|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: Pator Dave doesn't believe the Bible. |
01 Nov 2005 02:12:43 AM |
|
|
"SJAB1958" wrote
: Bear wrote:
: > 1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in you hearts: and be ready
always
: > to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that
is
: > in you with meekness and fear:
: >
: > "Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason
of
: > the hope that is in you."
: >
: > Peter says that Christians should be ready to explain why they believe
what
: > they do. (The Skeptic's Annotated Bible)
:
: Well put there Bear, I wonder if you will get an answer from the
: 'Pastor'.
I doubt that very much. I think the cowardly "Pastor" has put me in his
killfile.
--
Bear
There but for circumstances go I.
.
|
|
|
| User: "SeppoP" |
|
| Title: Re: Pator Dave doesn't believe the Bible. |
01 Nov 2005 02:27:31 AM |
|
|
Bear wrote:
"SJAB1958" wrote
: Bear wrote:
: > 1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in you hearts: and be ready
always
: > to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that
is
: > in you with meekness and fear:
: >
: > "Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason
of
: > the hope that is in you."
: >
: > Peter says that Christians should be ready to explain why they believe
what
: > they do. (The Skeptic's Annotated Bible)
:
: Well put there Bear, I wonder if you will get an answer from the
: 'Pastor'.
I doubt that very much. I think the cowardly "Pastor" has put me in his
killfile.
It's not the end of the world, you know... :)
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: Pator Dave doesn't believe the Bible. |
01 Nov 2005 02:31:37 AM |
|
|
"SeppoP" wrote
: Bear wrote:
: > "SJAB1958" wrote
: > : Bear wrote:
: > : > 1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in you hearts: and be ready
: > always
: > : > to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope
that
: > is
: > : > in you with meekness and fear:
: > : >
: > : > "Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a
reason
: > of
: > : > the hope that is in you."
: > : >
: > : > Peter says that Christians should be ready to explain why they
believe
: > what
: > : > they do. (The Skeptic's Annotated Bible)
: > :
: > : Well put there Bear, I wonder if you will get an answer from the
: > : 'Pastor'.
: >
: > I doubt that very much. I think the cowardly "Pastor" has put me in his
: > killfile.
: >
:
: It's not the end of the world, you know... :)
LOL!!!
--
Bear
There but for circumstances go I.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zadok" |
|
| Title: Re: Pator Dave doesn't believe the Bible. |
01 Nov 2005 06:23:26 AM |
|
|
"Bear" <> wrote in message
Bear, keep in mind a few things.
1) Pasta Davey got his religious instruction in CON COLLEGE!!
2) Davey Boy does not believe in the eucharist!!
3) Davey boy does not think baptism is neccessary!!
4) Davey boy thinks Jesus has already returned.
But if you do not agree, you are a heretic!!
Davey ignores Matthew 23, where in verses 7-12, Jesus tells his followers
not to use titles, in an attempt to exalt themselves over others.
But he continues to call himself, a pastor, even though he has no divinity
degree. His authorization is the certiciate he bought at Walmart and filled
in himself.
I have often debated Davey, and whenever he loses, he runs off, with his
killfile threat. But that is an idle threat, as he always removes me from
his killfile.
Killfile is a dumb response to anything. That only allows someone to counter
all your arguments, and you won't even know what is going on.
I once refuted one of Davey's ideas, and he only followed it from other
people's posts, because he had me killfiled. He then tried to defend his
position, even though he did not have all my arguments, and ended up looking
like the clown that he is.
He has a couple of habits he runs with.
1) scream GOD HATER or ATHIEST at his opponet!!
2) Claim to have answered the question already!! I think you have discovered
this one.
3) Attempt to snow one under with verbage, claiming that his CON COLLEGE
education has shown him the TRUE WAY.
4) If all that fails, killfile!!
He is a fake pasta, with a little home church that he pretends is a real
church. He reads a book, and is an expert in the field!!
He is the classic fundie religionist, And they are so easy to refute, simply
because their inerrant bible is so easily exposed.
You posted the Ahaziah question, and as you can see, no one answered it,
simply because there is no answer. It is one of the out and out errors that
the inerrant religionists, want to forget.
Stick with it. Show the clowns up for exactly what they are!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: Pator Dave doesn't believe the Bible. |
01 Nov 2005 06:34:31 AM |
|
|
"Zadok" wrote
: "Bear" <> wrote in message
:
: Bear, keep in mind a few things.
:
: 1) Pasta Davey got his religious instruction in CON COLLEGE!!
:
: 2) Davey Boy does not believe in the eucharist!!
:
: 3) Davey boy does not think baptism is neccessary!!
:
: 4) Davey boy thinks Jesus has already returned.
:
: But if you do not agree, you are a heretic!!
:
: Davey ignores Matthew 23, where in verses 7-12, Jesus tells his followers
: not to use titles, in an attempt to exalt themselves over others.
: But he continues to call himself, a pastor, even though he has no divinity
: degree. His authorization is the certiciate he bought at Walmart and
filled
: in himself.
