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.
I agree that the concept of re-incarnations is in Scripture
Nice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meerkat2
I don’t agree with you that most Christians are hate-filled though, it is that the majority of Christianity are under their own teachers/denominations and the concept of ‘reincarnation’ comes through the eastern ‘side’, not the western ‘side’
Left hand/right hand
The division of duty
I hope you are right. There was a quote I heard...
"Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man."
I have been treated like garbage for years by Christians for expressing my beliefs on the subject of Biblical Reincarnation. Something has to give. Non-Christians are becoming fed up with the 'God burns you for infinity' hypocrisy.
Nice.
I hope you are right. There was a quote I heard... "Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man."
I have been treated like garbage for years by Christians for expressing my beliefs on the subject of Biblical Reincarnation. Something has to give. Non-Christians are becoming fed up with the 'God burns you for infinity' hypocrisy.
Remember: Jesus forewarns MANY would come in his name but prove false - Matthew 7:21-23
'Being fed up' is a reason why the powers in charge will surprisingly turn on the religious world.
Perhaps even a bad economy could contribute to 'being fed up' because of the wealth false religion has amassed.
How easy it will be for the political taking of wealth right through the international banking system.
I hope you are right. There was a quote I heard...
"Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man."
I have been treated like garbage for years by Christians for expressing my beliefs on the subject of Biblical Reincarnation. Something has to give. Non-Christians are becoming fed up with the 'God burns you for infinity' hypocrisy.
We all have our own beliefs and opinions and being Christian for me isn’t about what religion or denomination anyone belongs to, that is mostly outside of our control as we are generally born into them and brought up in them, and their purpose is to ‘indoctrinate’ their members, they are ‘law-based’
I’m not really interested in defending my beliefs or attacking others beliefs, I’m more interested in understanding the ‘higher’ purpose of those beliefs
.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ..........
I’m not really interested in defending my beliefs or attacking others beliefs, I’m more interested in understanding the ‘higher’ purpose of those beliefs
Seems to me Jesus too was interested in understanding the ' higher' purpose of God's beliefs
And why Jesus said he is ' the Way, the Truth, and the Life '
The way or the path to follow - Matthew 7:13-14
The Truth as in meaning that Scripture is God's 'religious truth ' - John 17:17
The Life as in being resurrected to 'immortal life in Heaven' for those who have a first or earlier resurrection - Revelation 20:6
The Life as in being resurrected later to 'everlasting life on Earth' as originally offered to Adam before his downfall -Acts 24:15
One of the biggest lies that is told by the Church is that Genesis 2:17 is 'not literal'...
Genesis 2:17
"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
They will either change the word 'day', or they will change the phrase 'surely die' to mean something they do not (e.g., day = thousand years, spiritual death, began to die, etc.).
According to Scholars who understand how to properly translate and interpret the text, both 'day' and 'surely die' are to be understood as being literal.
Many resources may be found on the internet that go into great detail on this topic.
Example 1:
Finally, to interpret Genesis 2:17 as announcing natural consequences instead of a juridical penalty ignores the overwhelming biblical evidence of how authors used the phrase in question throughout the Old Testament. As such, the natural consequences interpretation seems to establish human arbiters as higher authorities than the text to determine its truthfulness and relevance. Scripture no longer interprets Scripture.
Here is another Bible Scholar that also agrees that 'day' and 'surely die' are literal...
Note that Dan McClellan in the above videos believes that God lied.
Although I agree with the above research that Genesis 2:17 is literal, I do not believe God lied.
So, why do so many Christians lie and claim that Genesis 2:17 is not literal? Is there an agenda here? Are they just ignorant?
You begin with the premise that we are supposed to take the story of Genesis literal when Moses made sure that we could not do that.
I mean, the day they ate IS the day they died.
In symbolism they did certainly die, and we are being told a spiritual story where Moses goes out of his way to make sure we know it's a spiritual story.
There is one day between Adam and Eve, did Moses use the word," Day," to factually mean," 24," hours? Certainly not.
The fact that the word," Day," could not possibly mean," 24 hours," puts a crimp in how you present your point.
In 24 hours Adam had tilled the ground, seeded the ground and harvested the ground so very long that God looked down and saw his loneliness and decided to make him a helpmate. 24 HOURS.
THEN, Adam named every single living creature which you couldnt even name all the birds in a year's time, much less all the insects and every other living thing.
THEN, God killed Adam when he lain him down in a sleep of death, opened his chest, took a rib, and created a bride for him just like how Jesus obtained his bride where the husband is inside the bride.
If we just spoke of 1 harvest, you cant till fields, seed fields and have 1 harvest in a single day, and it would be silly to think anyone could, but that is just harvesting, and he has to name everything, get killed, have a wife created and marry his wife.
All this in one day.
You wouldnt have us believe that Moses used the word," day," as LITERAL would you?
If the word," Day," is so clearly not to be taken as literal, then what is your point about Christian's lying?
More literally, on that day, the day they ate from the tree, they altered their state to one which was destined to surely die. OP is just having trouble with perception of timeline.
I like the second response to this thread about removing a vital part meaning certain death that will be a process. Death is a process and scientists still argue about what is the exact moment of death.
Reminds me of that site you sometimes see online with the caption, "This man is dead. He just doesn't know it yet" about a man dying of rabies.
Hi Hannibal Flavius. Thanks for visiting and commenting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannibal Flavius
You begin with the premise that we are supposed to take the story of Genesis literal when Moses made sure that we could not do that.
I am able to interpret the Creation Account literally without any issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannibal Flavius
I mean, the day they ate IS the day they died.
I agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannibal Flavius
In symbolism they did certainly die, and we are being told a spiritual story where Moses goes out of his way to make sure we know it's a spiritual story.
