| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"James" |
| Date: |
19 Nov 2006 11:31:30 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Simple Question (9) |
*nemo* <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net>
Re: Simple Question
In article <y_AZg.3646$4T6.1070@trnddc02>,
Gilbertus Albans <primemenstat@world.net> wrote:
How do you identify a false religion?
That would be the religion of anyone who doesn't agree with me. {;-)
Hello,
As to a more serious note, here was my response to the poster. See if
it makes any Scriptural sense to you:
"Many are easily identified by their "fruit"- by their conduct, etc.
Jesus explained it this way at Mt 7:15-20,
"15. "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's
clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.
16. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes
from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
17. Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears
bad fruit.
18. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear
good fruit.
19. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown
into the fire.
20. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them." (NIV)
For example, if a religion professes to be Christian, and yet supports
the wars of this world, they are directly going against Jesus' words
at Mt 5:44,
"But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute
you," (NASB)
Instead of 'loving' their enemies, they try to spread out his guts on
a battlefield. (or worse) Their 'fruit' shows them to be just what
they are; a false religion.
Of course when one is in the true religion (like Jesus' disciples were
in the first century), it is easier to recognize false religions that
are much different than yours. (like the pagan religions around those
first century Christians)
At any rate, there are some things to look for than one would
logically expect of a true religion. For instance, if God wanted
everyone to follow Him, then He would make sure that everyone would
get the opportunity to hear about Him and learn about Him etc.
Interestingly, the Bible is in more languages and widely distributed
than any other religious book. As the World Book Encyclopedia puts it:
"The Bible is the most widely distributed book in history. It has also
been translated more times, and into more languages, than any other
book."
Sincerely, James
***********************************
Want a FREE home Bible study?
Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?
Go to the authorized source:
http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************"
.
|
|
| User: "BanderStern" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
15 Jan 2007 05:47:59 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 02:48:18 GMT, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
This guy is really a prime example of atheism. He spends a couple of
hundred words saying that the scripture does not say what it says in
nine words.
Kind of like Josh McDowell...
Lies that Demand Delusion.
I have two volumes. I hope he didn't write any more.
It seems like he comes out with a new edition every couple of years.
The best part of the book is the disclaimer in the introduction in
which he writes that his book is not intended to settle any arguments.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
12 Jan 2007 06:35:50 PM |
|
|
On 12 Jan 2007 15:38:10 -0800, in alt.atheism
rbwinn3@juno.com wrote in
<1168645090.465590.294510@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On 12 Jan 2007 06:30:10 -0800, in alt.atheism
rbwinn3@juno.com wrote in
<1168612208.452473.137680@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>:
Libertarius wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 8 Jan 2007 22:37:03 -0600, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com>
wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 01:15:26 GMT, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
I have read the Bible. It is not evidence for the existence of God.
It's not evidence of anything, it's a book of assertions.
Let us borrow it for a moment,
in it it says something to the effect
'thou shalt have no other god but me'
So this creator of the entire universe, including everything else in
it, demands this
from it's followers
and then does nothing about it !
Weird Eh
What's weirder is that he admits that he's not the only creator god,
that there are others. Even in Genesis, he's talking to the other
gods: Genesis 3:22, "...And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is
become as one of us"
===>Even before, one of the ELOHIM says:
"Let US create man...in OUR image...in OUR likeness!"
The ELOHIM (translated in your Bible as "God") were some of
the original ALIEN SPECIES,, the ETs of ancient Hebrew literature. -- L.
Well, no, ELOHIM is the name of God the Father.
Why are these gods in the plural then?
By the way, the trinity is completely a New Testament invention. There
is nothing in the Old Testament that supports trinitarianism.
There is nothing in the New Testament about trinity. The word used in
the New Testament is Godhead, consisting of the Father , the Son, and
the Holy Ghost. Trinity was a concept that came out of the Council of
Nicene.
That's a distinction without a difference.
