Whatever we're doing in Iraq

We've got to find Him, and He can't be in all of them. They contradict one another. Jesus said that, if we seek, we will find.

And how many of the 'other' religions believe they HAVE already?

"your" religion and "your" god isn't necessarily the right one.....it's just the one YOU think is.

Catch-22 that your bible tosses at you since it states something to the effect of 'false' gods with no way of knowing which ones are.

TONI

extension, of a religion, is the ability to accurately predict the future. In that, it is very much akin to science where people can step back and judge for themselves what is true. I think Christianity has acquitted itself quite well on this test for 2,000 years. That doesn't mean that Christians haven't gone off the track many times. It means the Bible has acquitted itself quite well when its teachings are obeyed. Christians continue to attest to its truth even though they come from many different backgrounds and religions. I'm not sure you can say that about any other religion.

Christian or otherwise were all written by men interpreting memories hundreds of years after the fact, it amazes me that followers make statements such as "the bible acquits itself" and cannot accept that men's memories are faulty and there is a possibility (very real) that either their memories are wrong or they have interpreted the 'message' incorrectly.....and continue to pass it along as 'gospel'.

Take any fifty eye-witnesses on a stand in any court and you will get fifty different interpretations of an incident....but in a religious zealot/fanatic/'believer', there is no margin or error or misinterpretation. You will believe what you want to believe and so will any other religious follower.

You can't all be right.....you can't all be wrong......but there doesn't seem to be any compromise for any of you. The only certain outcome is that the human race is doomed no matter what...and only the believers will go on to the 'kingdom'. And nobody is certain about which kingdom that will be or if you will be all alone there.

TONI

they'll think you were serious.


...


You were. joking, right?
Regards, Doug in New Mexico

Almost forgot-

There is a question with a correct answer. If people offer contradictory answers, that is answers that, if correct, do not allow for some of the other answers to also be correct, that means that your suggestion that no one is wrong could not occur.

Dan

like Heinlein's Number of the Beast?

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The Bible was not just written by men, It was inspired by the Living God

>>>>The Bible was not just written by men, It was inspired by the Living God>>>>

is exactly my point. The first book/passages of the Christian bible was written by one of the apostles 200 years or so after Christ died. Inspiration doesn't make for accurate accounts, memories, and interpretations.

TONI

I think God puts us exactly where we need to be, and when we are ready to talk to Him he will be there

death. Some speculate that there was a common document that several writers used, and which we do not have. Such a document could be substantially older than the documents that we do have. Luke, for one, was very much aware of possible error. He said he researched his book by interviewing eye witnesses. He could have also consulted extant written documents.

to have the reputation it does. The Gospels and Acts have too many 'then I saw' claims; it's only in the last century or so that any of them have been doubted seriously. In the meantime, many died rather than give up belief in the bible's promises- including those closest in time, who would have been most aware of any fraud.
One of those promises is, ?All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.? (2Ti 3:16-17) Paul was not one of Jesus' followers from the first, but was martyred for his faith. That indicates "eyewitness" status for his account at 1 Co 15:8 and Acts 22. He certainly didn't go through all that for a Rolex!
Regards, Doug in New Mexico

English translations and how they came to be:

http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/

Books in the bible written long before and after Jesus....and inconsistencies in the books:

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible1.html

These are just two examples of interpretations by man years before and years after the fact and how the bible as people know it today in various forms by various religions have been translated 'for convenience' and to accommodate their own beliefs.

You (generally not personally) call these "insignificant" variations....I call them memory lapses/personal interpretations based on what they wanted to believe at that time/'kindergarten telephone games'/outright blatant changes for convenience by religious powers.

TONI

I see some irony here. You found two sites, parts of each of which support your belief that the bible isn't to be believed. Yet the two site owners are at loggerheads with each other in theology. Which is your "champion?"
I gave you several points in support of the bible's divine inspiration, but you haven't commented on them, neither to rebut nor dismiss. Are you ignoring them 'to accommodate your own beliefs?' Don't let the Mods catch you doing that!

