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.
You call what Jesus, the apostles, and what the prophets stated about the matter "extrabiblical."
God did not create robots without free will (Genesis 1:27) and that included angels. Some left their place and were punished. Genesis 6:4 and 2 Peter 2:4
Jesus called Satan the first manslayer and the father of the lie...John 8:44
Satan was also the Serpent and lied to Adam and Eve...John 8:44, Revelation 12:9
Serpents do not have a voice box capable of engaging in language. You should read the account in the Book of Numbers (it's part of the Hebrew Scriptures since it seems that is all your focused on) where a spirit creature speaks through an animal.
Satan's not an agent of God or working for him Zechariah 3:2 and Jude 9
Satan isn't the father of Cain. Cain's father was human. He was the first HUMAN manslayer and in that vein he "aligned" himself with Satan who was the first manslayer (don't have to agree but I'll take what Jesus said over what you say).
In the account of Job it's clear that Job thought God was behind what happened.His false comforters thought that as well or thought that God didn't care. It's interesting that God's anger blazed against these false comforters and God set matters straight for Job. If God was behind these wicked actions why would he be angry? The wicked actions were not from God but originated with Satan...Job 34:10
Satan isn't working for God or an agent of God or just doing his job. There is a reason why the Bible warns about engaging in spiritism/occult in the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures.
A Christian need not believe Satan is a horned beast; or that since God created everything that would include evil; or because he allows Satan to exist that Satan is somehow an agent of God. God allows the wicked to exist yet it doesn't mean they are working for him or created that way. The Bible teaches creation was very good. A perfect creation is perfect relative to the function it was created for. Hence perfection, as used in the Bible, does not solely mean absolute perfection. When a perfect creation proceeds on a course contrary to what God created him for the error is his own.
You really don't understand, do you?...You are not looking at this with an Eastern mind-set...
You really don't understand, do you?...You are not looking at this with an Eastern mind-set...
You must understand where the Biblical authors were coming from, what their cultural background was - the context of why they wrote what they did, and what they knew. You're filtering Israelite and Judahite mindsets through a Graeco-Roman lens that was a product of a long tradition of biblical interpretation. It's folly, however, to begin interpreting something whose plain sense has escaped you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hd4me
You call what Jesus, the apostles, and what the prophets stated about the matter "extrabiblical."
No, I am talking about the intertestamental and post-biblical writings (to give 2 examples). Though I don't agree completely with this website or its definition, they give a handy definition:
The term ‘extra-Biblical’ can refer to two things:
Information or content outside the Bible. Thus, any form of knowledge or experience which gives us information concerning God, His Work or His Will, which is not directly quoted in scripture.Example: List of biblical figures identified in extra-biblical sources
Teachings, concepts and practices claimed to be supported by or taught in the Bible, but which are based on incorrect interpretation. In hermeneutics, the study of the methodological principles of interpretation, this is known as “eisogesis” (super-imposing a meaning onto the text), as opposed to “exegesis” (drawing the meaning out of the text).
Works such as the Book of Enoch, the Book of Jubilees and various writings in the Dead Sea Scrolls from Qumran were extremely influential in expanding angelology and demonology. The New Testament authors were very familiar with these works and their spiritual heritage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hd4me
God did not create robots without free will (Genesis 1:27) and that included angels. Some left their place and were punished. Genesis 6:4 and 2 Peter 2:4
Genesis 6:1-4 never once mentions "Angels". It mentions "gods" (or "divine beings" if you are uncomfortable with the fact that the Bible uses such clear terminology), just as the Book of Job does. If your translation calls them "angels", it's time to go shopping for a new one - it's showing a theological translational bias.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hd4me
Jesus called Satan the first manslayer and the father of the lie...John 8:44
We already discussed this in an earlier post, though I doubt you took the time to research the sources.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hd4me
Satan was also the Serpent and lied to Adam and Eve...John 8:44, Revelation 12:9
Again, we already discussed John 8:44 which mentions no Garden or Serpent. Revelations 12:9 calls him "that ancient serpent" but is not explicit in equating the serpent of Genesis with Satan. Given the extreme symbolic and metaphoric nature of Revelations, it's bad exegesis to assume the author was referring to the serpent in the Garden.