:
: I have often debated Davey, and whenever he loses, he runs off, with his
: killfile threat. But that is an idle threat, as he always removes me from
: his killfile.
:
: Killfile is a dumb response to anything. That only allows someone to
counter
: all your arguments, and you won't even know what is going on.
:
: I once refuted one of Davey's ideas, and he only followed it from other
: people's posts, because he had me killfiled. He then tried to defend his
: position, even though he did not have all my arguments, and ended up
looking
: like the clown that he is.
:
: He has a couple of habits he runs with.
:
: 1) scream GOD HATER or ATHIEST at his opponet!!
:
: 2) Claim to have answered the question already!! I think you have
discovered
: this one.
:
: 3) Attempt to snow one under with verbage, claiming that his CON COLLEGE
: education has shown him the TRUE WAY.
:
: 4) If all that fails, killfile!!
:
: He is a fake pasta, with a little home church that he pretends is a real
: church. He reads a book, and is an expert in the field!!
:
: He is the classic fundie religionist, And they are so easy to refute,
simply
: because their inerrant bible is so easily exposed.
:
: You posted the Ahaziah question, and as you can see, no one answered it,
: simply because there is no answer. It is one of the out and out errors
that
: the inerrant religionists, want to forget.
:
: Stick with it. Show the clowns up for exactly what they are!!
Will do!
--
Bear
There but for circumstances go I.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Pator Dave doesn't believe the Bible. |
13 Nov 2005 04:49:23 PM |
|
|
Zadok wrote in message <27J9f.70085$S4.26511@edtnps84>...
"Bear" <> wrote in message
Bear, keep in mind a few things.
1) Pasta Davey got his religious instruction in CON COLLEGE!!
2) Davey Boy does not believe in the eucharist!!
3) Davey boy does not think baptism is neccessary!!
4) Davey boy thinks Jesus has already returned.
But if you do not agree, you are a heretic!!
Davey ignores Matthew 23, where in verses 7-12, Jesus tells his followers
not to use titles, in an attempt to exalt themselves over others.
But he continues to call himself, a pastor, even though he has no divinity
degree. His authorization is the certiciate he bought at Walmart and filled
in himself.
I have often debated Davey, and whenever he loses, he runs off, with his
killfile threat. But that is an idle threat, as he always removes me from
his killfile.
Killfile is a dumb response to anything. That only allows someone to
counter
all your arguments, and you won't even know what is going on.
I once refuted one of Davey's ideas, and he only followed it from other
people's posts, because he had me killfiled. He then tried to defend his
position, even though he did not have all my arguments, and ended up
looking
like the clown that he is.
He has a couple of habits he runs with.
1) scream GOD HATER or ATHIEST at his opponet!!
2) Claim to have answered the question already!! I think you have
discovered
this one.
3) Attempt to snow one under with verbage, claiming that his CON COLLEGE
education has shown him the TRUE WAY.
4) If all that fails, killfile!!
He is a fake pasta, with a little home church that he pretends is a real
church. He reads a book, and is an expert in the field!!
He is the classic fundie religionist, And they are so easy to refute,
simply
because their inerrant bible is so easily exposed.
You posted the Ahaziah question, and as you can see, no one answered it,
simply because there is no answer. It is one of the out and out errors that
the inerrant religionists, want to forget.
I answered it. I'll repeat the answer for you.
22 years old?
: >2 Kg. 8:26
: >"Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign."
: >
: >42 years old?
: >2 Chr. 22:2
: >"Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign."
:
: He was 22 years old when he began to reign.
:
: The 42 years in Chronicles is apparently a figure of speach that is
: referring to something else.
:
: Solution: Dake's annotated reference Bible has, page 470 has:
:
: Ahaziah's father, Jehoram, was only 40 years old when he died:
: 2 Chronicles 21:20 Thirty and two years old was he when he began to
reign,
: and he reigned in Jerusalem eight years, and departed without being
desired.
: Howbeit they buried him in the city of David, but not in the sepulchres
of
: the kings.
:
: So the reference in 2 Chron. 22:2, cannot be to Ahaziah's age, when he
began
: to reign because he could not have been older than his father at that
time.
: It is thought that the 42 years have to do with his being a son of the
house
: of Omri, that long, his connection being through his mother, Athaliah,
the
: daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, and grand daughter of Omri. [As you see in
: verse 2, the same verse, it is Athaliah the daughter of Omri that is
: mentioned as his mother.]
: (In Hebrew, in the Old Testament, a grand daughter of someone can also be
: referred to as a daughter. A great grand son can be referred to as a son,
: Hebrew uses these words loosely. Jesus is called a son of David, even
though
: He is many generations removed from King David. Son and daughter denote
: descendant, and do not need to mean literal son or daughter.)
: In 2 Kings 8:26, Ahaziah's actual age is shown to be 22 at the beginning
of
: his reign. He was born when his father Jehoram was 20 years of age.
: [Family relationship words are used very loosely in Hebrew in the Old
: Testament; There are two places where an uncle can be called a brother -
the
: word brother simply meaning a close relative.]
