Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Have You Heard? There is Scripture That Proves Two Different Creations!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Truster
    replied
    This message is hidden because betsy123 is on your ignore list.

    Leave a comment:


  • Truster
    replied
    I'm putting you on ignore as there is nothing that you say that I want to hear. There is nothing that I say that you are capable of understanding.

    Leave a comment:


  • betsy123
    replied
    Originally posted by Truster View Post
    Yet another wiki theologian.
    Depends.

    Did you scroll down and read all the given references?

    Anyway......which part of what I've quoted is not true?

    Leave a comment:


  • Truster
    replied
    Yet another wiki theologian.

    Leave a comment:


  • betsy123
    replied
    Originally posted by iamaberean View Post
    Two thousand years ago Philo the Jew (c. 20-10 B.C. to at least A.D. 40) understood about the two events when he wrote:

    "And at all events he [Moses, in the tablets of Genesis] desires to show that THE RACES OF MORTALS, and also of all THE IMMORTAL BEINGS, exist according to their appropriate numbers; measuring MORTAL BEINGS [those of the sixth-day creation], as I have said, by the number six, and the blessed and IMMORTAL BEINGS [those descended from Adam] by the number seven. First, therefore, having desisted from the CREATION OF MORTAL CREATURES on the seventh day, He [YEHOVAH God] began the FORMATION OF OTHER and more divine beings [Adam and Eve]" (The Works of Philo, translated by C. D. Yonge. "Allegorical Interpretation, I," II (4-5)).

    Philo also posits -- in "Allegorical Interpretation, I" --

    "But some may ask, why God thought an earth-born mind [that of Adam], which was wholly devoted to the body, WORTHY OF DIVINE INSPIRATION, and yet did NOT treat the one made after His own idea and image [that of the sixth-day creation] in the same manner" (ibid., XIII (33)).

    He's a Philosopher!
    He has his own take - his own abstract interpretation! That's his opinion.



    Philo represents the apex of Jewish-Hellenistic syncretism. His work attempts to combine Plato and Moses into one philosophical system.[18] His ethics were strongly influenced by Aristotelianism and Stoicism, preferring a morality of virtues without passions, such as lust/desire and anger, but with a "common human sympathy".

    Philo's allegorical interpretation of scripture allows him to grapple with morally disturbing events and impose a cohesive explanation of stories.

    Specifically, Philo interprets the characters of the Bible as aspects of the human being, and the stories of the Bible as episodes from universal human experience.
    For example, Adam represents the mind and Eve the senses. Noah represents tranquility, a stage of "relative" (incomplete but progressing) righteousness.


    Philo's notion is even more abstract than that of the Monad of Pythagoras or the Good of Plato. Only God’s existence is certain, no appropriate predicates can be conceived

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo

    Leave a comment:


  • iamaberean
    replied
    Two thousand years ago Philo the Jew (c. 20-10 B.C. to at least A.D. 40) understood about the two events when he wrote:

    "And at all events he [Moses, in the tablets of Genesis] desires to show that THE RACES OF MORTALS, and also of all THE IMMORTAL BEINGS, exist according to their appropriate numbers; measuring MORTAL BEINGS [those of the sixth-day creation], as I have said, by the number six, and the blessed and IMMORTAL BEINGS [those descended from Adam] by the number seven. First, therefore, having desisted from the CREATION OF MORTAL CREATURES on the seventh day, He [YEHOVAH God] began the FORMATION OF OTHER and more divine beings [Adam and Eve]" (The Works of Philo, translated by C. D. Yonge. "Allegorical Interpretation, I," II (4-5)).

    Philo also posits -- in "Allegorical Interpretation, I" --

    "But some may ask, why God thought an earth-born mind [that of Adam], which was wholly devoted to the body, WORTHY OF DIVINE INSPIRATION, and yet did NOT treat the one made after His own idea and image [that of the sixth-day creation] in the same manner" (ibid., XIII (33)).

    Leave a comment:


  • betsy123
    replied
    Originally posted by Shubee View Post
    Try to read whole sentences. Genesis 2:4-5 is much easier to understand that way.


    Genesis 2:4-3:24 New King James Version (NKJV)

    4 This is the [a]history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; 6 but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.



    God had specifically distinguished these type of vegetation - of the FIELD - which means, agricultural! The type of vegetations that need tending.

    Leave a comment:


  • betsy123
    replied
    Yoooohooo, Iamaberean - where are you?

    Are you still looking into Romans?

    Leave a comment:


  • George Affleck
    replied
    Originally posted by iamaberean View Post
    The New Testament is based on the Receptus, which has serious problems. The most important alteration, or forgery and mistranslation, in the KJV is the forged text of 1John 5:7 which makes the Trinitarian reference and which is not in any ancient manuscript.

    The verse at 1John 5:7 occurs only in the Textus Receptus, and hence the King James. It says: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one," was a known forgery. It was included in the later writings, because there was no verse in the Bible that supported the concept of the Egyptian triads, which had been incorporated into Roman Christianity. Three is also significant in the ancient earth mother religion, which was evident as a feminine subculture involving nature worship and other forms of naturalism, later identified with witchcraft. So having no biblical basis for the Trinity they forged one.

