, captured all together and brought on captivity to Egypt like the sands of the shore. ---- Ramsses III states his enemies were "made non-existent," but since he goes on to indicate that they were captured he was not meaning this literally, . In ancient context such claims as 1 Samuel 15:8 are not to be taken literally either, and persons of that time would understand this. They are no more absolute statements than those of football fans who celebrate a team's win by shouting, "We're #1!" -- even if the team has lost more games than it has won! |
|
Date: 1/31/2004 10:46:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 11528
Once again I strongly disagree Papabryant.The recorded instructions to Saul are very clear and precise. Saul did not follow those instructions to the letter and fll from gods favour. David went forth and slew ALL the Amelikites, men and women and yet shortly after the Amelikites were still around invading other lands. It is very clear what is being related here in these passages and it doesnt matter if we have 21st century eyes or not it is clear. Your trying to provide an explanation for something that requires no explanation because it is very clearly an error or contradiction. |
|
Date: 1/31/2004 10:51:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 11528
Ahhhh, so what Your saying then Papabryant is that gods perfect word is prone to exageration and loose interpretation and that what he has to say is not always entirely accurate but subject to hyperbole. Would I be correct in assuming that that only applies to sticky passages that cant be explained any other way? |
|
Date: 1/31/2004 10:54:00 AM
From Authorid: 51173
You have been given the accepted historical reasoning and an example of another tradition in the same region that exemplifies that reasoning. There is no contradiction here and it has been proved conclusively. To hold to your position now that evidence has been presented of its error is strange IMHO. But as always Enki its fun to argue with you. Take care pal! Peace. |
|
Date: 1/31/2004 10:57:00 AM
From Authorid: 51173
I did not see your last reply. No, just to those where Ancient Semitic literature rule apply. To apply modern rules of grammar, rhetoric and sematics invites misinterpretation, and in my opinion that is what you have done here. |
|
Date: 1/31/2004 10:59:00 AM
From Authorid: 51173
***rules***** |
|
Date: 1/31/2004 11:01:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 11528
Hi Doheney, the post I was reffering to is titled "Giants on earth? Hybrid half breeds, Spawn of Angels and humans" It was posted by PamyJo Author Id 160. What is upsetting about it is that the reader of a post like that is subject to the Christian viewpoint, interpretation and recording of a few sentances within the bible. The reader is not made aware of a vast collection of writings on hundreds of thousands of clay tablets, the interpretation of other professionals without the christian bias, nor the scientific proof which has been discovered in the past 4-5 decades that provides irrefuteable evidence that what the sumerians wrote was very accurate. But if I dare ask a question about the bible I am accused of blasphemy or as drkptrs calls it blamsy. |
|
Date: 1/31/2004 11:23:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 11528
I see now Papabryant. So as we read the old testament books we must keep in mind that god exagerates, doesnt always say exactly what he means, and had the texts written in a way that people in the future would have to get an ancient semitic degree in literature to understand his words. So when god told Saul to "utterly destroy all that they have; and to slay all men and women infant and suckling, ox, sheep,camel and ass" what he was really saying was just some of them but not all. So if god didnt mean that literally and it was an exageration or perhaps an Ancient semitic way of speaking then why did Saul fall from Gods favour for keeping some of the best cattle, sheep, ox and ass? I suppose poor old Saul was looking at Gods word with 21st. century eyes, since he fell into gods disfavour for not following gods word exactly. Too bad he didnt speak the ancient semitic language, Oh wait, he did. He was gods appointed King, surely he understood. By Your explanation Papabryant, when god says ALL he means ALL or SOME and the person is left to guess at just what he meant. Saul must have guessed wrong. |
Date: 1/31/2004 11:25:00 AM
From Authorid: 27403
Okay, here I go again! You would think I was a Mormon! Isn't it strange that the bible, which was written by man (to the best of his recollection, hope that's not just a Texas word,LOL)has many discrepancies that cannot be explained. Rather like someone is writing about events they have been told about or were taught. I am not knocking this, as they were scribes or scholars that were putting down the facts as best they could. But, there are discrepancies. Whereas, the book of Mormon, which Joseph Smith was directed to by an angel, has no discrepancies. Or at least none that have been found, and you can believe that Protestants, Catholics, etc, have definitely looked and searched. Just is rather strange! Who wrote the Book of Mormon? I remember it was written on pages of gold, and that Moroni the angel led Joseph Smith to it, but who originally wrote it! Great post, Enki! Love and Light  |
|
Date: 1/31/2004 11:30:00 AM
From Authorid: 59876
thank you enki |
|
Date: 1/31/2004 11:31:00 AM
From Authorid: 51173
What part oif "reading in cultural context" is difficult to comprehend here? Let me pose a question. Lets say you and I were invited to King Faud of Saudi Arabia's palace. As we enter his Highness' home he says " I am not worthy of such an honor. My hovel belongs to you; do with it as you will. Burn it down. Kill my children and grandchildren. They are unworthy of being in your presence." What should you do? |
|
Date: 1/31/2004 11:33:00 AM
From Authorid: 27403
Boy, Papabryant, that one went right over my head!! Love and Light |
|
Date: 1/31/2004 11:49:00 AM
From Authorid: 51173
The point is cultural context. Say the wrong thing and you get your throat slit for being rude. |
|
Date: 1/31/2004 11:55:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 11528
Hi Papabryant, Dont be upset with me and this culural context thing, I am new to it. Saul was living back then and was gods chosen and its quite clear that he had trouble with the cultural context as well because when god told him to kill all the cattle, sheep, ox and asses, God meant ALL but Saul guessed some and kept some and fell into disfavour. But when God wrote the bible as is claimed and said that Saul slew ALL the people what god really meant was some of the people. And when David went forth and slew ALL the people what God meant was SOME of the people because they later emerge in Chapter 30. Anyway if Saul had trouble understanding what God meant I am sure You can understand why I am having trouble. Ok just to review, When God says ALL he means ALL unless he means SOME. Whew, poor Saul, one bad guess and god spurns him. |
|
Date: 1/31/2004 12:01:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 11528
