100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: The Third Testament | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Mon 01/12/09 12:17 PM
|
|
yes for sure...... i am most ignorant of speaking well, and will heed the words, as true, and continue to learn..... thanks so much for the good advice.... peace David you speak BEAUTIFULLY, yet it’s just not the best style for a debate structure. I understand it’s simply a language barrier however and it’s very nice, just difficult to understand. I might be able to figure out one or two paragraphs or get the just, but that is not good enough to properly discuss a topic in greater detail. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Mon 01/12/09 12:25 PM
|
|
Most of these so called contradictions can easily be explained away with a little bit of study. Many of them are red herrings and can be thrown out. No one is stopping you. Be my guest. We have had TONS brought up on forum. Hardly a "red herring”. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What you are doing Funches is siting examples of each. If someone says "You are rightious" - they are siting that one as an example of rightiousness, not the definition of it. Their opinion is a subjective one. The definition of rightiousness would not change whether their perseption of someone as an example of it is correct or not - nor whether anyone else agree's with them or not. They may both be incorrect. It does not change the absoluteness of the definition of rightiousness. "Eljay" everyone before the bible in the bible and since the bible including God have either killed or feed off of something that was once alive which is why there is no such thing as absolute rightousness or an absolute rightous act because there is always an alternative motive.. .. if you believe that an absolute rightous person exist that cannot be disputed that they are in fact absolutely rightous ...then name them There's only been one Rightious person. It was Jesus. No one else has "fit the profile". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here I will help you. I threw in the animal discrepancy as a bonus. First Account (Genesis 1:1-2:3) Genesis 1:25-27 (Humans were created after the other animals.) And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image Genesis 2:18-19 (Second Account Genesis) (Humans were created before the other animals.) And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. Genesis 1:27 (The first man and woman were created simultaneously.) So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them Genesis 2:18-22 (The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.) And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. These are not two separate accounts - they are two perspectives on the same event. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Mon 01/12/09 03:46 PM
|
|
Here I will help you. I threw in the animal discrepancy as a bonus. First Account (Genesis 1:1-2:3) Genesis 1:25-27 (Humans were created after the other animals.) And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image Genesis 2:18-19 (Second Account Genesis) (Humans were created before the other animals.) And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. Genesis 1:27 (The first man and woman were created simultaneously.) So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them Genesis 2:18-22 (The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.) And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. These are not two separate accounts - they are two perspectives on the same event. Then why are they totally different? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What you are doing Funches is siting examples of each. If someone says "You are rightious" - they are siting that one as an example of rightiousness, not the definition of it. Their opinion is a subjective one. The definition of rightiousness would not change whether their perseption of someone as an example of it is correct or not - nor whether anyone else agree's with them or not. They may both be incorrect. It does not change the absoluteness of the definition of rightiousness. "Eljay" everyone before the bible in the bible and since the bible including God have either killed or feed off of something that was once alive which is why there is no such thing as absolute rightousness or an absolute rightous act because there is always an alternative motive.. .. if you believe that an absolute rightous person exist that cannot be disputed that they are in fact absolutely rightous ...then name them There's only been one Rightious person. It was Jesus. No one else has "fit the profile". "Eljay" ...Jesus had a conniption fit in the temple with the money changers and start destroying their stuff ...wouldn't a rightous person just explain to the money changers why it was a disrespect to sell their wares inside the temple instead of going berserk ..I mean isn't Jesus philosophy one of Love ...wasn't to much Love shown in that temple imagine if a pastor, preist or the pope start turning over stuff in their church would you then say that such behavior is that of a righteous man Jesus's himself showed disrespect in the temple by reacting in such a manner but yet comdemn others in the temple for showing disrespect ...this is clearly hypocritical and clearly not the hallmark of a righteous person ...you may need to name someone as an example of rightousness other than Jesus ... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yes for sure...... i am most ignorant of speaking well, and will heed the words, as true, and continue to learn..... thanks so much for the good advice.... peace David you speak BEAUTIFULLY, yet it’s just not the best style for a debate structure. I understand it’s simply a language barrier however and it’s very nice, just difficult to understand. I might be able to figure out one or two paragraphs or get the just, but that is not good enough to properly discuss a topic in greater detail. lol..... i am from america Krisma, lol..... the language of the heart is for me a learning each second of more....... my words try most to LEAVE OUT DEBATE, lol..... peace girl.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Tue 01/13/09 05:26 AM
