Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Reread the OP. It does not say anywhere that it is based on the verse in your bible.
It's a direct allusion to Genesis 1:26. The quotation marks ought to give that away. I was incorrect in assuming you were approaching this from a biblical perspective in you initial comments, though, and for that I apologize.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend1111
There are a few religions that teach the same thing. Try enlightening yourself to other beliefs and religions then tell me it's strictly based on that verse, ok bub?
I've done quite a bit of research on the beliefs and religions of others, but if the OP wasn't alluding to the Bible they're welcome to say so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend1111
I may not read your bible nor believe half of what is written therein but I am still a child of God and I have earned the right to find Him in any way I would like. It is not for you to decide what books or religion one needs to follow so if any OP states something from the bible but does not say where it is or that it is even mentioned in the bible, I can answer with my own opinion. And, if a verse is mentioned, I can answer it as well and can do a pretty good job of it and base it on my own beliefs since that is where they do stem from and have been corrected so that the truth does shine forth.
I'm not saying you need to know the Bible or have to think a certain way, but this thread is based on a biblical text, and I am perfectly justified in approaching your statements in an academic manner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend1111
Are you so sure where the things I learn come from? Better step back and come back to earth because that is not where I get my lessons.
I know you didn't take lessons, but your worldview is absolutely shaped in large part by residual Christian-Platonic ideologies. They are prevalent in all of Western society.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend1111
The writer of Genesis did not write that book for the purpose of being "scriptural" nor did he write it so that people could take it as literal truth.
On the contrary, the evidence indicates that's exactly why he wrote Gen 1:26.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend1111
It was his own view of God and the world at that time. It has nothing to do with today and how we see God today. The soul is the real you and that is the image of God we were created after. If you want to believe otherwise, by all means do so.
Now you're just making dogmatic assertions. Notice I'm not telling you the way it is, or making absolute statements about the nature of the soul. I'm just telling you what the texts say and what the evidence supports.
It's a direct allusion to Genesis 1:26. The quotation marks ought to give that away. I was incorrect in assuming you were approaching this from a biblical perspective in you initial comments, though, and for that I apologize.
I've done quite a bit of research on the beliefs and religions of others, but if the OP wasn't alluding to the Bible they're welcome to say so.
I'm not saying you need to know the Bible or have to think a certain way, but this thread is based on a biblical text, and I am perfectly justified in approaching your statements in an academic manner.
I know you didn't take lessons, but your worldview is absolutely shaped in large part by residual Christian-Platonic ideologies. They are prevalent in all of Western society.
On the contrary, the evidence indicates that's exactly why he wrote Gen 1:26.
Now you're just making dogmatic assertions. Notice I'm not telling you the way it is, or making absolute statements about the nature of the soul. I'm just telling you what the texts say and what the evidence supports.
Even if the OP is based on biblical "scripture", I still have the right to give my opinion from what I have been taught.
I was never raised with the bible or with any religious view so no, the western world does not affect my ideas or beliefs. Only what I have read and experienced, does.
Your "evidence" cannot be found within the pages of a book written by man. It can give you an idea but not evidence. Spiritual evidence only can come from experience. I don't know how true the following is but it does make the most sense of anything I've read about the book of Genesis.
I was a native of Arabia and lived before the time of Abraham, the Jewish patriarch. I come to you to-night to tell you that before the Jewish Testament was written, I had written a book containing a description of creation and of the fall of man, and that the book of Genesis was copied after my writings, which were founded on traditions older than were the description of Genesis.
These descriptions of the creation of the world were not the works of men inspired by the angels or by any other instrumentalities of God, but were the results of the imaginations of the minds of men who lived long before I lived, and who left only tradition of their writings or teachings. I say all this to show you that the world has existed for many thousands of years longer than the account of its creation in the Jewish Scriptures would lead you to think. I don't know when it was created and I have not found any spirit in the spiritual world who does know. Of course no spirit would know of his own knowledge because in the natural order of things, man must have been created subsequent to the creation of those things which were necessary for his sustenance and comfort. I have never seen any angels who were not at one time mortals, and hence I could not learn from them when the world was created and I have never seen any angels or spirits to whom God has made this revelation. So I say the creation of the world or rather any account if it is all a matter of speculation and tradition. Leytergus - the original author of Genesis
So, you seee, there is "evidence" out there that Genesis is not a literal account but an idea. Ideas cannot be truth unless they are experienced.
Imagine you lived at that time. No computers, no television, only the accounts of others. You have no way of proving anything. All you have is the earth and other people. Do you believe them or do you find your own truth.