Hi Lightworker, I have no idea who wrote the Book of Mormon. Ask St. Pete, he whould know. Has anyone ever actually seen those pages of gold that the book was originally written on, or is pages of gold just an expression that I am once again reading with 21st. century eyes and need to put into cultural context. I wonder if all the pages were gold or just some of them? |
Date: 1/31/2004 12:06:00 PM
From Authorid: 62085
Lightworker, i've not gotten into religious debates lately, because people get their feelings hurt, and this is not what this website is about. As a matter of a fact, where are the stories about strange happenings,etc.? Its a poetry site now, but anyway Lightworker-- omg, man the Mormons use more occult symbolism than any religion. Joesph Smith was a master mason 33 degree, which to reach you must be skilled in ritual majik. Mormons baptize the dead, yet you see no errors eh? Enki-- i had some enki wheels on my Z28 back in the day... Enki whats the game? There are other ways to get in the limelight without misleading people with unproven theories.. But i respect your right for free speech, but i really dont think you believe what ya post! ·´¯`·» KÑÎGHTMÂRÈ ® •^v›>:)  |
|
Date: 1/31/2004 12:21:00 PM
From Authorid: 27403
I am missing your point, Knightmare! What is the discrepancy? And Enki, there was an actual physical book. The pages were gold leaf; and, I could be wrong here, but I believe a couple of other people besides Joseph Smith saw this book, but, either I gotta go find St.Pete, or find my old Book of Mormon! Geez! That is what a person gets for sticking their nose where it doesn't belong! LOL! But, now I am getting curious! And Joseph Smith was a very very young man when Moroni appeared to him, so I find it hard to believe he was a high degree mason, if a mason at all at that time! But, I really am not arguing the sanctity of the Mormon religion here; I was just pointing out that the best minds in the world have NOT been able to disprove or find discrepancies in the Book of Mormon. Which I find just absolutely fascinating!!! Love and Light |
|
Date: 1/31/2004 12:34:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 11528
Hi Knight, enki wheels??? Thats new to me, never heard of those. Unproven theories? I assume You are talking about the Sumerian claims, if so, would You care to explain how they knew about the outer planets of Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto when we didnt even know of them until the last 200 years. Care to explain how the Sumerians knew of Mitochondrial DNA when we didnt even know about it until 1998. There is much that the Sumerians told us which is unexplained and relatively unexamined but so far thier case makes much more sense to me than the biblical version. Unproven theories huh? Lets see, the Sumerians claim we were visited by advanced flesh and blood beings from another world who taught them about astonomy and blended thier DNA with ours. Bible teaches an invisible god created man out of the dust of the earth. The Sumerian theory is no more outragous than the Biblical version. Now what exactly determines that I am misleading and the Christian beliefs are true? Oh and Knight, rest assured. I really do believe the Sumerian version of the creation of man. I dont worship the gods and goddesses of the Sumerians because they were only flesh and blood visitors to out planet, but I firmly believe that those visitors became our brothers and sisters through the blood, and when I read things that say the Nephilim were a satanic horde of satans followers who were thrown from heaven to earth I do find that very rude and upsetting. Oh and as for evidence, there is a beautiful cylinder seal that lay buried in the library of Nineveh that clearly has a drawing of our solar system which includes the nine known planets drawn in proportion to thier actual size. They also have written descriptions of what the outer planets would look like if we could see them with our eyes. Imagine the surprise when the Voyager space probe sent back pictures confirming the details of the outer planets appearance and size. Oh and the Sumerians also knew about the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. Now You cant see the asteroid belt with the naked eye. The Sumerians wrote that these things were taught to them by the visitors to earth. I believe them, I really do. I also believe that we are regularly monitored and on occasion visited by these beings. Govt's of the world have spent fortunes trying to intercept these unknown craft and millions claim to have seen unknown craft in our skies. I do believe they exist and the Sumerians did too. Now You can say that You think I dont believe that, thats fine, no problem but I am telling You that I do believe it. Bye for now. Enki |
|
Date: 1/31/2004 12:36:00 PM
From Authorid: 27403
Knightmare, don't believe we have met, but Hi!:) And this site has become a little milktoast, with so much poetry and sweetness running amuck. Even Firstborn isn't exactly kicking tail and has mellowed! LOL! But, soon as I really get my thinking cap back, which I seem to have lost, I will surely try to start some crap!!LOL! By the way, what happening to all the good paranormal stuff! That was kind of why we all came here in the first place! Love and Light p.s. All poets, don't get your dander up! I like poetry as much as the next person, even write some. Just not something I read all the time! |
|
Date: 1/31/2004 12:38:00 PM
From Authorid: 51173
No, Enki. When read in the contexts of Semitic literary techniques Saul was told to destroy the Amalekites so that they would no longer be a force to be reconned with; which would mean that all aspects of their culture that the survivors could rally around must be destroyed. Why don't you keep the cattle? Because to do so gives what survivors are left something to rally around - getting their herd back. But as 1 Sam 15:9-11 says: ====== 9 But Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them: but every thing that was vile and refuse, that they destroyed utterly. 10 Then came the word of the LORD unto Samuel, saying, 11 It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments. ------------ Saul not only kept the cattle and animals but allowed their leader to live! He disobeyed God and allowed the Amalekites to reform around both leader AND cause. NO CONTRADICTION! |
|
Date: 1/31/2004 12:58:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 11528
No Problem Papabryant. I think I got it. God told Saul to utterly destroy every man, women, infant and suckling, ox, cattle, ass and camel. God then records that Saul destroyed every man women infant and suckling but kept some cattle and the King whom he captured. Samuel then destroys the king by vcutting him into pieces, but the people sprung up somehow. Okay, I understand how that is possible because what god really meant when he said that Saul utterly destroyed the Ameelikites he really meant just some of them. He left a bunch behind that repopulated the nation in a matter of months. Now David went forth and smote the land and left neither man or women alive, but here what god really meant was he smote some of the people because in chapter 30 there are those amelikits once again. So when god says, Saul utterly destroyed all the people he meant some of them and when god says david smote the land and left neither man or women he meant just some of them. Surely God though could have extended a little understanding to Saul though, afterall if god said kill all women men infants and sucklings but only meant some of them then when he said kill all oxen, camels, cattle and asses he should have kown that might confuse Saul into thinking he only meant some of them. Now in 27:8 where god wrote that David smote the land and left neither man nor women alive, what he is really saying is he did leave some of them alive right? So how come David didnt fall from favour with god for making the same mistake as Saul and leaving some of them alive? |