There are a number of different god concepts in the Old Testament, but
none of them match that taught in Christianity.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
12 Jan 2007 03:24:39 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 21:27:28 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
The ELOHIM (translated in your Bible as "God")
Well ... not in MY Bible. "-im" is the Hebrew plural ending, so it
would be "gods".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
12 Jan 2007 09:27:54 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 21:27:28 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
The ELOHIM (translated in your Bible as "God")
Well ... not in MY Bible. "-im" is the Hebrew plural ending, so it
would be "gods".
===>That is correct, but in what Bible do you find such an
accurate translation? -- L.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
13 Jan 2007 03:43:20 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 20:27:54 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 21:27:28 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
The ELOHIM (translated in your Bible as "God")
Well ... not in MY Bible. "-im" is the Hebrew plural ending, so it
would be "gods".
===>That is correct, but in what Bible do you find such an
accurate translation? -- L.
Translation? In Hebrew.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
13 Jan 2007 11:44:05 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 20:27:54 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 21:27:28 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
The ELOHIM (translated in your Bible as "God")
Well ... not in MY Bible. "-im" is the Hebrew plural ending, so it
would be "gods".
===>That is correct, but in what Bible do you find such an
accurate translation? -- L.
Translation? In Hebrew.
===>You wrote:
'so it would be "gods"'
But "gods" is English, not Hebrew.
What ENGLISH translation would dare
to use the plural? -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
14 Jan 2007 05:30:33 PM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 20:27:54 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 21:27:28 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
The ELOHIM (translated in your Bible as "God")
Well ... not in MY Bible. "-im" is the Hebrew plural ending, so it
would be "gods".
===>That is correct, but in what Bible do you find such an
accurate translation? -- L.
Translation? In Hebrew.
===>You wrote:
'so it would be "gods"'
But "gods" is English, not Hebrew.
What ENGLISH translation would dare
to use the plural? -- L.
The Joseph Smith translation.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
14 Jan 2007 09:38:08 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 20:27:54 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 21:27:28 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
The ELOHIM (translated in your Bible as "God")
Well ... not in MY Bible. "-im" is the Hebrew plural ending, so it
would be "gods".
===>That is correct, but in what Bible do you find such an
accurate translation? -- L.
Translation? In Hebrew.
===>You wrote:
'so it would be "gods"'
But "gods" is English, not Hebrew.
What ENGLISH translation would dare
to use the plural? -- L.
The Joseph Smith translation.
===>Can you cite that
"Joseph Smith translation"? -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
15 Jan 2007 09:50:51 AM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
rbwinn3@juno.com wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 20:27:54 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 21:27:28 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
The ELOHIM (translated in your Bible as "God")
Well ... not in MY Bible. "-im" is the Hebrew plural ending, so it
would be "gods".
===>That is correct, but in what Bible do you find such an
accurate translation? -- L.
Translation? In Hebrew.
===>You wrote:
'so it would be "gods"'
But "gods" is English, not Hebrew.
What ENGLISH translation would dare
to use the plural? -- L.
The Joseph Smith translation.
===>Can you cite that
"Joseph Smith translation"? -- L.
No, I don't have a copy. The copyright is owned by the Reorganized
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, started back east by
Joseph Smith's family after Brigham Young led the rest of the church to
Utah.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
15 Jan 2007 06:45:06 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 20:27:54 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 21:27:28 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
The ELOHIM (translated in your Bible as "God")
Well ... not in MY Bible. "-im" is the Hebrew plural ending, so it
would be "gods".
===>That is correct, but in what Bible do you find such an
accurate translation? -- L.
Translation? In Hebrew.
===>You wrote:
'so it would be "gods"'
But "gods" is English, not Hebrew.
What ENGLISH translation would dare
to use the plural? -- L.
The Joseph Smith translation.
===>Can you cite that
"Joseph Smith translation"? -- L.
No, I don't have a copy. The copyright is owned by the Reorganized
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, started back east by
Joseph Smith's family after Brigham Young led the rest of the church to
Utah.
===>Why "reorganized"???
Another piece of forgery? ;-) -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
16 Jan 2007 01:52:55 PM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
rbwinn3@juno.com wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
rbwinn3@juno.com wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 20:27:54 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 21:27:28 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
The ELOHIM (translated in your Bible as "God")
Well ... not in MY Bible. "-im" is the Hebrew plural ending, so it
would be "gods".