FYI, here's a corruption of bible translation mentioned on neither page. The greatsite page should have discussed it out of honesty; the other to bolster its scoffing. See what this tells you about the reliability of the bible you have in front of you:
At 1 John 5:7 the KJV says, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." This is nothing less than the only explicit statement of the Trinity doctrine, so beloved of mainstream believers that they also resorted to torture and murder to support it. It's still the Protestant and RC belief, and the statement is found in modern bibles at ... actually, it's gone! Why?

Virtually everyone cited by greatsite in developing the English bible was a sworn Trinitarian, including the mostly anonymous editors of the KJV. They wanted the statement included, but knew even then that its textual foundation was shaky. Erasmus- beloved of the greatsite people- knew this also, but when the others appealed to the Great Man, he agreed to include it because it appeared in one or two Greek manuscripts. This was significant because generally the older the text, the more reliable it is. Although Erasmus knew the Greek texts were in fact later and suspect ones, he felt obligated to stick to a promise made before the texts were shown to him. Convenience over scholarship.

But Gibbon, in the time of George III, called the verse a "fraud" and successfully defended his position in a lengthy exchange of letters in the Times. He also honestly gave credit to the great bible scholar Isaac Newton (yes, that Newton) who a century earlier identified the time that the false statement crept into the main text, and the two men mainly responsible. So the true version could be restored.

The American Standard Version committee of 1901 relegated the fraud to an explanatory footnote, and made one other major change in "theology:" They restored the personal name Jehovah (in its most widely-known spelling) to the book alleged to be by that Author- almost 7,000 times. The New American Standard Version of 1971, which greatsite calls "the most accurate, word-for-word translation of the original Greek and Hebrew scriptures into the modern English language that has ever been produced," removed that name and substituted the anonymous "LORD;" almost 7,000 deliberate incidents of inaccuracy. You and I recognize it as a step backward, designed "to accommodate their own beliefs." Besides the New World Translation, there are several others still in print which preserve Jehovah or its alternate form Yahweh. These include the RC Jerusalem bible, also well-regarded by scholars. So in the most important question of authorship, we have available bibles that have restored the original information. Do you own one of these?
And I'm still interested: "The only certain outcome is that the human race is doomed." Is that your belief, or are you quoting someone else?
Regards, Doug in New Mexico

Testament. Jehovah was not among them. Jehovah is an invented English word coined by translators trying to guess how this name was pronounced.

The first of God's names (Gen. 1:1) is Elohim which is translated as God.

Adonay (Ps. 2:4) is another name which is usually rendered as 'Lord' in English translations.

Jehovah, the invented name, represents a name comprised of four Hebrew vowels, YHWH, which is not pronouncable. This name, as you note, is also commonly rendered as Yahweh. 'Adonay' was spoken when this name appeared because the Hebrews did not want to say 'Yahweh'.

'shadday' or 'el shadday' (Job) meaning almighty is yet another name.

Another thing that should be noted. The Hebrews in Jesus time virtually always used a Greek translation of the Old Testament called the Septuagent. The Septuagent is what Jesus and His disciples used and quoted. In Exodus 3:15, God refers to Himself as 'Eloheey Yahweh'. The Septuagent renders 'Yahweh' in this verse as 'Kurios' which, in English, is 'Lord'. Thus, translating Yahweh as Lord is not inaccurate at all. When Jesus read Kurios (Lord) in His Bible, He knew it was referring to God (Yahweh).

In light of this, it is striking that the banner phrase of the early church was that 'Jesus is Lord (Kurios)'. You might want to think about that for awhile.

if christ was chinese and freezing....

would he say "i am kurios, yellow and blue"?



http://www.imdb.com/find?q=i%20am%20curious;tt=on;mx=20

in your bible is, as you say, "an invented English word coined by translators trying to guess how this name was pronounced." This is so because there were no tape recorders in those days, and any other clues- like the "vowel points" introduced into the Hebrew language long after the bible writing ended- themselves involve guesswork. Shakespeare's writings are "only" 400 years old, written in Modern English, yet no one claims to have a lock on his pronunciation.