|
Date: 1/31/2004 1:02:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 11528
But David did the same thing as Saul because he obviously left some alive disobeying god since he once again encountered these people in chapter 30. |
|
Date: 1/31/2004 1:36:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 11528
Ya know Bryant, as I reread Yur last comment to me I think Yu are really putting words in gods mouth. You wrote that god really only meant for Saul to destroy the Amelikites to the point that they werent a force to be reconned with. But as I rerad gods words, god said things like Utterly destroy the people. He even specified to destroy the children and nursing babies. Now to me a kind loving merciful god would not specify that children and nursing babies are to be killed if he only meant a reduction of armed forces and adult population. I think he meant what he said. Now if he later said that Saul utterly destroyed all the people except the king I think he meant what he said. Since Samuel killed the king to please god then to me that meant the Amelikites were completely wiped out. Yet they magically appear just a few months later. Now David goes to wipe them out so that god will be pleased and god reports on the outcome saying that David left enither man or women alive. God can sleep peacfully now since his genocide wish has finally been fulfilled but again as it came to pass, those amelikites reappear in CH 30. I do understand what You mean about cultural context but I think Yur taking far too much liberty with it in this case. To use the cultural context in this case would require the student to apply it twice in one sentance of gods genocide instructions to Saul. If god in his instructions to saul even tells Saul to kill the children and suckling babies then he meant all the people, not just a reduction in population as You suggest in your comment. I also think that David would make the same mistake as Saul did by leaving some of them alive. When god reports on the outcome of the battle and says that David smote the land and left neither man nor women alive, he meant exactly what he said. To have the amelikites invading the south in chapter 30 is either an error or a contradiction. |
|
Date: 1/31/2004 2:40:00 PM
From Authorid: 16671
Light worker I disagree with you. For several reasons, "" Members of the 'The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints' claim the Book of Mormon is of divine origin. They believe it to be a book more important than the Bible, for they do not think the Bible, as we have it, is correctly translated. Mormons contend that Joseph Smith, Jr., born in Vermont in 1805, received visits from The Father and the Son, and from an angel named Moroni in 1820 and 1823. He also supposedly received ancient writings (600 BC - 421 AD) on golden plates that were hidden in a hill near Palmyra, New York in 1829. The Book of Mormon, published in 1830, is said to be Smith's translation of the alleged golden plates.The Book of Mormon denies the claim of inspiration by its own words. The Book of Mormon says in 1Nephi 1:3, "I make it according to my knowledge." 1Nephi 19:6 says, "I think it to be sacred...and if I do err..." Jacob 7:26 says, "I have written according to the best of my knowledge." Mormon 8:12 states, "Because of the imperfections which are in it." Ether 5:1 says, "I have written the words according to my memory." Jacob 1:2 says, "I should write upon these plates a few of the things which I consider to be most precious." Thus, these statements from the Book of Mormon itself is proof that it is of human origin. The Book of Mormon shows itself to be a fraud by the copied words from the King James Version of the Bible. There are over 25,000 words taken directly from the King James version of 1611. How could the Book of Mormon have originated from the years of 600 BC to 421 AD and be written in the King's English of 1611 AD? For example, Mosiah 3:24, supposedly written in 124 BC reads, "Whereof they shall be judged, every man according to his works, whether they be good or whether they be evil." Anyone can turn to 2Cor. 5:10 of the King James Version and see where these words came from. For other examples of this see 2 Nephi 7, 8 and Moroni 7:45.Why do the doctrines in the Book of Mormon conflict with some of the doctrines in the D&C? (i.e. Jacob 2:23-28 and D&C 132:38-39)Why do the doctrines in the Book of Mormon conflict with some of the doctrines in the D&C? (i.e. Jacob 2:23-28 and D&C 132:38-39) |
|
Date: 1/31/2004 2:48:00 PM
From Authorid: 16671
Since the publication of the Book of Mormon in 1830, the first edition has undergone extensive “correction” in order to present it in its current form. Some of these “corrections” should be noted. The former major revision of the Book of Mormon was in 1920. That standard edition is still found in many public libraries and in millions of homes. In the latest revision, 1981, a subtitle was added to the cover: “Another Testament of Jesus Christ,” and no less than 100 verses were changed without consulting the missing golden plates. A note closing the introduction to the 1981 edition says, “Some minor errors in the text have been perpetuated in past editions of the Book of Mormon. This edition contains corrections that seem appropriate to bring the material into conformity with prepublication manuscripts and early editions edited by the prophet Joseph Smith.” 1. In Mosiah 21:28, it is declared that “King Mosiah had a gift from God”; but in the original edition of the book, the name of the king was Benjamin—an oversight that thoughtful Mormon scribes corrected. This is not, of course, a typographical error, as there is little resemblance between the names Benjamin and Mosiah; rather, it appears that either God made a mistake when He inspired the record or Joseph made a mistake when he translated it. But the Mormons will admit to neither, so they are stuck, so to speak, with the contradiction. 2. When compared with the 1830 edition, 1 Nephi 19:16–20 reveals more than twenty changes in the “inspired Book of Mormon,” words having been dropped, spelling corrected, and words and phraseology added and turned about. This is a strange way to treat an inspired revelation from God. 3. In Alma 28:14–29:11, more than eighteen changes may be counted from the original edition. On page 303, the phrase, “Yea, decree unto them that decrees which are unalterable,” was dropped in later editions, but strangely reappeared in 1981. (See Alma 29:4.) 4. On page 25 of the 1830 edition, the Book of Mormon declares: “And the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father.” Yet in 1 Nephi 11:21, the later editions of the book read: “And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea even the son of the eternal Father.” 5. The Roman Catholic Church should be delighted with page 25 of the original edition of the Book of Mormon, which confirms one of their dogmas, namely, that Mary is the mother of God. “Behold, the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of God.” Noting this unfortunate lapse into Romanistic theology, Joseph Smith and his considerate editors changed 1 Nephi 11:18 (as well as 1 Nephi 11:21, 32; 13:40), so that it now reads: “Behold, the virgin whom thou seest, is the mother of the Son of God.” |