When Jesus left, He promised to send the "Spirit of Truth" (yes, it's in your bible). That "Spirit" helps you determine, logically, what is right or wrong. Just because it's in a book and a million people believe it and have believed it for thousands of years, does not make it true. It may be true for you and your soul condition may reflect that, but it doesn't make it true for everyone. I've pondered things in the bible verses what I believe today and there are inspiring things in there but not everything. I chose a path of a different sort.
There is an interesting book that was written in the first half of the 20th century that deal with the first 3 chapters of Genesis. It was written by a Hebrew linguist F.J. Mayers the title is "The Ain Soph" The Unknown God. Here's the link to the online book if your interested in reading it: Ain Soph
Even if the OP is based on biblical "scripture", I still have the right to give my opinion from what I have been taught.
I didn't say you didn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend1111
I was never raised with the bible or with any religious view so no, the western world does not affect my ideas or beliefs.
It doesn't matter if you were raised with the Bible or any religious views. You grew up within a western worldview.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend1111
Only what I have read and experienced, does.
Your "evidence" cannot be found within the pages of a book written by man. It can give you an idea but not evidence. Spiritual evidence only can come from experience. I don't know how true the following is but it does make the most sense of anything I've read about the book of Genesis.
I was a native of Arabia and lived before the time of Abraham, the Jewish patriarch. I come to you to-night to tell you that before the Jewish Testament was written, I had written a book containing a description of creation and of the fall of man, and that the book of Genesis was copied after my writings, which were founded on traditions older than were the description of Genesis.
These descriptions of the creation of the world were not the works of men inspired by the angels or by any other instrumentalities of God, but were the results of the imaginations of the minds of men who lived long before I lived, and who left only tradition of their writings or teachings. I say all this to show you that the world has existed for many thousands of years longer than the account of its creation in the Jewish Scriptures would lead you to think. I don't know when it was created and I have not found any spirit in the spiritual world who does know. Of course no spirit would know of his own knowledge because in the natural order of things, man must have been created subsequent to the creation of those things which were necessary for his sustenance and comfort. I have never seen any angels who were not at one time mortals, and hence I could not learn from them when the world was created and I have never seen any angels or spirits to whom God has made this revelation. So I say the creation of the world or rather any account if it is all a matter of speculation and tradition. Leytergus - the original author of Genesis
So, you seee, there is "evidence" out there that Genesis is not a literal account but an idea. Ideas cannot be truth unless they are experienced.
Please tell me where I can find this authors primary texts and information about their provenance and I'll take a look for myself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend1111
Imagine you lived at that time. No computers, no television, only the accounts of others. You have no way of proving anything. All you have is the earth and other people. Do you believe them or do you find your own truth.
When Jesus left, He promised to send the "Spirit of Truth" (yes, it's in your bible). That "Spirit" helps you determine, logically, what is right or wrong. Just because it's in a book and a million people believe it and have believed it for thousands of years, does not make it true. It may be true for you and your soul condition may reflect that, but it doesn't make it true for everyone. I've pondered things in the bible verses what I believe today and there are inspiring things in there but not everything. I chose a path of a different sort.
I don't recall saying anything about any of these ideologies being true or false. I've only been talking about their antiquity and the influences that led to their development. Please stop making assumptions about what I'm trying to do.
There is an interesting book that was written in the first half of the 20th century that deal with the first 3 chapters of Genesis. It was written by a Hebrew linguist F.J. Mayers the title is "The Ain Soph" The Unknown God. Here's the link to the online book if your interested in reading it: Ain Soph
I don't think I'd call this individual a Hebrew linguist. His exposition of the word elohim (אלהים) in chapter 2 is highly problematic. Eloah is not the original singular of elohim. It's rare and it's actually a back-formation of elohim. El is the original singular. The plural form is a concretized abstract plural. It has nothing to do with hypostases, powers, qualities, or any "plural of majesty." This statement is completely misguided:
Quote:
One might, therefore, explain the name “Elohim†as “He - the - gods,†or “the Unity of gods,†or “the Activities of the Eternal One,†i.e., God expressing and revealing Himself outwardly in creative activity.
His translation of the beginning of Genesis 1 is also problematic:
Quote:
Firstly, Elohim created the heavens and the earth
Given that the depths existed well before the heavens and the earth were created, and that God created light and the firmament before them as well, it's incorrect to say God created the heavens and the earth "firstly." The translation that most accurately conveys the sense of the Hebrew would be, "When God began to create the heavens and the earth, the earth was empty and formless."