===>That is correct, but in what Bible do you find such an
accurate translation? -- L.
Translation? In Hebrew.
===>You wrote:
'so it would be "gods"'
But "gods" is English, not Hebrew.
What ENGLISH translation would dare
to use the plural? -- L.
The Joseph Smith translation.
===>Can you cite that
"Joseph Smith translation"? -- L.
No, I don't have a copy. The copyright is owned by the Reorganized
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, started back east by
Joseph Smith's family after Brigham Young led the rest of the church to
Utah.
===>Why "reorganized"???
Another piece of forgery? ;-) -- L.
Joseph Smith's wife Emma did not accept Brigham Young as leader of the
church and did not go to Utah. She started another church called the
Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints with her oldest
son as President.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
16 Jan 2007 02:49:14 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 20:27:54 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 21:27:28 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
The ELOHIM (translated in your Bible as "God")
Well ... not in MY Bible. "-im" is the Hebrew plural ending, so it
would be "gods".
===>That is correct, but in what Bible do you find such an
accurate translation? -- L.
Translation? In Hebrew.
===>You wrote:
'so it would be "gods"'
But "gods" is English, not Hebrew.
What ENGLISH translation would dare
to use the plural? -- L.
The Joseph Smith translation.
===>Can you cite that
"Joseph Smith translation"? -- L.
No, I don't have a copy. The copyright is owned by the Reorganized
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, started back east by
Joseph Smith's family after Brigham Young led the rest of the church to
Utah.
===>Why "reorganized"???
Another piece of forgery? ;-) -- L.
Joseph Smith's wife Emma did not accept Brigham Young as leader of the
church and did not go to Utah. She started another church called the
Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints with her oldest
son as President.
===>She refuse to share him with additional wives?
So, the son outdid his father by rewriting the Bible? ;-) -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
16 Jan 2007 07:10:10 PM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
rbwinn3@juno.com wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
rbwinn3@juno.com wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
rbwinn3@juno.com wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 20:27:54 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 21:27:28 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
The ELOHIM (translated in your Bible as "God")
Well ... not in MY Bible. "-im" is the Hebrew plural ending, so it
would be "gods".
===>That is correct, but in what Bible do you find such an
accurate translation? -- L.
Translation? In Hebrew.
===>You wrote:
'so it would be "gods"'
But "gods" is English, not Hebrew.
What ENGLISH translation would dare
to use the plural? -- L.
The Joseph Smith translation.
===>Can you cite that
"Joseph Smith translation"? -- L.
No, I don't have a copy. The copyright is owned by the Reorganized
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, started back east by
Joseph Smith's family after Brigham Young led the rest of the church to
Utah.
===>Why "reorganized"???
Another piece of forgery? ;-) -- L.
Joseph Smith's wife Emma did not accept Brigham Young as leader of the
church and did not go to Utah. She started another church called the
Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints with her oldest
son as President.
===>She refuse to share him with additional wives?
Jopseph Smith was married to 23 women at the same time while Emma Smith
was his wife.
So, the son outdid his father by rewriting the Bible? ;-) -- L.
The son did not do anything that I know of. As Brigham Young said, The
boy has set out to sea in a canoe.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
17 Jan 2007 04:29:06 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 20:27:54 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 21:27:28 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
The ELOHIM (translated in your Bible as "God")
Well ... not in MY Bible. "-im" is the Hebrew plural ending, so it
would be "gods".
===>That is correct, but in what Bible do you find such an
accurate translation? -- L.
Translation? In Hebrew.
===>You wrote:
'so it would be "gods"'
But "gods" is English, not Hebrew.
What ENGLISH translation would dare
to use the plural? -- L.
The Joseph Smith translation.
===>Can you cite that
"Joseph Smith translation"? -- L.
No, I don't have a copy. The copyright is owned by the Reorganized
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, started back east by
Joseph Smith's family after Brigham Young led the rest of the church to
Utah.
===>Why "reorganized"???
Another piece of forgery? ;-) -- L.