|
|
yes for sure...... i am most ignorant of speaking well, and will heed the words, as true, and continue to learn..... thanks so much for the good advice.... peace David you speak BEAUTIFULLY, yet it’s just not the best style for a debate structure. I understand it’s simply a language barrier however and it’s very nice, just difficult to understand. I might be able to figure out one or two paragraphs or get the just, but that is not good enough to properly discuss a topic in greater detail. lol..... i am from america Krisma, lol..... the language of the heart is for me a learning each second of more....... my words try most to LEAVE OUT DEBATE, lol..... peace girl.... People are quite capable of speaking languages other than English that are from the states David. I can speak some Italian (enough to get by) because I have Italian relatives. I have never been to Italy. I can understand more than I can verbalize however. I thought you had actually mentioned you were from another country. Sorry if that was my mistake. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i am from america Krisma, lol..... the language of the heart is for me a learning each second of more....... my words try most to LEAVE OUT DEBATE, lol..... peace girl.... "DavidBen" ...maybe the point "Krimsa" is trying to get across is that you speak in Parables which means you are either dyslexic, Jesus or Master Yoda |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logical Conclusions for insertment into "The Third Testament"
(1)...that eternity doesn’t actually exist but is use to measure the possible vastness of a given reality (2) God’s consciousness could not have existed before knowledge or at the point of eternity (3)that anything that is conscious can not be eternal because consciousness is a product of time (4).That the term prophecy or "Inspired by God" is not actually from God but are only assumptions or delusions by the claimer (5)there is no free will only God's Divine Plan (6) that the Holy Spirit is but a mindless power source that can be tapped into (7) that man without technology has no more "Free Will" then the other animals (8)that Adam and Eve was no more intelligent then the other animals in the Garden and had no idea that by eating from the Tree of Knowledge were wrong and only until they ate from the tree did they acquired the knowledge that it was wrong (9) to believe is to doubt ...it’s impossible to believe or have faith without doubt (10) ..that Gods are supposedly omniscient and since Jesus is not omniscient therefore is not a God disproving the concept behind The Trinity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i am fully aware of why what is spoken be spoken......
i am what any believe i am, as all humans are.... when all that speaks to self, becomes as words to self, and not as what be best, what be right, what be of god, what be of truth, what be of wisdom unto others, all that the heart long to know, of why any pain, why any event, all situations, even since all the days of childhood, the good scientist way becomes clears, and lead to answers, and to the path of wisdom from within, with no beginning and no ending, with the words released from the kingdom of heaven within, i know not nothing...... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Tue 01/13/09 01:00 PM
|
|
i am fully aware of why what is spoken be spoken...... i am what any believe i am, as all humans are.... when all that speaks to self, becomes as words to self, and not as what be best, what be right, what be of god, what be of truth, what be of wisdom unto others, all that the heart long to know, of why any pain, why any event, all situations, even since all the days of childhood, the good scientist way becomes clears, and lead to answers, and to the path of wisdom from within, with no beginning and no ending, with the words released from the kingdom of heaven within, i know not nothing...... Mark 4 4:11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: 4:12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them. "Lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them." Jesus explains why he speaks in parables: to confuse people so they will go to hell. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jesus explains why he speaks in parables: to confuse people so they will go to hell. "Krimsa" don't worry... I can translate what "DavidBen" said by using the universal translator technique I learned from watching Star Trek .. DavidBen said i am fully aware of why what is spoken be spoken...... translated into english this means: he understand why he is saiding it even through what he is saiding only makes sense to why he's saiding it ...I believe the term for that is called ranting DavidBen said i am what any believe i am, as all humans are.... translated into english this means: always try to make a good first impression |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funches: <-------- The dark magician