It is a story of reincarnation and second chances. Because Christians are generally forbidden from learning that, they have great difficulty comprehending the profoundness of what is being taught.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannibal Flavius
There is one day between Adam and Eve, did Moses use the word," Day," to factually mean," 24," hours? Certainly not.
Genesis 1 goes through great lengths to establish the definition of what a day is. Over and over, we read 'evening and morning'. It does not get any more clearer than that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannibal Flavius
The fact that the word," Day," could not possibly mean," 24 hours," puts a crimp in how you present your point.
Again, Genesis 1 establishes the definition of day and its context. The definition does not change within the seven-day period. There are cases where a day can mean a year (e.g., day/year principle), but again the definition depends on the context.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannibal Flavius
In 24 hours Adam had tilled the ground, seeded the ground and harvested the ground so very long that God looked down and saw his loneliness and decided to make him a helpmate. 24 HOURS.
What you just described is not written in Genesis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannibal Flavius
THEN, Adam named every single living creature which you couldnt even name all the birds in a year's time, much less all the insects and every other living thing.
You are assuming too much. The prelapsarian universe that the First Adam existed in was not the same as what we live in now. We exist in a postlapsarian 'fallen' universe with different physics and biology. The two universes vary greatly.
This is where most everyone gets it wrong. They try and fit Evolution, billions of years, countless species, etc. in the prelapsarian universe and end up failing miserably. Out of ignorance, they blame the Bible instead of their limited knowledge. Sadly, they pass on said ignorance to others as we can often see in this sub-forum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannibal Flavius
THEN, God killed Adam when he lain him down in a sleep of death, opened his chest, took a rib, and created a bride for him just like how Jesus obtained his bride where the husband is inside the bride.
I find it interesting that you describe something akin to a physical death. Anyhow, the verses are much more profound. A 'Rib' in the Bible is often symbolic of a Genome. For example, the three Ribs that the bear has in Daniel 7:5 represent nations of people...
Daniel 7:5
"And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear, and it raised up itself on one side, and it had three ribs in the mouth of it between the teeth of it: and they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much flesh."
"The three ribs have been understood from the time of St. Hippolytus to mean three nations: the Babylonians, the Lydians, and the Egyptians."
Thus the 'Rib' represents Adam's Genome and the nations of peoples that will come from it. Ishshah was created from said Genome. Remember, Adam was a Living Soul meaning Spirit + Genome only. The Body was to come later.
This phrase emphasizes what a Rib means...
Genesis 2:23
"And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."
It is a type of figure of speech that means 'We are blood related'. In other words, they share the same Genetics. It is all about Genetic Engineering and Cloning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannibal Flavius
You wouldnt have us believe that Moses used the word," day," as LITERAL would you?
I would.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannibal Flavius
If the word," Day," is so clearly not to be taken as literal, then what is your point about Christian's lying?
I created a movie that goes verse by verse in the Creation Account explaining in great detail how a literal interpretation works perfectly...
One of the biggest lies that is told by the Church is that Genesis 2:17 is 'not literal'...
Genesis 2:17
"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
They will either change the word 'day', or they will change the phrase 'surely die' to mean something they do not (e.g., day = thousand years, spiritual death, began to die, etc.).
According to Scholars who understand how to properly translate and interpret the text, both 'day' and 'surely die' are to be understood as being literal.
Many resources may be found on the internet that go into great detail on this topic.
Example 1:
Finally, to interpret Genesis 2:17 as announcing natural consequences instead of a juridical penalty ignores the overwhelming biblical evidence of how authors used the phrase in question throughout the Old Testament. As such, the natural consequences interpretation seems to establish human arbiters as higher authorities than the text to determine its truthfulness and relevance. Scripture no longer interprets Scripture.
Here is another Bible Scholar that also agrees that 'day' and 'surely die' are literal...
Note that Dan McClellan in the above videos believes that God lied.
Although I agree with the above research that Genesis 2:17 is literal, I do not believe God lied.
So, why do so many Christians lie and claim that Genesis 2:17 is not literal? Is there an agenda here? Are they just ignorant?
I don't believe Dan's interpretation accurately reflects the text. In the text, the root word for die is in there twice. The Hebrew word מ֥וֹת (mō·wṯ) means die, and again its listed twice. So it could be read the day Adam ate, he would die die. In english we have interpret it as saying "you shall surely die", indicating the assuredly of it is reflecting the text using "die" twice. However it could be read as "dying you will die". If its the last interpretation, then God could have been saying Adam would begin to die.
Now Dan McClellan is a scholar, and he admittedly says he is seeing this thing through an ancient view of how people viewed the gods throughout the world. (Particularly I would assume from the ancient near east) That kind of thinking in and of itself is an interpretation, and not necessarily is the expected reading of the orifinal writer of Genesis. I would argue it would be a wrong interpretation, because God placed Adam in the Garden, where there was no lack. In the Garden, was the Tree of Life, which Adam had abundant access to. This tree as God Himself put it, could make Adam live forever. (Something the gods possess. Eternal life) So this idea that God was lying to keep something from Adam as a primeval understanding falls flat.
Lastly Dan does bring up an interesting point at the end of the first video. He said it could be God just decided not to go through with having Adam die immediately. That may be closer to the truth than God lying, because something did in truth die that very day. God made clothes of "skin" for Adam and Eve, to cover them. Now, if the garments were made out of skin, that means the skin originally came from a living creature. Surely it wasn't Adam or Eve's skin. (They were already clothed with that) So in essence, instead of Adam dying, something else died that day in his place. Perhaps that is the best interpretation, as we know sacrifice is a foundational teaching in Judaism.
Last edited by Heavenese; Yesterday at 10:14 AM..
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.