But besides those two poor examples, these works written ages after Genesis do not have the ability to call Genesis a liar, do they? I would think not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hd4me
Serpents do not have a voice box capable of engaging in language. You should read the account in the Book of Numbers (it's part of the Hebrew Scriptures since it seems that is all your focused on) where a spirit creature speaks through an animal.
And serpent do not have legs or arms, either, but the author of Genesis tells us it did. Trees do not grant life or knowledge of good and evil, but the author of Genesis tells us a few did. Human men do not have one less rib that was used to create females, but the author of Genesis tells us we do. Do I need to go on and point out the etiological nature of Genesis 2-3? It's like the story of "Why the Bear Has No Tail"....
I think you need to read Numbers again, if you're going to bring it up and claim a "spirit creature speaks through an animal". It will give you a chance, also, to see "satan" used. Next, you'll tell me that YHWH's messenger/angel was Satan, with a capital "S".
But YHWH's messenger stationed himself in the way as an adversary ["a satan"] to him.
Now he was riding on his she-ass, his two serving-lads with him.
Now the she-ass saw YHWH's messenger
stationed in the way,
his sword drawn in his hand,
so the she-ass turned aside from the way and went into the field.... (22-23)
Then YHWH opened the mouth of the she-ass
and she said to Bil'am:
What I have done to you
that you have struck me (on) these three occasions?
Bil'am said:
Because you have been capricious with me!
If a sword had been in my hand,
by now I would have killed you! The she-ass said to Bil'am:
Am I not your she-ass
upon whom you have ridden from your past until this day?
Have I ever been accustomed, accustomed to do thus to you?
He said:
No.
(Numbers 22:22-23, 28-30 SB Fox)
Clearly, YHWH "opened the mouth of the she-ass" and the "she-ass" spoke her mind to Baalam. She wasn't possessed by a spirit, there wasn't a spirit-creature speaking through her. The contents of her speech are clearly and explicitly from the mind of the she-ass, as she relates how good of a she-ass she has been. As if she expected you, she says "am I not your she-ass?" Why yes, I suppose she is. There is no magical spirit possession, but there IS magical donkey talking!
I find it funny that you have a problem with a text relating that a serpent spoke, and a she-ass spoke (after YHWH gave her the ability) and you answer to the problem is the quite unreasonable suggestion that the text is lying, and spirits possessed the animals. You don't see a problem with that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hd4me
Satan's not an agent of God or working for him Zechariah 3:2 and Jude 9
Yes, what's your point? The character of "the satan" clearly changed over time, as has already been pointed out. See my previous post where I cited this from the ABD:
The verb and preposition for "stand at" are ˓āmad ˓al, the same words used to describe the activity of a celestial śāṭān against Israel (1 Chr 21:1) and against Joshua the high priest (Zech 3:1). In the latter two ˓āmad ˓al conveys sinister work by a śāṭān (inciting one to do something illicit, or falsely condemning someone), while the first example speaks of truthful accusation against one who is clearly in the wrong.
(//www.city-data.com/forum/44628095-post141.html)
Quote:
Originally Posted by hd4me
Satan isn't the father of Cain. Cain's father was human. He was the first HUMAN manslayer and in that vein he "aligned" himself with Satan who was the first manslayer (don't have to agree but I'll take what Jesus said over what you say).
Right, because it says "human" and specifies that. Adding things to Scripture when it's convenient, are we, Hd4me?
I'm not going to even bother getting into who Cain's father was again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hd4me
In the account of Job it's clear that Job thought God was behind what happened.His false comforters thought that as well or thought that God didn't care. It's interesting that God's anger blazed against these false comforters and God set matters straight for Job. If God was behind these wicked actions why would he be angry? The wicked actions were not from God but originated with Satan...Job 34:10
You keep quoting the words of Job's friends - who were WRONG. Read the end of Job again. They lied about God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hd4me
Satan isn't working for God or an agent of God or just doing his job. There is a reason why the Bible warns about engaging in spiritism/occult in the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures.
A Christian need not believe Satan is a horned beast; or that since God created everything that would include evil; or because he allows Satan to exist that Satan is somehow an agent of God. God allows the wicked to exist yet it doesn't mean they are working for him or created that way. The Bible teaches creation was very good. A perfect creation is perfect relative to the function it was created for. Hence perfection, as used in the Bible, does not solely mean absolute perfection. When a perfect creation proceeds on a course contrary to what God created him for the error is his own.