He means to do you harm. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jesus explains why he speaks in parables: to confuse people so they will go to hell. "Krimsa" don't worry... I can translate what "DavidBen" said by using the universal translator technique I learned from watching Star Trek .. DavidBen said i am fully aware of why what is spoken be spoken...... translated into english this means: he understand why he is saiding it even through what he is saiding only makes sense to why he's saiding it ...I believe the term for that is called ranting DavidBen said i am what any believe i am, as all humans are.... translated into english this means: always try to make a good first impression funches dear friend..... assisting words be your decision, meaning of words at your discretion, ears of all things love or divide, show if the heart hath distain or despise, interpretations do make all that be, go forth for all and set forth decree...... indeed funches fake impressions do defame, all words spoken much more than a game.... agreed it be prudent to check for ranting, since indeed for words there be no recanting.... until all have traveled to the east and west, carving the path either peace or unrest... yea words spoken in time travel round and round, decide up and over or pull to the ground.... indeed you be wise funches and good to suggest, each check their own words and put all to the test.... as feet do march forward each it's own words to face, words clamer ahead making the future and fate..... either happy or sad all words do account, creating pitfall or pleasure each alone to surmount........ peace |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here I will help you. I threw in the animal discrepancy as a bonus. First Account (Genesis 1:1-2:3) Genesis 1:25-27 (Humans were created after the other animals.) And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image Genesis 2:18-19 (Second Account Genesis) (Humans were created before the other animals.) And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. Genesis 1:27 (The first man and woman were created simultaneously.) So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them Genesis 2:18-22 (The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.) And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. These are not two separate accounts - they are two perspectives on the same event. Then why are they totally different? Because Genesis 1:1- Genesis 2:3 is the summary of the creation. It's focus is primarily on Earth, and the life forms on it. From Genesis 2:4 - which says "This is the account of the heavens and earth when they were created (emphasis mine) an indication of an event that had occured in the writing of the first chapter of Genesis - and not a second creation itself, and it's main focus thereafter is on Man (Adam and Eve) and as Genesis progresses - it becomes the account of Adam's line - the account of Noah - the account of Shem, Ham, and Japheth - the account of Shem - the account of Terah - the account of Abraham's son Ishmeal - the account of Abraham's son Isaac - tha account of Esau - and finally the account of Jacob. It is a funnel perspective on man, and more specifically the line that leads to, and through Abraham, the Patriarch of the Jewish peoples (and following that - religion). It is not an account of "two" creations. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What you are doing Funches is siting examples of each. If someone says "You are rightious" - they are siting that one as an example of rightiousness, not the definition of it. Their opinion is a subjective one. The definition of rightiousness would not change whether their perseption of someone as an example of it is correct or not - nor whether anyone else agree's with them or not. They may both be incorrect. It does not change the absoluteness of the definition of rightiousness. "Eljay" everyone before the bible in the bible and since the bible including God have either killed or feed off of something that was once alive which is why there is no such thing as absolute rightousness or an absolute rightous act because there is always an alternative motive.. .. if you believe that an absolute rightous person exist that cannot be disputed that they are in fact absolutely rightous ...then name them There's only been one Rightious person. It was Jesus. No one else has "fit the profile". "Eljay" ...Jesus had a conniption fit in the temple with the money changers and start destroying their stuff ...wouldn't a rightous person just explain to the money changers why it was a disrespect to sell their wares inside the temple instead of going berserk ..I mean isn't Jesus philosophy one of Love ...wasn't to much Love shown in that temple imagine if a pastor, preist or the pope start turning over stuff in their church would you then say that such behavior is that of a righteous man Jesus's himself showed disrespect in the temple by reacting in such a manner but yet comdemn others in the temple for showing disrespect ...this is clearly hypocritical and clearly not the hallmark of a righteous