Joseph Smith's wife Emma did not accept Brigham Young as leader of the
church and did not go to Utah. She started another church called the
Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints with her oldest
son as President.
===>She refuse to share him with additional wives?
Jopseph Smith was married to 23 women at the same time while Emma Smith
was his wife.
===>No wonder she left him.
So, the son outdid his father by rewriting the Bible? ;-) -- L.
The son did not do anything that I know of. As Brigham Young said, The
boy has set out to sea in a canoe.
===>So, now you claim there's no "Joseph Smith translation"?
You're NUTS, RB! -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
17 Jan 2007 06:29:27 PM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
rbwinn3@juno.com wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
rbwinn3@juno.com wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
rbwinn3@juno.com wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
rbwinn3@juno.com wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 20:27:54 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 21:27:28 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
The ELOHIM (translated in your Bible as "God")
Well ... not in MY Bible. "-im" is the Hebrew plural ending, so it
would be "gods".
===>That is correct, but in what Bible do you find such an
accurate translation? -- L.
Translation? In Hebrew.
===>You wrote:
'so it would be "gods"'
But "gods" is English, not Hebrew.
What ENGLISH translation would dare
to use the plural? -- L.
The Joseph Smith translation.
===>Can you cite that
"Joseph Smith translation"? -- L.
No, I don't have a copy. The copyright is owned by the Reorganized
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, started back east by
Joseph Smith's family after Brigham Young led the rest of the church to
Utah.
===>Why "reorganized"???
Another piece of forgery? ;-) -- L.
Joseph Smith's wife Emma did not accept Brigham Young as leader of the
church and did not go to Utah. She started another church called the
Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints with her oldest
son as President.
===>She refuse to share him with additional wives?
Jopseph Smith was married to 23 women at the same time while Emma Smith
was his wife.
===>No wonder she left him.
So, the son outdid his father by rewriting the Bible? ;-) -- L.
The son did not do anything that I know of. As Brigham Young said, The
boy has set out to sea in a canoe.
===>So, now you claim there's no "Joseph Smith translation"?
You're NUTS, RB! -- L.
Joseph Smith Jr. was the one who translated the Joseph Smith
translation, not his son, Joseph Smith III.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
18 Jan 2007 06:17:28 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 20:27:54 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 21:27:28 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
The ELOHIM (translated in your Bible as "God")
Well ... not in MY Bible. "-im" is the Hebrew plural ending, so it
would be "gods".
===>That is correct, but in what Bible do you find such an
accurate translation? -- L.
Translation? In Hebrew.
===>You wrote:
'so it would be "gods"'
But "gods" is English, not Hebrew.
What ENGLISH translation would dare
to use the plural? -- L.
The Joseph Smith translation.
===>Can you cite that
"Joseph Smith translation"? -- L.
No, I don't have a copy. The copyright is owned by the Reorganized
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, started back east by
Joseph Smith's family after Brigham Young led the rest of the church to
Utah.
===>Why "reorganized"???
Another piece of forgery? ;-) -- L.
Joseph Smith's wife Emma did not accept Brigham Young as leader of the
church and did not go to Utah. She started another church called the
Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints with her oldest
son as President.
===>She refuse to share him with additional wives?
Jopseph Smith was married to 23 women at the same time while Emma Smith
was his wife.
===>No wonder she left him.
So, the son outdid his father by rewriting the Bible? ;-) -- L.
The son did not do anything that I know of. As Brigham Young said, The
boy has set out to sea in a canoe.
===>So, now you claim there's no "Joseph Smith translation"?
You're NUTS, RB! -- L.
Joseph Smith Jr. was the one who translated the Joseph Smith
translation, not his son, Joseph Smith III.
===>And that makes it of some value?
It is just a phony paraphrase of the KJV,
e.g. totally different from the Hebrew Breshith
(Genesis). -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
17 Jan 2007 03:38:57 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 13:49:14 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
rbwinn3@juno.com wrote:
Joseph Smith's wife Emma did not accept Brigham Young as leader of the
church and did not go to Utah. She started another church called the
Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints with her oldest
son as President.
===>She refuse to share him with additional wives?