I don't know what to tell you. Most of the objections you raise have already been addressed in this thread. I feel like I'm going over the same ground. You can create a Bible that says what you want it to, or you can deal with what the text actually says. It will shock you at times, but at least you can say you were honest with the text.
You must understand where the Biblical authors were coming from, what their cultural background was - the context of why they wrote what they did, and what they knew. You're filtering Israelite and Judahite mindsets through a Graeco-Roman lens that was a product of a long tradition of biblical interpretation. It's folly, however, to begin interpreting something whose plain sense has escaped you.
No, I am talking about the intertestamental and post-biblical writings (to give 2 examples). Though I don't agree completely with this website or its definition, they give a handy definition:
The term ‘extra-Biblical’ can refer to two things:
Information or content outside the Bible. Thus, any form of knowledge or experience which gives us information concerning God, His Work or His Will, which is not directly quoted in scripture.Example: List of biblical figures identified in extra-biblical sources
Teachings, concepts and practices claimed to be supported by or taught in the Bible, but which are based on incorrect interpretation. In hermeneutics, the study of the methodological principles of interpretation, this is known as “eisogesis” (super-imposing a meaning onto the text), as opposed to “exegesis” (drawing the meaning out of the text).
Works such as the Book of Enoch, the Book of Jubilees and various writings in the Dead Sea Scrolls from Qumran were extremely influential in expanding angelology and demonology. The New Testament authors were very familiar with these works and their spiritual heritage.
Genesis 6:1-4 never once mentions "Angels". It mentions "gods" (or "divine beings" if you are uncomfortable with the fact that the Bible uses such clear terminology), just as the Book of Job does. If your translation calls them "angels", it's time to go shopping for a new one - it's showing a theological translational bias.
We already discussed this in an earlier post, though I doubt you took the time to research the sources.
Again, we already discussed John 8:44 which mentions no Garden or Serpent. Revelations 12:9 calls him "that ancient serpent" but is not explicit in equating the serpent of Genesis with Satan. Given the extreme symbolic and metaphoric nature of Revelations, it's bad exegesis to assume the author was referring to the serpent in the Garden.
But besides those two poor examples, these works written ages after Genesis do not have the ability to call Genesis a liar, do they? I would think not.
And serpent do not have legs or arms, either, but the author of Genesis tells us it did. Trees do not grant life or knowledge of good and evil, but the author of Genesis tells us a few did. Human men do not have one less rib that was used to create females, but the author of Genesis tells us we do. Do I need to go on and point out the etiological nature of Genesis 2-3? It's like the story of "Why the Bear Has No Tail"....
I think you need to read Numbers again, if you're going to bring it up and claim a "spirit creature speaks through an animal". It will give you a chance, also, to see "satan" used. Next, you'll tell me that YHWH's messenger/angel was Satan, with a capital "S".
But YHWH's messenger stationed himself in the way as an adversary ["a satan"] to him.
Now he was riding on his she-ass, his two serving-lads with him.
Now the she-ass saw YHWH's messenger
stationed in the way,
his sword drawn in his hand,
so the she-ass turned aside from the way and went into the field.... (22-23)
Then YHWH opened the mouth of the she-ass
and she said to Bil'am:
What I have done to you
that you have struck me (on) these three occasions?
Bil'am said:
Because you have been capricious with me!
If a sword had been in my hand,
by now I would have killed you! The she-ass said to Bil'am:
Am I not your she-ass
upon whom you have ridden from your past until this day?
Have I ever been accustomed, accustomed to do thus to you?
He said:
No.
(Numbers 22:22-23, 28-30 SB Fox)
Clearly, YHWH "opened the mouth of the she-ass" and the "she-ass" spoke her mind to Baalam. She wasn't possessed by a spirit, there wasn't a spirit-creature speaking through her. The contents of her speech are clearly and explicitly from the mind of the she-ass, as she relates how good of a she-ass she has been. As if she expected you, she says "am I not your she-ass?" Why yes, I suppose she is. There is no magical spirit possession, but there IS magical donkey talking!
I find it funny that you have a problem with a text relating that a serpent spoke, and a she-ass spoke (after YHWH gave her the ability) and you answer to the problem is the quite unreasonable suggestion that the text is lying, and spirits possessed the animals. You don't see a problem with that?
