i agree deb needs to go back and apologize to all those classes if she has taught it was god the father in the garden, infact it says "all" were present though not in physical form.

ok deb- back to bible 101 for you, 10 demerits and apologies to all your present or former students, you've been a naughty girl, no presents from santa this year, bad doggie, no beggin strips for PB today.

I am not making any such claims. I said that according to what I am reading in THE BIBLE there is more than one entity participating as a "creator."

I am not saying that these "creators" are God.

As far as my faith goes, it is not similar to yours in the slightest, but I do have faith.





God had nothing to do with that dear.



What does that prove? It only proves that someone was counting on superstitious people to believe that. And of course it did no good anyway, people have been changing and taking things out and putting things in the Bible for centuries.



Sorry that is not proof of anything. I would love to have you on a jury if you think that is proof.



They don't know. Some entity called God? What is that? How did he do that? They don't know anything dear.

JB

deb:

Revelation 22:18-22

18I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

tribo:

ok please tell me you don/t mean this to be taken as warning for the "entire bible" as to "adding anything" can we agree this warning is for the "book" of revelations only? please tell me yes deb.

It is God the father who cannot be in the presence of sin without it being destroyed. It is obvious that the Son can - else who would Satan have conversed with about Job? Who would have wrestled with Jacob, confronted A&E after they sinned, have become incarnate and walked amoungst men?

I'm not sure about your last question though - unless this answers it.

Tell me, do you also believe in the curse of the Mummy?

JB

Of course it's the book tribo...cmon what the heck.....If it was meant just for the book of revelation it would of state that....please tribo not even you can be this lame.

I understood your point - but it sort of wasn't answering the question of was it the Father - or the Son who called out to A&E in the garden after they sinned. The answer to that question got lost in your post, and the subsequent ones to Jeannie. Just thought I'd back track and clarify how the text would respond to the original question.

I think you are incorrect about that Deb. Revelation was supposed to be the book of prophecy, not the entire Bible.

JB

Whoa - slow down there Deb. This is an extrapolation of the phrase throughout a book that had not existed yet. While it certainly applies to Revelation - and by extension all of the prophesies of the Old Testament (which would be what revelations was attesting to) The Gospels and The Pastorial letters are not prophecies - they are accounts, and correspondences. All prophecy refers to the O.T. only, and the final account of Revelations. The implication is that no other prophecies of the future would be forthcoming from God. In the book of Matthew the prophecies are accounts of what Jesus said, not revelations to Matthew. There is a big difference as to what Matthew records - to say that of Ezekial. It is important to make this distinction when understandng the intent of John's warning in the end of Revelation.

This gives us reason to look at the book of Morman and the prophecies of Joseph Smith with the discernment of inadequate understanding of what the original text demonstrates. The same for the "prophecies" of Jehovah witness', 7th day adventists (Ms White more specifically), or any of the "so called" prophets of Television - who are cleverly disquised "psychics" in sheeps clothing.

So - to Tribo's question, I'd say "No - not the whole book". But who can add anything to the gospels? There's no prophecy there. The letters of Paul, Peter, and John, etc - are only adressing questions, and issues within the church.
There is no prophecy within them either.

Only Revelations and the O.T. is refered to - so the "bible" as a whole book is not what John is refering to.

deb:

Revelation 22:18-22

18I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, deb:

Revelation 22:18-22

18I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

19And if anyone takes words away from >>>this book of prophecy,<<< God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.



this book of prophecy deb - revelations - the bible was not even the bible when this was written, how could it have been reffering to the "bible" as it bacame later? Especially when dealing with genisis as we are here?

well i can understand that the lord god/father cannot be in the presence of sin and that jesus incarnate can be, and i know of the epiphanies of jesus as you also, but it does not make sense to me that jesus while yet to be man could in any way be connected with sin anymore than the father or spirit. in the pre-incarnation - it would only hold, i believe, that jesus had no flesh body only spiritual, ethereal, and as spirit unblemished/god - he could not have been in the presence of sin either. if so how?