What is certain is that the oldest Hebrew manuscripts use a personal name for God. It transliterates as JHVH or YHWH, sometimes called the Tetragram. It is just as certain that JHVH does not equal "lord," which is an entirely different word in Hebrew and English. The earliest, most widely used Roman-letter version is Jehovah. Yahweh is a latecomer but also widely used because many scholars prefer it. In any case, what is important to worshipers of the Author of the bible is to use his name. (Ex 3:15) Jesus understood this very well. When he was praying to Jehovah just before his arrest, he was careful to point out that "I have made your name manifest to the men you gave me out of the world ... And I have made your name known to them and will make it known." (John 17:6,26) This Jehovah, remember, is the one Jesus called "the only true God." (John 17:3)

'Adonay' was spoken when this name appeared because the [ancient] Hebrews did not want to say 'Yahweh'.
Ruth 2:4 proves that godly Hebrews like Boaz had no shyness about saying it, therefore they must have had a pronunciation for it, just as we have.

Many early fragments of the Septuagint show that even the Hellenized Jews of the Maccabean period were careful to insert the Tetragram in Hebrew letters into the Greek text. Jesus didn't just "know" that God's name was being mistranslated as kyrios., he was careful to correct this error: John 17:6,26. A non-Witness scholar of the 19th century says that the Vulgate translator Jerome himself had seen a copy of Matthew's Gospel in (he says) Matthew's own Hebrew, and knew of one other. Certainly Matthew used the Tetragram in his own writing. (Joh 17:6,26)

But the Hebrews [of Jesus' day] did not want to say 'Yahweh'.
Yes, this was one of many traditions of theirs which served to 'make the word of God invalid.' (Mt 15:6) Not something a Christian wants to imitate.

Who authorized your bible's translators to remove God's name from God's book? Who is interested in suppressing the name and identity of "the only true God?"
Regards, Doug in New Mexico

... YHVH, pronounced YehVeh, which after years of translation and verbal transmutation has become Evie

Evie (You can call me the Goddess Queen )

case of other Greek and Hebrew names, the translators knew how those names sounded, and could structure the English to get the same sound. In the case of JHVH, scholars report that it cannot be pronounced in Hebrew. Therefore, the translators had to guess at how it might sound and invent a word which would render their guess. This is totally different than was the case with other Hebrew and Greek words.

I don't know if the earliest versions of the Septuagent had JHVH inserted in the text or if they had Kurios. What I do know is that by the the time of Jesus, the Septuagent rendered this word as Kurios. That's the way Jesus and His disciples read and quoted the text. Take Matt. 4:10 where Jesus is clearly quoting scripture.

Matt 4:10 Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'" NIV

In the original Greek, Jesus is calling God Kurios or Lord. Jesus does this repeatedly in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Thus, Jesus does not recognize that referring to God as Lord is an error.

In John 17, Jesus does not use God's name, so we don't know what name He's referring to, or if He is entending to stress the concept of name. He could mean that He has made God known through His own life. Thus, 'I manifested Thy name':

John 17:6-7 "I manifested Thy name to the men whom Thou gavest Me out of the world; Thine they were, and Thou gavest them to Me, and they have kept Thy word. NASB

The Jews did not pronounce 'Yahweh' because they did not want to chance violating the commandment regarding taking God's name in vain. Was it a misunderstanding on their part? Perhaps, but there is no evidence that Jesus tried to correct it if it was an error. Further, there is no evidence that Jesus spoke the name. Although the Jews sought to stone and kill Him several times for claiming to be God, the use of 'Yahweh' was never one of the reasons.

You asked 'Who authorized your bible's translators to remove God's name from God's book?'. The simple answer is that God did. The Septuagent was the Bible which Jesus used. The Septuagent used 'Lord' in the place of 'Yahweh'. Jesus Himself referred to God as Lord. Jesus is God the Son. He authorized the use of the word 'Lord'.

QED

What is your take on the word "El" for God. I seem to remember you equating that to Bael or Baal once before. How was it used in names such as Israel (prince of God) and Daniel, and Elohim?