:
: This figure of speech seems to be used when a time goes by when there is
no
: male king on the throne of Jerusalem for awhile. When a new male king
takes
: the throne, the time since the last male king mentioned in the geneology
: reigned is referred to figuratively as the age of the king taking the
: throne. Athaliah his mother took over the throne of Jerusalem for awhile,
: which seems to be what prompted the use of this figure of speech in this
: case, Athaliah being his mother and her geneology is of the Kings of
Israel
: through Omri.
:
: There is one other case in the Chronicles where this same sort of figure
of
: speech is used.
:
: II Kings 24:8
: Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became King and he reigned
: three months in Jerusalem
: II Chronicles 36:9
: Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned
: three months and ten days in Jerusalem.
:
: [The main reason this has to be a figure of speech is that the writer in
: Chronicles would not have deliberately wrote that he was older than his
: father. He must have been referring to something other than his age.]
: You explain scripture with scripture, comparing spiritual things to
: spiritual, as Paul says.
: You can now use that case of Ahaziah to explain what the writer in
: Chronicles meant in the matter of Johoichin.
: It has been established that the writer in Chronicles will use figurative
: language referring to a passage of time as "how old a new king is", when
he
: does not literally mean his age. You can see this in 2 Chron. 22:2. Now
if
: you apply this same thing to the beginning of the reign of jehoichin, you
: can see that the 8 years is referring to another passage of time and not
the
: literal age of the new king.
: 2 Chronicles 36:5 Jehoiakim [was] twenty and five years old when he began
to
: reign, and he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem: and he did [that which
was]
: evil in the sight of the LORD his God.
: 2 Chronicles 36:6 Against him came up Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and
: bound him in fetters, to carry him to Babylon.
: 2 Chronicles 36:7 Nebuchadnezzar also carried of the vessels of the house
of
: the LORD to Babylon, and put them in his temple at Babylon.
: 2 Chronicles 36:8 Now the rest of the acts of Jehoiakim, and his
: abominations which he did, and that which was found in him, behold, they
: [are] written in the book of the kings of Israel and Judah: and
Jehoiachin
: his son reigned in his stead.
: 2 Chronicles 36:9 Jehoiachin [was] eight years old when he began to
reign,
: and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did [that
: which was] evil in the sight of the LORD.
: 2 Kings 24:6 So Jehoiakim slept with his fathers: and Jehoiachin his son
: reigned in his stead.
: Jehoiakim was bound in fetters and carried to Babylon. He later died in
: Babylon, and then Johoichin his son began to reign. The eight years is
: probably referring to how long Jehoikim was alive in Babylon before he
died.
: Since the writer in Chronicles will refer to another passage of time
: conscerning a king, and figuratively call it how old he was when he began
to
: reign, that 8 years is not referring to his age but something else. If
: Jehoikim would have stayed alive in Babylon, 8 years, before he died they
: would not have made Jehoichin king for the 8 years. And the writer in
: Chronicles, in his figurative way of writing would have stated it as if
he
: was 8 years old when he began to reign.
:
: Copyist would probably not have mistaken an 8 in Hebrew, for an 18 in
: Hebrew, they look very different. I think Dake is wrong about a copyist
: mistake. A Het is different from a tzadi. A box with the bottom side out
is
: different from the shape of a cobra ready to strike.
:
: So, there is no contradiction, you just need to understand that the
writer
: in Chronicles is figuratively referring to another passage of time, other
: than the literal age of the new king in both cases.
However, realize that the situation involves a foreign
people, Hebrews, in a time many centuries ago and certain rules about Jewish
geneologies that might not be fully understood today. So, is it a figure of
speech or not.
I say it probably is, but I was not a Hebrew living many centuries ago. I
express how it might not be a contradiction. Also, the writer of chronocles
is not stupid. He would have known that he was making Ahaziah older than his
father, by just looking at the verses he just wrote. The idea that it is
referring to something else, and not his age, and that it is a figure of
speech is probably correct. Dake's annotated reference bible says that other
bible scholars considered the 42 number the time that he is a son of the
house of Omri through his mother. If that is the case, then it is a figure
of speech.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zadok" |
|
| Title: Re: Pator Dave doesn't believe the Bible. |
14 Nov 2005 05:12:18 AM |
|
|
"stone" <> wrote in message
You posted the Ahaziah question, and as you can see, no one answered it,
simply because there is no answer. It is one of the out and out errors
that
the inerrant religionists, want to forget.
I answered it. I'll repeat the answer for you.
NO, you did not answer it. As most reliogionists you made excuses for it.
The problem is that you used two different verses, and tried to make them
agree.
I'm not going into a lot of detail, because there is no point to it.
You said:
So, is it a figure of
speech or not.
I say it probably is, but I was not a Hebrew living many centuries ago. I
express how it might not be a contradiction.
That in fact sums up your whole argument!!
But on the other hand, no one is saying that the copyist did not just make a
mistake. That in fact is a much better explanation. In the copying of the
bible so many times, someone just blew it.
The only problem with that, is it would make the bible have errors, and the
fundies cannot accept that.
Therefore people come up with excuses like yours.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|