|
Date: 1/31/2004 3:49:00 PM
From Authorid: 27403
See, Firstborn, this is what I get for mentioning your name! LOL! I knew there was still a streak of iron within that mellowness! But, I think I will just thank you! I did not even know they had put out a New and IMPROVED edition of the Book of Mormon, which is one of the things I do not trust about the Bible. When someone starts "improving" on the original content, I always figure they are just trying to"sway" my opinion, like I am too ignorant to figure it out for myself, so they will just explain it to me, as they see it! I have no idea what to say about the King Mosiah being turned into a King Benjamin! Just, kind of disappointed really! I am sure the church has some "good" reason how they could mistake these names. One thing I do remember though, was that when we studied the Book of Mormon, it was definitely taught in conjunction with the Old and New Testaments, not to the exclusion of. It was like the New Testament was the history of Jesus in the Old World, and the Book of Mormon was the testament of Jesus in the New World. Well, shoot! That is why I believe in what Spirit tells me wthin my heart and soul! Put humans into it, and there are always mistakes. Good to talk to you! Love and Light |
|
Date: 1/31/2004 7:28:00 PM
From Authorid: 62085
ok enki, the things they destroyed with their sword were nephilim. But as u know the aliens/demons/fallen angels are still producing offspring, the Cannites <[spell check] were the first to go down.Lets see Goliath was a nephilim, he also had 2 brothers bigger than him.Evil has to follow some universal laws and principles, Satan and his Generals need soldiers, the tribes u mentioned were Nephilim tribes, i think there were 10 at one time. You want to know a modern day nephilim? Robert Wadlow 8' +++ ... |
|
Date: 1/31/2004 8:03:00 PM
From Authorid: 16671
Lightworker, LOL, I didnt see that part until you told me you mentioned me. LOL, yes, I'm more mellow at times. Yep I'd rather believe what the spirit says to me than what man can do. Nice to see you too sister. |
Date: 1/31/2004 8:34:00 PM
From Authorid: 3125
Enki, I wrote a comment to you explaining this but I kept getting messages which said "No profane language permitted" when I tried to submit it. :D..I had no idea what word or words could have been causing the problem, but I think I found the NO NO word. :) Anyway..The Amalekites were a powerful tribe which inhabited the country immediately to the east of the northern Cush*tes, (Eureka!! That was the word that was thought to be profanity!!) Their territory extended over the entire eastern portion of the desert of Sinai to Rephidim. Because they had went against God commandments, etc, He vowed to destroy them. God had proclaimed their destruction, from one generation to another, until they were totally destroyed. This is the section of the Amalekites which Saul fought..(v 7) from Havilah to Shur, that is over against Egypt..1 Sam 28:8, David fought them in the south of Judea..In Sam 30:1, when David was dismissed from the army of the Philistines (1 Sam 29:1-11), he returned to his own city, and the Amalekites had destroyed his city, (among others), and had taken their wives, and their children. These were Amalekites of another section who had done this. Using a state as an example, There are many cities in a state. If an army was told to destroy all the people of Ohio, they could start with Columbus, then go to Cleveland, then to Akron, etc, etc. This is sort of how it was with the Amalekites..Though they were of the same tribe, they inhabited different cities.  |
|
Date: 1/31/2004 8:50:00 PM
From Authorid: 62433
Excuse me, just because you have been a christian or whatever for how many ever years does not give you any right to say to me what you did. I think you're wrong on this. Maybe you should have studied more and no you don't have faith cuz you wouldn't sit here and say the Bible has an error and you wouldn't sit here and believe some author on a book he has written! |
|
Date: 1/31/2004 8:51:00 PM
From Authorid: 62433
Whatever, you are wrong in this! This is the end of discussion. |
|
Date: 1/31/2004 9:26:00 PM
From Authorid: 51173
You keep dwelling Enki on "EVERY" person killed, and "Every" thing destroyed. Tell me, did God's instructions include chasing down the Amalekites that were visiting relatives that migrated to Egypt? Or those captured in war by the Babylonians? Kill them all? Or just those they could get their hands on and not leave enough behind to let the survivors rebuild and regroup? Enki my friend, your arguement has been carved up like a thanksgiving turkey. |
|
Date: 1/31/2004 9:27:00 PM
From Authorid: 62433
Here you go, here's your explanation. 1 Sam 15: 18 And the Lord sent thee on a journey and said go and utterly destroy the sinners the Amalekites and fight against them until they be consumed. Which is what the lord originally commmanded. 1 Sam :19 Wherefore then didst thou NOT OBEY the voice of the lord but didst fly upon the spoil, and didst evil in the sight of the Lord. SO that means that God gave him a command to go and destroy every man woman and child but in 19 God says that he did not do that. He disobeyed him. So therefore, he did not destroy all the people so God sent him back to destroy them. 1 Sam 27: 8 is the OLD inhabitants of the land, it doesn't mean that they were there. 1 Sam 30:1 means that they HAD smitten Ziklag and said that they HAD invaded them doesn't mean that they did it at that point. It doesn't say that they killed the Amalekites or that they were alive. |
|
Date: 1/31/2004 10:19:00 PM
From Authorid: 3125
Notice that it says in v 5, "And Saul came to "A" city of Amalek, and laid wait in the valley. There were other cities that the Amalekites inhabited, not just *A* single city..Saul was to slay all the Amalekites (there) and he was commanded of God to destroyed everything they had, but Saul decided to do things his way. God wanted a king who would lead His people, but Saul did things his way. If Saul would have heeded God's commandments and had destroyed all, including the king and all that they had, Saul would have remain the king and would have destroyed even more of the Amalekites in other cities. |
Date: 2/1/2004 4:17:00 AM
From Authorid: 30747