Like most or all of us here I rely on others to translate the old manuscripts into my language. Here are some relevant comments from my source, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society:
[quote]
Among the Hebrew words that are translated ?God? is ?El, probably meaning ?Mighty One; Strong One.? (Ge 14:1 It is used with reference to Jehovah, to other gods, and to men. It is also used extensively in the makeup of proper names, such as Elisha (meaning ?God Is Salvation?) and Michael (?Who Is Like God??). In some places ?El appears with the definite article (ha

Elohim is a plural word which a singular article can be used with in the same way we use such in English language for a plurality when we say "The men...." in a sentence, or "The women.....".

I think it's enough to just accept that Elohim is a plural term, like men, or women, and not try and twist it into anything else.

The God that Jesus cried out to on the cross was El, when he said "Eloi, why has thou forsaken me?"

Did he forget the Father's name? Or can we accept that Jesus WAS speaking to the Father?

Jesus was prophesied in Isaiah to be born from a virgin and called "Emmanu-el" which in Matthew is translated as "God with us".

The name Jesus was given to Mary to call him by, and it was the one he was known to others in his day by. Actually it would have been pronounced "EE Yah Soos". As an aside I found it fascinating when comparing that to the name Isis used for a God's son in Egyptian beliefs. Sound is very similar, but may just be an amusing coincidence.

So the name of Jesus has "Yah" in it. Jesus himself refers to himself as the "I AM" as already pointed out several times to you when he was speaking of existing before Abraham.

I Corinthians 10 says that Jesus was the "angel" that led the Hebrews during their wilderness sojourn. I think it's in Exodus where God points out that they were being led by his messenger and says "my name is in him". Many have interpreted that to mean he had authority from God, but I think it meant he was also God.

We know there was a plurality of beings at the creation. Revelation speaks of Jesus as the Alpha and Omega. Job remarks about how the "sons of God" shouted for joy at the Creation. He uses that phrase in 2 other places, one being where they came before God and Satan also appeared. Job is thought to be one of the older books in the OT, and Genesis would certainly be one fo the oldest, and given credence by Moses who may have gotten it from earlier sources, perhaps passed down by Abraham himself.

In Genesis the phrase is used for "sons of God" who had offspring by women here on earth and Jude and the apocryphal book of Enoch mention them being locked in chains of darkness for their crime.

Doug, there is just too much evidence that there is a Godhead as it's often called. I believe Jesus is the God of the OT, and I believe you can find evidence of both Him and the Father there, when you are willing to accept it.

Here's a few links with some interesting information.

http://www.bibleteacher.org/NOJOUT.htm

http://spaces.msn.com/members/witness4jc/

http://www.sacrednamemovement.com/StudyDFour.htm

Good comments, but they don't apply to these particular posts.
James' and my teachers all agree that 'El means "god." His problem is trying count to three without getting into trouble.
"-im" is the Heb. masc. pl., so elohim (to his kind) has to mean "God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost." Period. Historically enforced by torture and death, as I've mentioned elsewhere.
As the non-Witness source in my post stated, there is in Hebrew a "plural of majesty" or "of excellence." Somewhat related is the English monarch's "We are not amused."
If we adopt this as the meaning- on our own, after reading what the 'competing' translators say- then we have a meaning that's internally consistent and doesn't lead to strangeness like this:
?. . .If YOU loved me, YOU would rejoice that I am going my way to the Father, because the Father is greater than I am. . .? (Joh 14:2
Or this:
?Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.? (Mt 24:36)
Or this:
?. . .I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will by no means go out [from it] anymore, and I will write upon him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem which descends out of heaven from my God. . .? (Re 3:12)

These flatly contradict trinitarian creeds. Therefore the creeds come from men, not the bible.
You'll notice I'm spending less time these days responding to these arguments. (And when I used trinitarian thinking to "prove" that Peter is God, the folks went bananas. )The "doctrine" distracts all from Jesus' command to preach the good new of his Father's kingdom. Speaking of which,
Ps 37:29 is a key part of that. Any of it worth looking into, IYO? Or do competing translations make it confusing?
Regards, Doug in New Mexico

'bananas' DR? That's not exactly an honest characterization of my post is it? Why, rather than employ ridicule, don't you try answering with reason and logic?

I do know that you are working from a disadvantage here since Acts is pretty clear about what it's saying, and I do sympathize with the difficulty of trying to defend your thesis.