Yes, what's your point? The character of "the satan" clearly changed over time, as has already been pointed out. See my previous post where I cited this from the ABD:
The verb and preposition for "stand at" are ˓āmad ˓al, the same words used to describe the activity of a celestial śāṭān against Israel (1 Chr 21:1) and against Joshua the high priest (Zech 3:1). In the latter two ˓āmad ˓al conveys sinister work by a śāṭān (inciting one to do something illicit, or falsely condemning someone), while the first example speaks of truthful accusation against one who is clearly in the wrong.
(//www.city-data.com/forum/44628095-post141.html)
Right, because it says "human" and specifies that. Adding things to Scripture when it's convenient, are we, Hd4me?
I'm not going to even bother getting into who Cain's father was again.
You keep quoting the words of Job's friends - who were WRONG. Read the end of Job again. They lied about God.
I don't know what to tell you. Most of the objections you raise have already been addressed in this thread. I feel like I'm going over the same ground. You can create a Bible that says what you want it to, or you can deal with what the text actually says. It will shock you at times, but at least you can say you were honest with the text.
I think it was only Adam that had one less rib...Taking a rib from Adam does not change the natural genetic make up of his offspring...This would be like saying that since a man had his leg removed and then fathered a child, that child and all other decendants will have one leg missing...
I think it was only Adam that had one less rib...Taking a rib from Adam does not change the natural genetic make up of his offspring...This would be like saying that since a man had his leg removed and then fathered a child, that child and all other decendants will have one leg missing...
Yes, I agree on principle. I am, however, using the tried-and-tested translation of "rib" for what I think was a baculum. See my very short post on the matter here: //www.city-data.com/forum/32800606-post150.html. Then you will see why the example still has validity to my point. Humans do not possess a baculum anymore, a "pe nis-bone".
I was once again trying to avoid going into the latest linguistic and philological details concerning the exact meaning of ṣēlaʻ, צֵלָע .
The overall point is that Genesis 1-11 is full of stories of why things are the way they are now, and are no longer the way they were. So Hd4me's example that snakes do not currently speak is faulty, as snakes also have no legs. I suppose a spirit possessed the snake and gave him legs, according to his logic.
You really don't understand, do you?...You are not looking at this with an Eastern mind-set...
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
Hd4me, Richard has summed it up perfectly:
You must understand where the Biblical authors were coming from, what their cultural background was - the context of why they wrote what they did, and what they knew. You're filtering Israelite and Judahite mindsets through a Graeco-Roman lens that was a product of a long tradition of biblical interpretation. It's folly, however, to begin interpreting something whose plain sense has escaped you.
No, I am talking about the intertestamental and post-biblical writings (to give 2 examples). Though I don't agree completely with this website or its definition, they give a handy definition:
The term ‘extra-Biblical’ can refer to two things:
Information or content outside the Bible. Thus, any form of knowledge or experience which gives us information concerning God, His Work or His Will, which is not directly quoted in scripture.Example: List of biblical figures identified in extra-biblical sources
Teachings, concepts and practices claimed to be supported by or taught in the Bible, but which are based on incorrect interpretation. In hermeneutics, the study of the methodological principles of interpretation, this is known as “eisogesis” (super-imposing a meaning onto the text), as opposed to “exegesis” (drawing the meaning out of the text).
Works such as the Book of Enoch, the Book of Jubilees and various writings in the Dead Sea Scrolls from Qumran were extremely influential in expanding angelology and demonology. The New Testament authors were very familiar with these works and their spiritual heritage.
Genesis 6:1-4 never once mentions "Angels". It mentions "gods" (or "divine beings" if you are uncomfortable with the fact that the Bible uses such clear terminology), just as the Book of Job does. If your translation calls them "angels", it's time to go shopping for a new one - it's showing a theological translational bias.
We already discussed this in an earlier post, though I doubt you took the time to research the sources.
Again, we already discussed John 8:44 which mentions no Garden or Serpent. Revelations 12:9 calls him "that ancient serpent" but is not explicit in equating the serpent of Genesis with Satan. Given the extreme symbolic and metaphoric nature of Revelations, it's bad exegesis to assume the author was referring to the serpent in the Garden.