I'm no expert on the bible and while reading the responses were informative and intellegent, they gave me a headache. LOL No offense to the responders...I'm just not in this league, so I'll play the simple part. Is it possible that the Amalekites existed in multiple places? Was Amalekite a village or a race of people? I don't know. If it were a race it is certainly possible to have them in more than one place. If it referes to the inhabitants of a village then it's possible the village was reinhabited and reinvaded. Seems as logical as anything else to me.  |
|
Date: 2/1/2004 7:58:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 11528
Good Morning people, Im very impresses with how You are adept at creating plausible explanations for this contradiction. I especially like the city by city explanation but it doesnt hold water and here is why. If You look at Verse 8 god is not talking about a city here or a city there. God specifically says NATION and goes on to say that he smote the land and left neither man or women alive. Yet a short time later there they are agin invading to the south. |
|
Date: 2/1/2004 8:08:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 11528
Knight, for someone who struck me as quite knowledgeable yesterday You saound like someone completely different today. Demons, fallen angels, aliens. Alien visitors to this planet are not demons or fallen angels. That theory is just twisted words and using the most extreme word possible to translate the word Nephilim. Do You really believe that demons could breed with human women?Do You believe that the women would go along with that? Do You believe that God would allow it? Do You believe that the offspring were 900 feet tall, as recorded in the book of Enoch, a book which was part of the bible for centuries and then ordered removed and destroyed by the Catholic church? Please Base, You seem quite intelligent and informed but dont start with that ridiculous assertion that aliens are satanic spawn and they bred with human women. Ive done a little studying of the Sumerian writings and they speak of these things and its obvious that the Hebrew writers of the Old Testament twisted the truth. |
|
Date: 2/1/2004 8:11:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 11528
Base, here, I have a challenge for You. I use the name Enki as my alias here at USM. It was a name I gave to my dog. My dog was killed just before I joined USM. But tell me, is Enki the god of the Sumerians, the Devil of the Bible or the God of the Bible, and Why? |
|
Date: 2/1/2004 8:12:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 11528
Actually Base, dont reply to that here. Im going to do a seperate post about it and invite my christian friends to offer up thier opinions and conclusions. Bye for now. Enki |
|
Date: 2/1/2004 8:24:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 11528
62433, I didnt keep a copy of my message to You, but You leave the people with the impression that I said something bad. I didnt. Ive been a member here long enough and engaged in enough discussions, debates and outright arguements to know to choose my words carefully. Now I realise that my posts on politics and especially Religion are controversial and Im sure thay at times rattle Ginger and Radman but I have never had a post deleted and just last week was the first time that Radman ever contacted me about a religion post and made some slight alterations to it. Your attempt to make it seem that I said something unacceptable is in vain and anything I did say to You, I do have the right to say. This is a discussion, its how we learn, it presents both sides of the story, Im sure that many of the Christians walk away from these discussions with even stronger faith. We are not yelling at each other and screaming. If that is Your impression then perhaps You ought to reconsider participating in these posts until You understand that it is just a discussion. Now if I remember correctly You had told me that I had no right to question the bible because I was not a christian. I told you that I had been a christian for 17 years and had problably studied the bible more than You had. If You find offense with that then its your problem. Bye for now. Enki |
|
Date: 2/1/2004 8:46:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 11528
Hi Souldrifter, good reply. A couple things we have to keep in mind here is that this was a couple thousand years ago. Populations were much smaller. Communication was slow. Tribes tended to gather in one area and stick together for family ties and thier own survival. Gods instructions to Saul were to utterly destroy all the Amalekites, even the children and newborn babies. God then givs the report on the results and says "he destroyed ALL the people but took the King alive" Shortly after, problably just within days or a couple months at most Samuel kills the king. Now Saul falls into disfavour with god because he took the king alive and they kept they kept the best of the livestock. Bryant offers an explanation that the people rallied around the livestock but that makes no sense since the Israelis took thier best stock and killed the rest. Anyhow, God selects David to be the new king and he goes forth and attacks the Amalekites once again. But where did the amalekites come from, God told us that Saul had killed ALL of them. At this point we have to consider Bryants "Cultural context" okay, were stretching it but lets say he is right for the sake of discussion. David goes forth against the Amalekites. Now remember it is perhaps a year later since Saul waged war on them. Im sure that in the intervening time since Saul slew them all that word has drifted around around about the slaughter. Im sure that any Amalekites who were in foreign lands have returned home to bury thier families, not to mention lay claim to thier inheritances. So David now goes forth against the remnants and god once again tells us that David smote the land and left neither Man nor Women alive. Now David wasnt about to make the same error as Saul. Im sur he destroyed all the animals and god tells us he destroyed all the men and women. So how is it that shortly after we read that the Amalekites in just a very short time were able to raise an army strong enough to invade to the south. Didnt Saul kill all the children and infants, Didnt David kill every women and man. Who was left to create an army strong enough to invade successfully the land to the south. Its a contradiction, gods instructions were very clear, he meant all, he even specified to kill the children and infants. Saul didnt quit do it cause he kept the best animals and the King alive. But You can be sure that david did it to any possible survivors and all the animals. and yet in Chapter 30 which wasnt that long after davids slaughter we once again have a conquering Amalekite army invading successfully. Impossible. Its an error or a contradiction. Call it what You will. |
|
Date: 2/1/2004 8:51:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 11528