person ...you may need to name someone as an example of rightousness other than Jesus ... Jesus' philosophy was of a "love of God the father" - he showed no love to the hypocrites who passed themselves off as the teachers and leaders of men. He condemned the hypocracy of the temple practices - hardly a display of hypocracy on his part. You have attempted to establish Jesus as a representative of "love" as interpreted as "tolerance". Examine the serons of Jesus and you will not find this to be so. He was intollerant of the evil that men did to one another - of the manner in which they judged, without examining themselves first - and of their legalististic interpretation of the law towards their own gain without consideration for the spirit of the law, and for their putting oral tradition before the inspired commands of God. How is this an example of unrightious behavior? Perhaps your not understanding the term. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here I will help you. I threw in the animal discrepancy as a bonus. First Account (Genesis 1:1-2:3) Genesis 1:25-27 (Humans were created after the other animals.) And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image Genesis 2:18-19 (Second Account Genesis) (Humans were created before the other animals.) And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. Genesis 1:27 (The first man and woman were created simultaneously.) So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them Genesis 2:18-22 (The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.) And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. These are not two separate accounts - they are two perspectives on the same event. Then why are they totally different? Because Genesis 1:1- Genesis 2:3 is the summary of the creation. It's focus is primarily on Earth, and the life forms on it. From Genesis 2:4 - which says "This is the account of the heavens and earth when they were created (emphasis mine) an indication of an event that had occured in the writing of the first chapter of Genesis - and not a second creation itself, and it's main focus thereafter is on Man (Adam and Eve) and as Genesis progresses - it becomes the account of Adam's line - the account of Noah - the account of Shem, Ham, and Japheth - the account of Shem - the account of Terah - the account of Abraham's son Ishmeal - the account of Abraham's son Isaac - tha account of Esau - and finally the account of Jacob. It is a funnel perspective on man, and more specifically the line that leads to, and through Abraham, the Patriarch of the Jewish peoples (and following that - religion). It is not an account of "two" creations. Then WHY is it still the topic of debate by religious scholars and theologians today? And the ORDER in which when man and woman is created is changed? That is no small detail. It was done deliberately. The FIRST account was simultaneous creation. Do you think something like this would just be accepted and not questioned? I will leave out all of the smaller discrepancies (the order of creation and the animals and so forth) and focus on this point. I want the VERBIAGE addressed. Genesis 1:27 (The first man and woman were created simultaneously.) So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them And then Genesis 2:18-22 (The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.) And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funches: <-------- The dark magician
He means to do you harm.
"JennieBean" ...I may be going out on a limb here ...but I seem to detect just a tad bit of hostility in your message |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jesus explains why he speaks in parables: to confuse people so they will go to hell. "Krimsa" don't worry... I can translate what "DavidBen" said by using the universal translator technique I learned from watching Star Trek .. DavidBen said i am fully aware of why what is spoken be spoken...... translated into english this means: he understand why he is saiding it even through what he is saiding only makes sense to why he's saiding it ...I believe the term for that is called ranting DavidBen said i am what any believe i am, as all humans are.... translated into english this means: always try to make a good first impression funches dear friend..... assisting words be your decision, meaning of words at your discretion, ears of all things love or divide, show if the heart hath distain or despise, interpretations do make all that be, go forth for all and set forth decree...... indeed funches fake impressions do defame, all words spoken much more than a game.... agreed it be prudent to check for ranting, since indeed for words there be no recanting.... until all have traveled to the east and west, carving the path either peace or unrest... yea words spoken in time travel round and round, decide up and over or pull to the ground.... indeed you be wise funches and good to suggest, each check their own words and put all to the test.... as feet do march forward each it's own words to face, words clamer ahead making the future and fate..... either happy or sad all words do account, creating pitfall or pleasure each alone to surmount........ peace geez "DavidBen" now you went from talking in parables to being a rapper ok you made your point....please please I beg of thee...if you have any compassion any humanity left within your tortured soul ...please go back to speaking in parables |
|
|
|
|