So, the son outdid his father by rewriting the Bible? ;-) -- L.
And doesn't the Bible say that women shall not teach men?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
15 Jan 2007 03:41:03 PM |
|
|
On 15 Jan 2007 07:50:51 -0800, wrote:
No, I don't have a copy. The copyright is owned by the Reorganized
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, started back east by
Joseph Smith's family after Brigham Young led the rest of the church to
Utah.
Then it's expired, and it wouldn't matter under the "fair use"
doctrine anyway.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
14 Jan 2007 11:33:52 PM |
|
|
On 14 Jan 2007 15:30:33 -0800, wrote:
The Joseph Smith translation.
The "inspired by a hunger for power" version? There's so much your
Church won;t even allow you to read, it's not even a joke. Scientology
is closer to reality, and we know that was all made up as the result
of a bet.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
15 Jan 2007 02:56:10 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On 14 Jan 2007 15:30:33 -0800, wrote:
The Joseph Smith translation.
The "inspired by a hunger for power" version? There's so much your
Church won;t even allow you to read, it's not even a joke. Scientology
is closer to reality, and we know that was all made up as the result
of a bet.
We are counseled to stay away from pornography. Does that trouble you,
Al?
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
15 Jan 2007 03:54:40 PM |
|
|
On 15 Jan 2007 12:56:10 -0800, wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 14 Jan 2007 15:30:33 -0800, wrote:
The Joseph Smith translation.
The "inspired by a hunger for power" version? There's so much your
Church won;t even allow you to read, it's not even a joke. Scientology
is closer to reality, and we know that was all made up as the result
of a bet.
We are counseled to stay away from pornography.
You're also told to not read the Catholic Bible. You're also told to
not read the Gnostic texts.
And you never question those dictates.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
16 Jan 2007 01:35:28 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On 15 Jan 2007 12:56:10 -0800, wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 14 Jan 2007 15:30:33 -0800, wrote:
The Joseph Smith translation.
The "inspired by a hunger for power" version? There's so much your
Church won;t even allow you to read, it's not even a joke. Scientology
is closer to reality, and we know that was all made up as the result
of a bet.
We are counseled to stay away from pornography.
You're also told to not read the Catholic Bible. You're also told to
not read the Gnostic texts.
And you never question those dictates.
Baloney. I have read from the Catholic Bible. What you are upset
about is that the church uses the King James version as the official
version of the church. All church leaders have said about the Gnostic
texts is that they are pretty much garbage. They did not tell anyone
not to read them.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
14 Jan 2007 05:48:59 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 22:44:05 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 20:27:54 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 21:27:28 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
The ELOHIM (translated in your Bible as "God")
Well ... not in MY Bible. "-im" is the Hebrew plural ending, so it
would be "gods".
===>That is correct, but in what Bible do you find such an
accurate translation? -- L.
Translation? In Hebrew.
===>You wrote:
'so it would be "gods"'
But "gods" is English, not Hebrew.
What ENGLISH translation would dare
to use the plural? -- L.
None that I know of, but Elohim refers to a single god as much as
"gods" does. Using a singular verb with Elohim in Hebrew sounds about
as grammatical as "the gods says" does in English.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
14 Jan 2007 09:40:30 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 22:44:05 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 20:27:54 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 21:27:28 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
The ELOHIM (translated in your Bible as "God")
Well ... not in MY Bible. "-im" is the Hebrew plural ending, so it
would be "gods".
===>That is correct, but in what Bible do you find such an
accurate translation? -- L.
Translation? In Hebrew.
===>You wrote:
'so it would be "gods"'
But "gods" is English, not Hebrew.
What ENGLISH translation would dare
to use the plural? -- L.
None that I know of, but Elohim refers to a single god as much as
"gods" does. Using a singular verb with Elohim in Hebrew sounds about
as grammatical as "the gods says" does in English.
===>Not in Genesis.
"Let US create..."
"The man has become like one of US..."
etc. -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
15 Jan 2007 09:54:04 AM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 22:44:05 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 20:27:54 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 21:27:28 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
The ELOHIM (translated in your Bible as "God")
Well ... not in MY Bible. "-im" is the Hebrew plural ending, so it
would be "gods".