Hi Rusure, Interesting. David fought them in the south is what You wrote. But, if You read verse 30 it tells us that the Amalekites had invaded the south, which means they came from elsewhere before the invasion and once again that would indicate that David failed in his mission which Saul had failed to carry out, and again we are left with the same dilema. That being that God told us that Saul slaughtered ALL the people with the edge of the sword and he later reported that David smote the land and left neither man or women alive". yet here they are just months later raising an army and invading the south. |
|
Date: 2/1/2004 9:00:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 11528
Hi Bryant, After Sauls slaughter of the people I am sure that any Amalekites who were off in foreign lands returned to bury thier families. David having seen what happenned between god and Saul would not make that same mistake. God reports that David smote the land and killed every man and women. How is it that just a few months later the Amalekites still had enough people left to raise an army and invade the south. Was it an army of preteens and children? Cant be, god told Saul to slaughter the children and babies. But dont worry, you can always fall back to yesterdays arguement that when god says All he really means Some, that is unless he means All. If there is a turkey arguement here on this post, it is Your cultural context arguement of yesterday. Basically what Your cultural context arguement presents is that the bible is NOT the word of God but written by Hebrew scribes. Not dictated by the holy spirit to the scribes but actually written by the scribes which would make the old testament a creation of man and not gods perfect and holy word. |
|
Date: 2/1/2004 9:13:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 11528
62433, So when I read where god said that Saul Utterly destroyed all the people except the King and that David smote the land killing every man and women, and then god turns around and admits that neither of them actually killed them all, then I am left to wonder about gods accuracy in telling us what really happenned. If the bible is the word of god and not just a made up fable by the hebrews then You just showed us a contradiction in gods wown words. First he tells us that Saul slew all the people, then he tells us that david slew all the people then he turns around and tells us that the amalekitesinvaded the south. Its a contradiction. Now if You use Bryants arguement about cultural context then what we have is hebrew scribes writing the bible not jotting down what god told them. I would think that if god was really speaking to the hebrew scribes that they would be so blown away to being spoken to by thier god that they would write down exactly what he said to them. If that is the case then god contradicted himself. We are only left with a few possibilities here now. |
|
Date: 2/1/2004 9:22:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 11528
Knight, just to touch on the nephilim story again, Human DNA does produce extremes from time to time. Maximinus was an a rare exception just as Your Wadlow person is. That doesnt make them Nephilim, or the spawn of demons from hell. Your looking at the nephilim story from just the viewpoint of the hebrew writers and the christians of later times. There is a whole different version of the Nephilim story written on tabletrs long before Abraham was even born or the hebrew peoples. Besides The book of Enoch clearly wrote that the giants were 900 feet tall and I am using the minimum measurement to convert that into feet. Not much wonder the catholic church removed that book from the bible after it had been there for so long. 8 foot tall is just a large human, it comes nowhere near the sixe of the giants recorded in the book of enoch. |
|
Date: 2/1/2004 9:23:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 11528
I forgot to mention. just as the human species proiduces some very large tall people, we as a race also produce some very tiny people. Are they to the spawn of Satan or is it only the tall people. |
|
Date: 2/1/2004 10:19:00 AM
From Authorid: 62085
Enki, not only am i knowledgeable about nephilim, but you should take a open approach about the way or whatever version of the Bible you read. There are 7 orders of angels. The 7th order, the watchers--which are the guardian angels & messengers, are able to take human form, as we all know. "The sons of god coming into the daughters of men" refers to sexual relations. The reason for the great deluge/flood was the seed of man was corrupt, except for Noah's lineage. How do you prevent messiah from being born as a man? You corrupt the lineage of men with evil, which would prevent messiah from coming. Your transmittals of the Book of Enoch are wrong, most nephilim were 8ft or bigger, the largest was the king of Osh, i believe his name was, he was approx 14-16ft. tall. Many of the serpent mounds in america contain the bones of giants, and they are right along ley lines of the earth. Most archeological finds are supressed, as any other references to fallen angels are for the most part.The angels that left their inhabitation and took a woman by force, are the ones chained in Tartarus right now. The Titans were nephilim. Cannites, etc. 900ft tall is a inaccurate conversion. If you believe or read the Book of Enoch you would understand the watchers were handing down forbidden knowledge to men too, weapons of war, etc. Even angels had freewill. The true descendants of cain are the 13 bloodlines of the illuminati. These familes do not marry outside the bloodlines. Now as far as nephilim genes, many people have characteristics of them, because all the seedline of men are corrupt as of now. Read about rh- blood factors among people, which only 5-7% of people in the world have. They 9 out of 10 times have a extra rib or vertebrae. I know, because i am one. Plus numerous other similarities. Read one of my earlier authored posts. The last days are filled with many illusions, be careful not to become one. Your anger towards God is clouding your judgement. You seem to be a very well read person, but because your heart is hardened, truth eludes you. |
|
Date: 2/1/2004 10:29:00 AM
From Authorid: 62085
enki, which bible version do you read? king james was also known as King James the "adulterer". He purposely left out some books of the bible, especially those referring to fallen angels, their nature, and activites. The dead sea scrolls are more authentic records. There are 66 books in the KJV. Do you think God would really want that number? 6 symbolizes mankind's fall. Anyway Enoch recorded activites of the watchers, their misdeeds. And they were punished. Didnt you read that part? |
|
Date: 2/1/2004 7:05:00 PM
From Authorid: 62433
I did not say you weren't a christian. I have no judge in that. This is the end of discussion. Cuz you say things that aren't true. I could say more but then I'd have to go on and on. I'm just gonna leave this alone. Have a nice day and life :) GOD BLESS YOU! |
|
Date: 2/1/2004 9:49:00 PM
From Authorid: 3125
Enki, I have just concluded a study regarding the war with the Amalekites and I understand what is being said and I see no contradictions nor errors. Perhaps if you would read a few good commentaries and use a good concordances, this would help clear up your confusion. We can 'scan over' a few pasages in God's Word and take passages out of context and not get a full understanding of what is taught. |