But besides those two poor examples, these works written ages after Genesis do not have the ability to call Genesis a liar, do they? I would think not.
And serpent do not have legs or arms, either, but the author of Genesis tells us it did. Trees do not grant life or knowledge of good and evil, but the author of Genesis tells us a few did. Human men do not have one less rib that was used to create females, but the author of Genesis tells us we do. Do I need to go on and point out the etiological nature of Genesis 2-3? It's like the story of "Why the Bear Has No Tail"....
I think you need to read Numbers again, if you're going to bring it up and claim a "spirit creature speaks through an animal". It will give you a chance, also, to see "satan" used. Next, you'll tell me that YHWH's messenger/angel was Satan, with a capital "S".
But YHWH's messenger stationed himself in the way as an adversary ["a satan"] to him.
Now he was riding on his she-ass, his two serving-lads with him.
Now the she-ass saw YHWH's messenger
stationed in the way,
his sword drawn in his hand,
so the she-ass turned aside from the way and went into the field.... (22-23)
Then YHWH opened the mouth of the she-ass
and she said to Bil'am:
What I have done to you
that you have struck me (on) these three occasions?
Bil'am said:
Because you have been capricious with me!
If a sword had been in my hand,
by now I would have killed you! The she-ass said to Bil'am:
Am I not your she-ass
upon whom you have ridden from your past until this day?
Have I ever been accustomed, accustomed to do thus to you?
He said:
No.
(Numbers 22:22-23, 28-30 SB Fox)
Clearly, YHWH "opened the mouth of the she-ass" and the "she-ass" spoke her mind to Baalam. She wasn't possessed by a spirit, there wasn't a spirit-creature speaking through her. The contents of her speech are clearly and explicitly from the mind of the she-ass, as she relates how good of a she-ass she has been. As if she expected you, she says "am I not your she-ass?" Why yes, I suppose she is. There is no magical spirit possession, but there IS magical donkey talking!
I find it funny that you have a problem with a text relating that a serpent spoke, and a she-ass spoke (after YHWH gave her the ability) and you answer to the problem is the quite unreasonable suggestion that the text is lying, and spirits possessed the animals. You don't see a problem with that?
Yes, what's your point? The character of "the satan" clearly changed over time, as has already been pointed out. See my previous post where I cited this from the ABD:
The verb and preposition for "stand at" are ˓āmad ˓al, the same words used to describe the activity of a celestial śāṭān against Israel (1 Chr 21:1) and against Joshua the high priest (Zech 3:1). In the latter two ˓āmad ˓al conveys sinister work by a śāṭān (inciting one to do something illicit, or falsely condemning someone), while the first example speaks of truthful accusation against one who is clearly in the wrong.
(//www.city-data.com/forum/44628095-post141.html)
Right, because it says "human" and specifies that. Adding things to Scripture when it's convenient, are we, Hd4me?
I'm not going to even bother getting into who Cain's father was again.
You keep quoting the words of Job's friends - who were WRONG. Read the end of Job again. They lied about God.
I don't know what to tell you. Most of the objections you raise have already been addressed in this thread. I feel like I'm going over the same ground. You can create a Bible that says what you want it to, or you can deal with what the text actually says. It will shock you at times, but at least you can say you were honest with the text.
I agree that it is important to understand the mindset of the people at the time the scriptures were written as well as careful translation of the scriptures and that is not the issue. Just one example, academia can help us understand that the thinking of ancient Israelites on death was different than what modern day Jews and most Christians believe today. Both of you rely on "extrabiblical" sources to interpret the scripture to support your doctrines or traditions and it appears in select circumstances both of you ignore what the Bible says because you follow only the Hebrew Scriptures or it doesn't suite your belief. However, it's obvious that the Biblical record contains scripture whose fulfillment or understanding would be revealed at a later time and the Hebrew scriptures are no exception. That's the difference and it's key. I rely on both the Hebrew and Greek scripture to interpret scripture. I understand that it's your belief that the scriptures I rely on are flawed in translation. Hence when the translation of a scripture is suspect you use other scriptures to help in understanding the concept. But, the alternative is to rely on the "Gospels" or the "New Testament" as some Christians do or only the "Old Testament" or Torah as Jews do. The result, an incomplete understanding that compels you to rely on someone's interpretation or traditions to guide your thinking.