His next portion on creation is also wildly misguided:
Quote:
In the first place, a few notes on “words,†“roots,†and “signs.†Hebrew shows a curious predilection for basic words of three consonants. This characteristic is so marked that grammarians considered these three - letter words as the “roots†of the language. Two letter words were thought to be “imperfect†or abbreviated, and words of more than three letters as “compounds,†etc. Quite obviously, however, the real “roots†of any language must have been monosyllabic. A bisyllabic word is always a combination of two roots, or at least of one root modified by the addition of a letter, or letters, with a “sign†value of their own. Really the foundation of Hebrew is the “letter,†and every letter is a “signâ€; that is to say, each letter has a very definite significance of its own, and this significance of the letters (or “signsâ€) determines the meaning of the “roots.â€
The "real 'roots'" of Hebrew are not monsyllabic, and several quadraliteral roots exist in Hebrew, largely borrowed from Aramaic, a language that is attested much earlier than Hebrew. A "bisyllabic word" is not always a combination of two roots, nor a root modified by the addition of a letter. In fact, the roots that form bisyllabic conjugations are actually triliteral. They're hollow, geminate, or weak formations. The foundation of Hebrew is not "the 'letter,'" nor do the individual semantic qualities of the letters determine the meaning of the roots.
I see little in this book that contributes to Hebrew philology, but a lot that is in error.
It doesn't matter if you were raised with the Bible or any religious views. You grew up within a western worldview.
Please tell me where I can find this authors primary texts and information about their provenance and I'll take a look for myself.
I don't recall saying anything about any of these ideologies being true or false. I've only been talking about their antiquity and the influences that led to their development. Please stop making assumptions about what I'm trying to do.
It doesn't matter if you think it's a "cult" or not, if you read it all or not or that you get nothing after reading the entire thing. What matters most is that you'll come out knowing of Divine Love, if you get that far. Nothing else matters because nothing else will get you through the pearly gates. Even debating about who said what or where and how long ago something happened. It doesn't matter. Only Love matters because that is who we are and that is what created us. Our soul. Our material body is only for this life. After that, it is nothing. Our image is in the soul image of God.
For the record, I responded the way I did because you come across as wanting to be right about everything. None of us are right and none of us are wrong. We hold truths, even false truths, because that is where we are on our journey.
Hell, or darkness, is a correction place only. Any soul who ends up there can prpogress out. Just because there are people who believe it's eternal, does not make it so.
Whoever ends up in hell will certainly NOT progress out. They sealed their own fate. Don't try to twist it to unbelievers. It truly is a horrible place and you only end up there by refusing to listen to the word of God. Just like jail. You do the crime, you do the time. What makes it worse is that most people know exactly what will get them to hell yet they still choose to do whatever anyway. I don't get that and never will.
Whoever ends up in hell will certainly NOT progress out. They sealed their own fate. Don't try to twist it to unbelievers. It truly is a horrible place and you only end up there by refusing to listen to the word of God. Just like jail. You do the crime, you do the time. What makes it worse is that most people know exactly what will get them to hell yet they still choose to do whatever anyway. I don't get that and never will.
Apparently, you've been there? If you believe that God is mercy, love, kindness, compassionate, humble and all that is good, you would not believe that souls cannot progress.
Once you die and you enter the spirit world, you will always progress as there is nothing of the material to ever harm your soul again. Once you "pay to the last farthing", as stated by Jesus in the bible, you progress. Jesus never said one would spend eternity in darkness. A soul who wishes to remain evil and not turn to God will be annhilated. Lucifer and Satan have both been annhiliated because of that very reason. They refused to side with God.
If you haven't experienced hell nor have been there, you cannot possibly know what happens there. God would not be God if He let His own children suffer. Or maybe you worship a different God. A God who is full of hate and sin.
By your above statement, you seem sure that once one has paid the price for their crime, they get out of jail. Well, wouldn't that be the same with God? Pay to the last farthing and then get out, right? Or do you believe that once a sinner, always a sinner with no hope of ever doing good? Would you, or better yet, could you, do that to your very own child whom you love and adore beyond imaging? God is Love and Love is who we are. Love does not condemn. Love forgives.
No, it means our physical appearance. Both Hebrew words refer to outward appearance, not nature or mind. The early Rabbis unilaterally accepted it as a reference to physical appearance. The modern idea that it refers to something else is the result of the assimilation of Greek ontology, which views deity as incorporeal. This took place within Christianity during the late second and third centuries CE. Origen explains that the issue hadn't been settled by his day, but he very clearly comes down on the side of an incorporeal deity because the alternative was something the philosophical mind despises. In Judaism anthropomorphism is cohesive in the rabbinic texts until around the time of Maimonides, although there are clear attempts at eradicating it as early as the Targumim. Two good articles are "Anthropomorphism and Its Eradication," on page 157 here, and "Early Christian Belief in a Corporeal Deity: Origen and Augustine as Reluctant Witnesses," here.
Good Points! Then you have to ask, what image were women supposedly created in? Hmmm? The male image is different from the female image. Oh wait I forgot, women are just little helpers for poor lonely helpless men who can't stand to be alone....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Image of woman????