|
Date: 2/1/2004 9:54:00 PM
From Authorid: 3125
Here is a short summary...The Amalekites were a people of Arabia Petrea, who inhabited a tract of country on the frontiers of Egypt and Canaan. The Amalekites were the descendants of Esau. The Amalekites had many camps throughout their region. The Amalekites acted with great cruelty towards the Israelites/God's people on their coming out of Egypt, and God then purposed that Amalek, as a nation, should be blotted out from under heaven. Their total destruction had been spared until over 400 years. Saul was made a king and was to destroy them but he disobeyed God before they were totally destroyed and he was rejected by God as a king. David fought against them and destroyed them but a few had escaped and the Simonites destroyed them. 1 Chron 4:42-43 And some of them, even of the sons of Simeon, five hundred men, went to mount Seir, having for their captains Pelatiah, and Neariah, and Rephaiah, and Uzziel, the sons of Ishi.**And they smote the rest of the Amalekites that were escaped and dwelt there unto this day.**...The Amalekite nation was totally wiped out.. Listed are a few of the reasons given as to why the Amalekites were to be destroyed..Without any provocation given by Israel, or challenge given to them, they attacked and killed those that were weak and feeble who could neither resistance nor escape. (Today I call these robbers, thieves and murderers, etc. who attack those who are not expecting them and those who are helpless, and rob them of their possessions which they worked hard for.) The Amalekites wanted to destroy God's people (Ps 83:4-7). Because of their wickedness, God said in Ex 17:14, And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven." ..In due time the Amalekites were totally ruined and rooted out and would only be remembered in history, just as God said they would be. |
|
Date: 2/1/2004 10:01:00 PM
From Authorid: 12341
Make hay while the sun shines , because darkness is on its way. Carpe diem, seize the day for now, live fully while you can. Omar Khayyam saw the folly of aggrandizing oneself, because ill fortune or sickness and death soon wipe it out. And praying for heaven after death is even greater folly: "Fools, your reward is neither here nor there." So Omar's solution was to take comfort in verses, wine and his lover "beside me singing in the wilderness, and wilderness is paradise enough." About 1,400 years before him, the great Greek skeptic Epicurus felt the same way. So there you have it, we who are not orthodox religious believers can't find any underlying reason for existence. And we know that death looms ahead. So we must make the interval as enjoyable as possible, while we're here. This view of life's purpose was summed up a few years ago by the title of a Unitarian seminar, "Dancing over the dark abyss." And Zorba the Greek said, "What is life, but to dance?" The last dance we dance alone, so we better do it well. Enki, I haven't a clue what those scriptures mean, and I just don't care. They didn't do anything for me, at all.  |
|
Date: 2/1/2004 10:38:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 11528
Knight, I have open in front of me "The Book of Enoch". Chapter 7 verse 11 says,,, "and the women concieving brought forth Giants" Verse 12,,, "Whose stature was 300 Cubits. These devoured all that which the labour of man produced until it became impossible to feed them". Now then, a cubit is generally considered between 18 and 22 inches. It is measured from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger. So,a 300 cubit giant is, (lets use the short measurement)300 times 18 inches which equals 450 feet tall. Now I have written somewhere on one of these stories that it was 950' tall I think. I apologise for the error. But the point is that these 450-500 foot tall giants are not the same being as Your Widlow fellow who is 8 feet tall. Quite frankly, I dont think those giants ever existed. We have found dinasaur bones of dinosaurs that were only 10 to 15 feet long. Im sure if there were a bunch of 450 foot tall giants around we would have come across their bones by now. Take care. Enki |
|
Date: 2/1/2004 10:40:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 11528
Knight, can You give me the book chapter and verse in the bible that teaches that there are 7 orders of angels and that the watchers are the seventh. I dont recall ever running across that in the bible. Thanks. Enki |
|
Date: 2/1/2004 10:53:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 11528
I agree that the sons of god coming unto the daughters of man was marriage and relations of the intimate kind. However, according to Sumerian writings the species of man as we are now had already been changed and that is why suddeenly the sons of god looked upon the women and found them satisfactory and they were attracted to them, its because our DNA had already been mingled with thiers. They had created us in thier image. We looked like them. We were no longer just animals. Our appearance had changed. Our intelligence was much greater. The sons of the gods liked our women and were attracted to them and a group of them went and sought the earthwomen out for partners. They married and had offspring. They werent 450 foot tall giants, they were exceptional children who grew into adult hood and they were very intelligent and built great buildings and stuff.The flood had nothing to do with the visitors breeding with earth women. They only say that in the old testament. It is true that Enlil, the chief god of the Sumerians was upset that the sons of god were marrying earth women, he was concerned about the bloodlines of the visitors becoming diluted. But the flood was just a coincidence in timing. The hebrw writers of the old testament twist it around and say that the great flood was thier gods curse upon mankind. It wasnt in the original story. I would love to sit here and tell You more but then I would give away info that Im not ready to share yet. Bye for now. Enki Oh by the way, the great flood was caused by excessive buildup of ice on Antarctica, something that is happening right now but fortunatly with global warmning chunks are breaking off the antarctic icecap. Still though the build up continues and some day it could slip off again. Bye for now. Enki |
|
Date: 2/1/2004 11:00:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 11528
Knight, I very strongly disagree with You. My judgement is not clouded, I seek the truth and the more I dig into the bible and the history of that time the more I find and the more I see that this world has been conned by the hebrews and the Romans. You may disagree and that is fine, it is your choice but rest assured that I am absolutely certain that what the Sumerians wrote was true and the hebrews wrotean extremely short version off the Sumerian stories and they twisted things around for thier own purposes like fear and guilt. Bye for now. Take Care. Enki |
|
Date: 2/1/2004 11:08:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 11528
