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.
Are you TRYING to be offensive? Suggesting that we wish to read and adhere to Scripture is not bibliolatry.
The talk from pagans, Christians, and Muslims is offensive, but I try to hold back my anger against their thoughtless evil and simply say the truth.
I apologize if you think Bibliolatry is worshiping a book and not its message.
It is called a "Holy" Bible, is it not?
It is called "inspired" by the divine, is it not?
It is a conduit to "know" the divine, is it not?
What else were the statue idols, then? I'd like to know.
Do they know how the books/idols are crafted?
Do the books/idols have messages to give but nothing to think of, nor with?
Do they have spines yet cannot walk, do they have words yet cannot talk?
It is exactly what bibliolatry is. And it is not forbidden in any Bible I've heard of since a book can't also be a postulated god. Yet any jealous god would, of course, be also jealous of inanimate and dead things, if they are already jealous of (or feel insecure about) statues.
About the only difference would be that you can't really put a sacrifice near a book that asks for sacrifices not to be given towards it. But is that all that idolatry is? Is that the only thing that makes the creator of Its Own Calamity jealous? Then the Catholics are fine most of the time.
Quote:
bib·li·ol·a·try from Merriam Webster dictionary. ˌbiblēˈälətrē
noun 1.
an excessive adherence to the literal interpretation of the Bible.
2.
an excessive love of books.
The talk from pagans, Christians, and Muslims is offensive, but I try to hold back my anger against their thoughtless evil.
I apologize if you think Bibliolatry is worshiping a book and not its message.
It is called a "Holy" Bible, is it not?
It is called "inspired" by the divine, is it not?
It is a conduit to "know" the divine, is it not?
What else were the statue idols, then? I'd like to know.
Do they know how the books/idols are crafted?
Do the books/idols have messages to give but nothing to think of, nor with?
Do they have spines yet cannot walk, do they have words yet cannot talk?
It is exactly what bibliolatry is. And it is not forbidden in any Bible I've heard of since a book can't also be a postulated god. Yet any jealous god would, of course, be also jealous of inanimate and dead things, if they are already jealous of (or feel insecure about) statues.
About the only difference would be that you can't really put a sacrifice near a book that asks for sacrifices not to be given towards it. But is that all that idolatry is? Is that the only thing that makes the creator of Its Own Calamity jealous? Then the Catholics are fine most of the time.
Did he think statues were useful and good sacred/holy religious tools (emotional, metaphysically, inspirationally, etc.) like the pagans did?
In fact, didn't he say "the letter kills, but the spirit gives life" when he wrote his letters that were used later on to justify killing homosexuals and "witches"?
Spoiler
Quote:
bib·li·ol·a·try from Merriam Webster dictionary. ˌbiblēˈälətrē
noun 1.
an excessive adherence to the literal interpretation of the Bible.
2.
an excessive love of books.
So then, if Paul was a Bibliolater of some of the various Old Testament books** it would mean that he thought
1. they were Holy or Sacred, which he might have likely thought in some possible way since they were often already religiously important in usage among the ancient Jews by that time.
2. they were inspired by Yahweh, which he might have thought they were in some minor or larger way or another if he accepted that they were better than other books.
3. they were good conduits for the divine knowledge, which it seems he did for the books he read and liked since he wrote they were good for studying and discussing and verbally using, etc.
Spoiler
**(since the Old and New Testament wasn't available to him but was only cobbled variously together centuries later, and possibly many of the New Testament books weren't even available to him, as well as he explicitly stated that he didn't need to use them to know Jesus thanks to the holy spirit but that books can be used carefully for teaching etc as appropriate)
Last edited by LuminousTruth; 03-08-2018 at 01:01 PM..
Adam is very related to Adom. And yet it mean Mankind or a Single Man. So I'm sure his name was "Man" and not "Red" because "red" would be a meaningless name to give a metaphor to a bunch of proletariats.
But if Adam just means Adam (mankind, man, of the Adamah, etc) it would complete the story all on its own without any far-reaching to possible esoteric meanings of why the first man would be called "Red" instead of "Man". After all, didn't Adam name the "giraffs, etcs" by whatever names and language they said he had given them?
I agree that Adam means 'man.' In fact it refers to mankind in general as can be seen in Genesis 1:26-27. I simply pointed out the etymology involved. The color red lies behind the Hebrew root adam.
People seem to be confusing two different Hebrew words Adam and Edom
Adam
אָדָם
is spelled aleph daled mem, plus vowels
Generally means name of first human
Edom
אֱדוֹם
is spelled aleph daled vav mem, plus different vowels
Generally refers to name of Esau the twin brother of Jacob; (or cultures that descended from or are associated with traits of Esau)
The "red" is generally more associated with Edom than with Adam
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 03-09-2018 at 07:35 AM..
Where?
In the Bibles I've read, "son of man" is spelled the same as "son of Adam," and the word by itself is used to describe "humanity" because it simply means "Man" (both in the sense of human-kind and of a single person).
Adamah means "earth" and Adam would mean sort of like "earthling."
The only mention of red I've heard of is from the book of Mormon saying that Native Americans (the "red skins") were a tribe from Israel who were cursed with red skin because they were mean to the "ancient pre-historic" white skin Jew-Americans that they "sadly" got rid of through war, etc.
It might have originated from the Hebrew 'adam (to be colored red), or from Akkadian "adamu" (to create/make), but at the cultural context of when it was made (circa 4th century BCE), it was taken to just mean "man"; and is used as such through the Torah/Pentateuch, where it is only mentioned as the name of a specific man in Genesis (the first man being only mentioned in Genesis).
More likely, it could be a play-on-words on all of these close-by cultural lingos and uses.