    Before τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, the Textus Receptus reads ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. 5·8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ (“in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 5:8 And there are three that testify on earth”). This reading, the infamous Comma Johanneum, has been known in the English-speaking world through the King James translation. However, the evidence—both external and internal—is decidedly against its authenticity

    Looking at 1 John 5:8, there are three nouns which, in Greek, stand in the neuter (Spirit, water, and blood). However, they are followed by a participle that is masculine. The Greek phrase here is oi marturountes (who bare witness). Those who know the Greek language understand this to be poor grammar if left to stand on its own. Even more noticeably, verse six has the same participle but stands in the neuter (Gk.: to marturoun). Why are three neuter nouns supported with a masculine participle? The answer is found if we include verse seven. There we have two masculine nouns (Father and Son) followed by a neuter noun (Spirit). The verse also has the Greek masculine participle oi marturountes. With this clause introducing verse eight, it is very proper for the participle in verse eight to be masculine, because of the masculine nouns in verse seven. But if verse seven were not there it would become improper Greek grammar.

    Dr. Thomas Holland

    Leave a comment:


  • George Affleck
    replied
    Originally posted by iamaberean View Post
    The New Testament is based on the Receptus, which has serious problems. The most important alteration, or forgery and mistranslation, in the KJV is the forged text of 1John 5:7 which makes the Trinitarian reference and which is not in any ancient manuscript.

    The verse at 1John 5:7 occurs only in the Textus Receptus, and hence the King James. It says: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one," was a known forgery. It was included in the later writings, because there was no verse in the Bible that supported the concept of the Egyptian triads, which had been incorporated into Roman Christianity. Three is also significant in the ancient earth mother religion, which was evident as a feminine subculture involving nature worship and other forms of naturalism, later identified with witchcraft. So having no biblical basis for the Trinity they forged one.

    Before τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, the Textus Receptus reads ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. 5·8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ (“in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 5:8 And there are three that testify on earth”). This reading, the infamous Comma Johanneum, has been known in the English-speaking world through the King James translation. However, the evidence—both external and internal—is decidedly against its authenticity
    Cyprian of Carthage (c. 250 A.D). -- “The Lord says ‘I and the Father are one’ and likewise it iswritten of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, ‘And these three are one’” (De Unitate Ecclesiae, [On The Unity of the Church], The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of theChurch Fathers Down to A.D.325). Here Cyprian quotes from John 10:30 and 1 John 5:7. Nowhereelse in Scripture do we find the words “and these three are one”. “It is true that Facundus, a 6thcentury African bishop, interpreted Cyprian as referring to the following verse, but, as Scrivener(1883) remarks, it is ‘surely safer and more candid’ to admit that Cyprian read the Johannine comma in his New Testament manuscript ‘than to resort to the explanation of Facundus’” (EdwardHills, p. 210). Leonard Twells adds, “This noble testimony invincibly proves, that the passage nowunder debate, was in approved copies of the third century” (A Critical Examination of the Late NewText and Version of the New Testament, 1731, II, p. 134).

    Leave a comment:


  • Stripe
    replied
    Originally posted by betsy123 View Post
    Show me ROMANS - which in it shows two creation! I'M WAITING!
    Me too.

    Leave a comment:


  • betsy123
    replied
    Originally Posted by iamaberean View Post
    Wow, all this coming from the same person that assumes Gen 1 and Gen 2 are the same creation!
    I'm not assuming anything. I've already explained to you.....but you say you can't see!
    I can't help it if you can't see!


    You took liberties and made your "deduction" - in other words, you dished out your own opinion!


    Show me ROMANS - which in it shows two creation! I'M WAITING!

    Leave a comment:


  • betsy123
    replied
    Originally posted by iamaberean View Post
    Wow, all this coming from the same person that assumes Gen 1 and Gen 2 are the same creation!
    EH? That doesn't make any sense.

    Leave a comment:


  • JudgeRightly
    replied
    Originally posted by iamaberean View Post
    [.COLOR="#0000CD".]


    Again, Please stop using this color.

    The New Testament is based on the Receptus, which has serious problems. The most important alteration, or forgery and mistranslation, in the KJV is the forged text of 1John 5:7 which makes the Trinitarian reference and which is not in any ancient manuscript.

    The verse at 1John 5:7 occurs only in the Textus Receptus, and hence the King James. It says: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one," was a known forgery. It was included in the later writings, because there was no verse in the Bible that supported the concept of the Egyptian triads, which had been incorporated into Roman Christianity. Three is also significant in the ancient earth mother religion, which was evident as a feminine subculture involving nature worship and other forms of naturalism, later identified with witchcraft. So having no biblical basis for the Trinity they forged one.

    Before τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, the Textus Receptus reads ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. 5·8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ (“in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 5:8 And there are three that testify on earth”). This reading, the infamous Comma Johanneum, has been known in the English-speaking world through the King James translation. However, the evidence—both external and internal—is decidedly against its authenticity
    [/COLOR]
    And?

    What's your point? That therefore God is not triune?

    There are plenty of other verses in the Bible that show God to be triune. Even if you were correct (and I'm not saying you are or are not), the loss of that verse would in no way disprove the entire doctrine. Why? Because doctrines are not formed on one verse alone.

    Leave a comment:


  • JudgeRightly
    replied
    Originally posted by iamaberean View Post
    Wow, all this coming from the same person that assumes Gen 1 and Gen 2 are the same creation!
    That's ironic, considering it's coming from someone who assumes that the two speak of two different creations...

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X