Knight, I use the NIV study bible. I had a King James Bible, but after reading about King James, who was pretty well illiterate, and how it was Sir Walter Raleigh who actually wrote the King James Version, I think I tossed it in the garbage. I was looking for it the other day and cant find it so I must have tossed it. I did a post about Raliegh writing the KJV. Its pretty good and intresting. Check it out when Yu have time. As for the Book of Enoch, I have only read to the part about the giants being 300 cubits in height. I figure anyone who would write something like that was on mushrooms or something and didnt bother reading the rest. I can see why the Catholic church pulled it out of the bible. I mean if Your gonna try to con the world at least make the lie believable. 450 feet tall is overdoing it a bit. Bye for now. Enki |
|
Date: 2/1/2004 11:14:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 11528
62433, May many blessings come Your way. Its obvious that we have differing opinions but You are welcome on my posts if You choose to reply. Take care. Enki |
|
Date: 2/1/2004 11:23:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 11528
Hi Rusure, thanks for the summary. Ive read it a few times. Why ten would god write that Saul utterly destroyed all the people, when in fact he didnt? God should have known that. And why did god say that David smote the land and killed every man and women, when he didnt? God should try telling the truth. Take care. Enki |
|
Date: 2/1/2004 11:27:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 11528
Hi Brenda, I dont dance. I think a man dancing is silly. But dance away and party on cause we are doomed without hope. We are the half breed spawn of Satan and the residue of the fallen ones. There is no hope for us. Bye for now. Enki |
|
Date: 2/2/2004 1:34:00 AM
From Authorid: 3125
Enki, It all amounts to...God was pleased with David and that is good enough for me. As I said before..Perhaps if you would do a study on the Amalekites, you would find your answer. |
Date: 2/2/2004 5:18:00 PM
From Authorid: 28989
Personally, this is my favorite kind of post. I think that it's important to question all things, because that's how we learn, whether you're a Christian or non-Christian. "Ask and you shall receive" answers. As Enki said, some Christians have renewed their faith through discussing these things with him, and I think he and everyone has the right to question the Bible or any other Scripture. I think faith is important, but blind faith can be dangerous. As for who I think is right or wrong in this post, I honestly can't say, since I haven't studied this passage and all of its context, but I can say that I learned a lot.  |
|
Date: 2/4/2004 9:10:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 11528
Hi Rusure, I already found my answer. The answer is in the verses themselves. If the bible words are god himself speaking to Hebrew scribes then those Hebrew scribes would write down exactly what he was telling them in awe of being spoken to by God. Not one jot or tittle would be added or removed from his holy word. God does not speak in iffy language, he would be precise. He is very precise in his instructions to destroy all, even the kids and babies, he is very precise in reporting the outcome of both invasions. Yet there go the amalekites again invading the south. The other possibility is that the Old Testament is written by some manipulative hebrew authority and that explains how the Amalekits were still around enough to raise a conquering army shortly after two attempts at thier extermination. The Hebrew god was crated on paper by manipulative hebrew religous leaders for thier own benefit and to control the people. Of course there is the third possibility and that is that God lied when he reported that Saul had utterly destroyed ALL the people and that David smote the land and left neither man or women alive, but I dont think it was god who lied. I think it was the hebrew scribes that lied. Bye for now. Enki |
|
Date: 2/4/2004 9:16:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 11528
Hi Canoe, this is about the 8th or 9th. post of this type I have done over the past 3 years. Its always amusing to watch the Christians play with the words and twist and wriggle things to avoid admitting that there are errors or contradictions in the bible. My personal favourite explanation was the one about Judas Isaricot. Judas had hung himself after betraying Jesus. No the bible reported that he had burst assunder after falling headlong. The explanation was that the rope had rotted and the corpse had somehow fallen headfirst. Now a dead body hanging by the neck just isnt gonna fall headfirst into the ground, it would strike feetfirst. Shows how far they will go though to avoid admitting bible contradictions. Its quite amusing at times. Bye for now. Enki |
|
Date: 2/4/2004 10:59:00 AM
From Authorid: 3125
Enki, You really did find the answer in what you wrote, IF you really want the answer. You stated, "David *smote the land* and left neither man or women alive" David did attack the land that the Amalekites inhabited and he did destroy every Amalekite that inhabited *that land*. Of course there were those who were not in that section/that land and they escaped to another area until the Simonites destroyed even those that had escaped. Just as Papa Bryant had pointed out..There were Amalekites all over, in many camps and cities. Was David to go looking for them, even if he did not know that they were hiding in other sections? I also tend to agree with FB when she stated, "lots of us would be happy to explain it to you, EXCEPT for the fact that you really DONT wish to learn" It appears to me that you have already made up your mind and you refuse to consider what anyone says that may oppose what you already believe. All I can say to you is that we all must choose our own paths and the way we will follow. ((Hugs)) to ya |
|
Date: 2/4/2004 11:37:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 11528
Okay, I'll let You have this one. It isnt a contradiction or an error. No problem, I misunderstood. No big deal though You should see the stuff I am finding after doing some re-reading to answer one of Your questions on my other posts. Ewwwwwww. Take care. Bye for now. Enki |
Renasoft is the proud sponsor of the Unsolved Mystery Publications website.
See: www.rensoft.com Personal Site server, Power to build Personal Web Sites and Personal Web Pages
All stories are copyright protected and may not be reproduced in any form, except by specific written authorization
Other Cool Sites:
demo.unsolvedmysteries.com
demo.familyfunpages.com
demo.knockyoursocksoffdeals.com
demo.draganddropwebpagedesign.com
demo.allgamesports.com
demo.themysteriesnetwork.com
demo.thetimehascom.com
demo.totallyon.com
demo.frommypointofview.net
demo.myspaceonline.org
Awesome Free Web Graphics
Favorite Grapic Quotes
Greetings in Glittery Text
Your name in Glittery Text
www.thehomebusinessindex.com
www.diet-food-weightloss-health.com
www.investingandinvestments.com
www.cancerinformationworld.com
www.datinglovematchmaking.com
www.creditinformationworld.com
www.insurancelinksdirect.com
www.ilovemysteries.com
www.casinopokergambleing.com
www.make-money-while-sleeping.com
www.vacation-travel-cruse-deals-information.com
.