I might of got it mixed up...Adam vs Edom...My bad...Here is something interesting though:
The Biblical writers recognized that the people among them with red skin were of an ancestral line of extreme antiquity. Some of these people were rulers in Edom. These are listed in Genesis 36. Esau the Elder and Esau the Younger were among them. Esau is specifically described as being red in Genesis 26.
The Hebrew word for red is edom and it is a cognate to the Hausa word odum, meaning red-brown. Both are related to the word dam, meaning blood, and to the name of the first man Adam, who was formed from the red clay which washed down to the Upper Nile Valley from the Ethiopian highlands. These soils have a cambic B horizon. Chromic cambisols have a strong red brown color. It is evident then that the Upper Nile is the urheimat of the Adam and Eve story.
Jeff A. Benner, an expert on ancient Hebrew, explains:
We are all familiar with the name "Adam" as found in the book of Genesis, but what does it really mean? Let us begin by looking at its roots. This word/name is a child root derived from the parent דם meaning, "blood". By placing the letter א in front of the parent root, the child rootאדם is formed and is related in meaning to דם (blood).
By examing a few other words derived from the child root אדם we can see a common meaning in them all. The Hebrew word אדמה (adamah) is the feminine form of אדם meaning "ground" (see Genesis 2:7). The word/name אדום (Edom) means "red". Each of these words have the common meaning of "red". Dam is the "red" blood, adamah is the "red" ground, edom is the color "red" and adam is the "red" man. There is one other connection between "adam" and "adamah" as seen in Genesis 2:7 which states that "the adam" was formed out of the "adamah".
In the ancient Hebrew world, a person’s name was not simply an identifier but descriptive of one's character. As Adam was formed out of the ground, his name identifies his origins. - Just Genesis : Adam Was a Red Man
Ahh, found the reason I thought what I thought, Strongs's [that everyone loves to use so much like it is the most accurate.]
Strong's Concordance
adom: red
Original Word: אָדֹם
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: adom
Phonetic Spelling: (aw-dome')
Short Definition: red
In Genesis Rabbah, we encounter a brief midrash that claims that Adam had a first wife before Eve. This interpretation arises from the two creation stories of Genesis: In Genesis 1, man and woman are created at the same time, while in Genesis 2 Adam precedes Eve. The rabbinic tale suggests that the first creation story is a different creation, in which Adam has a wife made, like him, from the earth. For some reason this marriage doesn’t work out,and so God makes Adam a second wife, Eve.
Don't forget that in Jewish tradition, which is indisputably base for Christian tradition, ORAL tradition is as important as written. Oral tradition preceded written and, after written was established, stayed and is honored until modern days. Just go ask your rabbi. Sometimes, oral tradition is even considered more than written. You have only ten commandments written but there are over 600 in oral. Just an example.
And yes indeed, there are striking misalignments between G1 and G2. One is creation, one is forming. One is creating "men and women" the other is "forming out of dust" and single being. One speaks about creation in image and likeness, the other forms in image only. Even god's name is different. You simply need to read it as it is, not as you are told to read it.
Don't forget that in Jewish tradition, which is indisputably base for Christian tradition, ORAL tradition is as important as written. Oral tradition preceded written and, after written was established, stayed and is honored until modern days. Just go ask your rabbi. Sometimes, oral tradition is even considered more than written. You have only ten commandments written but there are over 600 in oral. Just an example.
And yes indeed, there are striking misalignments between G1 and G2. One is creation, one is forming. One is creating "men and women" the other is "forming out of dust" and single being. One speaks about creation in image and likeness, the other forms in image only. Even god's name is different. You simply need to read it as it is, not as you are told to read it.
I feel like you are misrepresenting something.
The "oral traditions" that I've heard of are the writings of the Talmud.
They are "oral" in that they were supposedly not written down (until circa 300 AD ) unlike the Torah (Pentateuch, 5 books of Moses), but were still spoken through Moses as an Intermediary and the Rabbis kept those myths and explanations oral till that time.
Only 10 commandments were written down (twice, in slightly different words) by God himself with lightning into rock tablets (although there was also the Adamite and Noahide Commandments spoken).
The 600 commandments I guess could be found in the Talmud (oral writings), but there are also hundreds of commandments in the full Tanakh (the Torah/Pentateuch, Prophets, and Writings) spoken through prophets and priests mostly.
The "oral traditions" that i've heard of are the writings of the talmud.
They are "oral" in that they were supposedly not written down (until circa 300 ad ) unlike the torah (pentateuch, 5 books of moses), but were still spoken through moses as an intermediary and the rabbis kept those myths and explanations oral till that time.
Only 10 commandments were written down (twice, in slightly different words) by god himself with lightning into rock tablets (although there was also the adamite and noahide commandments spoken).
The 600 commandments i guess could be found in the talmud (oral writings), but there are also hundreds of commandments in the full tanakh (the torah/pentateuch, prophets, and writings) spoken through prophets and priests mostly.
The "oral traditions" that I've heard of are the writings of the Talmud.
They are "oral" in that they were supposedly not written down (until circa 300 AD ) unlike the Torah (Pentateuch, 5 books of Moses), but were still spoken through Moses as an Intermediary and the Rabbis kept those myths and explanations oral till that time.
Only 10 commandments were written down (twice, in slightly different words) by God himself with lightning into rock tablets (although there was also the Adamite and Noahide Commandments spoken).
The 600 commandments I guess could be found in the Talmud (oral writings), but there are also hundreds of commandments in the full Tanakh (the Torah/Pentateuch, Prophets, and Writings) spoken through prophets and priests mostly.
The 10 statements were carved in the tablets, but other material was written down.
Check out Deut 31:9 for example.
"Then Moses wrote this Torah, and gave it to the priests, the descendants of Levi, who carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and to all the elders of Israel."
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.