I agree that it is important to understand the mindset of the people at the time the scriptures were written as well as careful translation of the scriptures and that is not the issue. Just one example, academia can help us understand that the thinking of ancient Israelites on death was different than what modern day Jews and most Christians believe today. Both of you rely on "extrabiblical" sources to interpret the scripture to support your doctrines or traditions and it appears in select circumstances both of you ignore what the Bible says because you follow only the Hebrew Scriptures or it doesn't suite your belief. However, it's obvious that the Biblical record contains scripture whose fulfillment or understanding would be revealed at a later time and the Hebrew scriptures are no exception. That's the difference and it's key. I rely on both the Hebrew and Greek scripture to interpret scripture. I understand that it's your belief that the scriptures I rely on are flawed in translation. Hence when the translation of a scripture is suspect you use other scriptures to help in understanding the concept. But, the alternative is to rely on the "Gospels" or the "New Testament" as some Christians do or only the "Old Testament" or Torah as Jews do. The result, an incomplete understanding that compels you to rely on someone's interpretation or traditions to guide your thinking.
The very idea that any ancient authors - inspired or not - would write texts that could only be understood by later interpreters far removed from the world and intentions of those authors is ludicrous and just plain ignorant. Sorry. I call it like I see it. Your strange view is not one shared by the Biblical authors themselves. It is mere speculation and the farthest thing from "obvious", as you claim.
Honest talk: you don't have to "explain away" the text. You have to study it with an open mind, and not through the lenses of an organization that tells you how to interpret the text. If you believe it's the Word of God, then you owe more allegiance to that than a particular sect of Christianity.
Genesis 6:1-4 never once mentions "Angels". It mentions "gods" (or "divine beings" if you are uncomfortable with the fact that the Bible uses such clear terminology), just as the Book of Job does. If your translation calls them "angels", it's time to go shopping for a new one - it's showing a theological translational bias.
Nah I'm comfortable with what the Bible teaches and what it doesn't and it's not convoluted as some make it out to be. There are better translations of scriptures than others so I use several." B'nai Elohim"= "sons of God" not "gods" but there are other scriptures that uses the term "gods"...perhaps you are confusing them.
The Greek Septuagint was written in the third century BC by a team of Jewish Scholars and it was the first translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into another language. The rendering in the Greek Septuagint of Genesis 6:4 is as follows:
"Now the giants were upon the earth in those days; and after that when the sons of God were wont to go in to the daughters of men, they bore to them, those were the giants of old, the men of renown."
other Bible translations of which I use is:" The Nephʹi·lim were on the earth in those days and afterward. During that time the sons of God continued to have relations with the daughters of men, and these bore sons to them. They were the mighty ones of old times, the men of fame."
The evidence that the "sons of God" meant angelic spirit beings is corroborated by the use of sons of God in Job 1:6, Job 1:7, Job 2:1,2 and Job 38:4-7 and also at Psalm 89:6.
Further corroboration that the "sons of God" are angelic creatures is found in what the apostle Peter wrote, "“the spirits in prison, who had once been disobedient when the patience of God was waiting in Noah’s days” (1Pe 3:19, 20)and to “the angels that sinned,” mentioned in connection with the “ancient world” of Noah’s time (2Pe 2:4, 5), as well as Jude’s statement concerning “the angels that did not keep their original position but forsook their own proper dwelling place.” (Jude 6). If the "sons of God" does not refer to angelic beings then the early Christian writings would be an enigma. There would be nothing to explain the way in which angelic disobedience took place and the connection with Noah's time
Hebrew (not Christian) historians and writers such as Flavius Josephus and Philo indicate in their writings that the "sons of God" are fallen angels. That was Jewish thinking up to that point. But perhaps your sources would be more familiar with Jewish thinking of the time than the very Jews who lived during those times. Also, early Christians such as Eusebius, Origen, Tertullian, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, and others believed sons of God referred to fallen angels.