===>That is correct, but in what Bible do you find such an
accurate translation? -- L.
Translation? In Hebrew.
===>You wrote:
'so it would be "gods"'
But "gods" is English, not Hebrew.
What ENGLISH translation would dare
to use the plural? -- L.
None that I know of, but Elohim refers to a single god as much as
"gods" does. Using a singular verb with Elohim in Hebrew sounds about
as grammatical as "the gods says" does in English.
===>Not in Genesis.
"Let US create..."
"The man has become like one of US..."
etc. -- L.
Very good, Libertarius. See, we didn't really need the Joseph Smith
translation.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
15 Jan 2007 06:46:20 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 22:44:05 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 20:27:54 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 21:27:28 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
The ELOHIM (translated in your Bible as "God")
Well ... not in MY Bible. "-im" is the Hebrew plural ending, so it
would be "gods".
===>That is correct, but in what Bible do you find such an
accurate translation? -- L.
Translation? In Hebrew.
===>You wrote:
'so it would be "gods"'
But "gods" is English, not Hebrew.
What ENGLISH translation would dare
to use the plural? -- L.
None that I know of, but Elohim refers to a single god as much as
"gods" does. Using a singular verb with Elohim in Hebrew sounds about
as grammatical as "the gods says" does in English.
===>Not in Genesis.
"Let US create..."
"The man has become like one of US..."
etc. -- L.
Very good, Libertarius. See, we didn't really need the Joseph Smith
translation.
===>You have no proof there is such a "translation". -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
16 Jan 2007 01:55:58 PM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
rbwinn3@juno.com wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 22:44:05 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 20:27:54 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 21:27:28 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
The ELOHIM (translated in your Bible as "God")
Well ... not in MY Bible. "-im" is the Hebrew plural ending, so it
would be "gods".
===>That is correct, but in what Bible do you find such an
accurate translation? -- L.
Translation? In Hebrew.
===>You wrote:
'so it would be "gods"'
But "gods" is English, not Hebrew.
What ENGLISH translation would dare
to use the plural? -- L.
None that I know of, but Elohim refers to a single god as much as
"gods" does. Using a singular verb with Elohim in Hebrew sounds about
as grammatical as "the gods says" does in English.
===>Not in Genesis.
"Let US create..."
"The man has become like one of US..."
etc. -- L.
Very good, Libertarius. See, we didn't really need the Joseph Smith
translation.
===>You have no proof there is such a "translation". -- L.
I don't need any such proof. The Reorganized Church had the Joseph
Simth translation printed by Herald Publishing company.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
15 Jan 2007 07:31:36 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 20:40:30 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
Elohim refers to a single god as much as
"gods" does. Using a singular verb with Elohim in Hebrew sounds about
as grammatical as "the gods says" does in English.
===>Not in Genesis.
"Let US create..."
"The man has become like one of US..."
etc. -- L.
As I said, Lib, and we agree, the Bible uses Elohim in the plural.
It's Christians who claim it's referring to a single individual.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
15 Jan 2007 06:31:04 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 20:40:30 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
Elohim refers to a single god as much as
"gods" does. Using a singular verb with Elohim in Hebrew sounds about
as grammatical as "the gods says" does in English.
===>Not in Genesis.
"Let US create..."
"The man has become like one of US..."
etc. -- L.
As I said, Lib, and we agree, the Bible uses Elohim in the plural.
It's Christians who claim it's referring to a single individual.
===>On the contrary:
It is JEWS who claim it refers to one individual deity.
Christians (Trinitarians) claim it refers to THREE individuals
("pewrsons"), but that, by some twist of logic and math,
those three individuals are reall one. ;-) -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
13 Jan 2007 08:04:30 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 20:27:54 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 21:27:28 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
The ELOHIM (translated in your Bible as "God")
Well ... not in MY Bible. "-im" is the Hebrew plural ending, so it
would be "gods".
===>That is correct, but in what Bible do you find such an
accurate translation? -- L.
Translation? In Hebrew.
Two in a row Al got right.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