Flavius Josephus reflects thinking of the ancient Israelites:
..."for many angels of God accompanied with women and begat sons that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good, on account of the confidence they had in their own strength; for the tradition is, that these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians called giants. But Noah was very uneasy at what they did; and, being displeased at their conduct, persuaded them to change their dispositions and their acts for the better; but, seeing that they did not yield to him, but were slaves to their wicked pleasures, he was afraid they would kill him, together with his wife and children, and those they had married; so he departed out of that land."-The Antiquities of the Jews
You've missed the entire point of the book of Job (God's Justice), and you seem to be unable to even consider that God is capable of "EVIL" - no matter how much you try to spin it away as "ok" when God does it. It's funny how the Biblical authors often attributed evil to God, but never to the satan. You know... the whole point of this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard1965
You really don't understand, do you?...You are not looking at this with an Eastern mind-set...
Its clear you need to carefully read the Book of Job[B].."So listen to me, you men of understanding:
It is unthinkable for the true God to act wickedly,For the Almighty to do wrong!"-Job 34:10
[/b]
DOES THIS SCRIPTURE SAY HE IS CAPABLE OF EVIL? ISNT THE DEFINITION OF EVIL TO ACT WICKEDLY, TO DO WRONG.
Richard1965 I'm sure YHWH would be pleased to know you and your pal Whoppers believe he is capable of immoral evil wicked conduct.
Genesis 18:25, "It is unthinkable that you would act in this manner by putting the righteous man to death with the wicked one so that the outcome for the righteous man and the wicked is the same! It is unthinkable of you. Will the Judge of all the earth not do what is right?”
No the Biblical authors did not attribute "evil" in the immoral, wicked sense to God. We already discussed what was written in Deuteromomy which negates what you just wrote. What's written in Job SEE ABOVE. Abraham, the first patriarch knew God well enough to say it was unthinkable that God would act wickedly but you know more than Abraham.
God loves but he also judges. He brings calamity or evil on the wicked. The Hebrew word for evil has several meanings "adversity" "distress" "calamity." Thus it is unwise to look at a scripture and say "aha! it says God causes evil." You need to understand what the original Hebrew word means and the context its used in.
Its clear you need to carefully read the Book of Job[B].."So listen to me, you men of understanding:
It is unthinkable for the true God to act wickedly,For the Almighty to do wrong!"-Job 34:10
[/b]
DOES THIS SCRIPTURE SAY HE IS CAPABLE OF EVIL? ISNT THE DEFINITION OF EVIL TO ACT WICKEDLY, TO DO WRONG.
Richard1965 I'm sure YHWH would be pleased to know you and your pal Whoppers believe he is capable of immoral evil wicked conduct.
Genesis 18:25, "It is unthinkable that you would act in this manner by putting the righteous man to death with the wicked one so that the outcome for the righteous man and the wicked is the same! It is unthinkable of you. Will the Judge of all the earth not do what is right?”
No the Biblical authors did not attribute "evil" in the immoral, wicked sense to God. We already discussed what was written in Deuteromomy which negates what you just wrote. What's written in Job SEE ABOVE. Abraham, the first patriarch knew God well enough to say it was unthinkable that God would act wickedly but you know more than Abraham.
God loves but he also judges. He brings calamity or evil on the wicked. The Hebrew word for evil has several meanings "adversity" "distress" "calamity." Thus it is unwise to look at a scripture and say "aha! it says God causes evil." You need to understand what the original Hebrew word means and the context its used in.
I agree that it is important to understand the mindset of the people at the time the scriptures were written as well as careful translation of the scriptures and that is not the issue. Just one example, academia can help us understand that the thinking of ancient Israelites on death was different than what modern day Jews and most Christians believe today. Both of you rely on "extrabiblical" sources to interpret the scripture to support your doctrines or traditions and it appears in select circumstances both of you ignore what the Bible says because you follow only the Hebrew Scriptures or it doesn't suite your belief. However, it's obvious that the Biblical record contains scripture whose fulfillment or understanding would be revealed at a later time and the Hebrew scriptures are no exception. That's the difference and it's key. I rely on both the Hebrew and Greek scripture to interpret scripture. I understand that it's your belief that the scriptures I rely on are flawed in translation. Hence when the translation of a scripture is suspect you use other scriptures to help in understanding the concept. But, the alternative is to rely on the "Gospels" or the "New Testament" as some Christians do or only the "Old Testament" or Torah as Jews do. The result, an incomplete understanding that compels you to rely on someone's interpretation or traditions to guide your thinking.
So, you are stating that the Jews completely misunderstand their own scriptures?...
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.