You guys are not getting it...this was the last entry in the Bible......now take it from there.......It's not referring to just rev.

We get that you believe this Deb. I am just saying that you are incorrect in my opinion.

But I am sure you realize that the entire Bible was not written at the same time, nor even meant to be one book until the Church decided what scripture to put together to call there "Holy book." It was not even written by the same people. The scriptures were put together by the Church founders... basically Roman aristocrats.

You are such a naive innocent child dear.

JB

deb:


You guys are not getting it...this was the last entry in the Bible......now take it from there.......It's not referring to just rev.

tribo:

how can you believe tat deb?

if the book of revelations was not written till 70-90 AD how could it be referring to different books of your bible that had not even been decided on as to which ones would be canonized as to what the present day bible is? Church history or a study of when the bible as we know it came about should show you that.

DEB - if it was meant for a warning for the whole bible instead of itself - then it should have read = once this is joined with all the other writings that god will bring together into one all encompassing story, then heed the warning here in this book. it does not. its for revelations only deb, if you look into it i think you'll find that even evangelicals will agree with this..

What Bible are you reading.......Because the Bible I know there is only ONE GOD. There is only ONE CREATOR. There is also no distinction between creator or God He is one in the same.

I would love to hear about this faith sometime JB.....

OMG your joking right.....Well I hate to be the barrier of bad news....But my God has all to do with the Bible. I will at some point give you all the scripture and where these men were inspired of God and wrote with that inspiration all that is the "BIBLE"

Well you can believe as you wish JB as I can too....



They don't know. Some entity called God? What is that? How did he do that? They don't know anything dear.

That is you answer.......hmmmmmm

MORE THAN ONE CREATOR:

..."has become like one of us..." implies that there were more than one creator.

Also "Let us make god in our image" also implies there were more than one creator.

"Elohim" is a plural word, also implies that there were more than one.

This is not the Father, son and Holy Spirit, this is a group of individuals, a group of creators.

Now of course people have told me that God had a bunch of angels helping him. Okay if you say so. If so then he did not create the world and Adam and Eve ALL BY HIMSELF.

He had help creating the world. He had a crew.

More than one creator. If God is described as a creator, then there is more than one God.

JB

jb: ..."has become like one of us..." implies that there were more than one creator.

Also "Let us make man in our image" also implies there were more than one creator.

"Elohim" is a plural word, also implies that there were more than one.

tribo:

Elohiym: [el-o-heem] "is" the plural form of the word - eloahh - [ el-o-ah]

elohiym "gods" when used in conjunction with "Yahovah" "lord" = "the existing one" his proper name, is used to clarify his "oneness" it however does not take away from his triuneness of being. but to separate him from other false gods of duality/plurality natures. "LORD GOD" helps to clarify that though he is one god he has separateness also in the sense that - for example- a piece of fruit, such as an plum for example has multiplicity - a skin, the meat, and the seed.
It is 3 discernible parts yet only one fruit as a whole. we do not, once the skin is removed, call the skin a plum in and of it's self. we do not once the meat has been separated from the seed call the meat a plum in and of itself, nor do we call the seed a plum, in and of itself. Yet all 3 are necessary to be seen as a whole plum. this is true of all fruits vegetables etc. In this way the term LORD GOD, is used to denote the single yet plural aspects of Yehovah Elohiym. hope this helps.

though you are correct that elohiym by itself as used elsewhere in the bible does mean not only more than one but also in certain instances - angel, and goddess.

THE ELOHIM

The name given to these non-Earth humans by the ancient Hebrews is the name Elohim, which means "those who came from the sky."

Edited post.

JB

hmmm? interesting, may i know your source for this info please, i have never read that in any thing I've looked into from Hebrew scripture? as i said it can and is used in the plural sense in many instances within the book but when paired up with lord=yahovah it is to distinguish the yahovah elohim from other gods of plurality. thnx G.

sorry eljay, that don't get it for me, here's why - in every instance we see GOD dealing directly with man a few things take place - 1: they are told as moses they are on holy ground and to remove their shoes, 2: they give reverence out of fear by falling on their knees, faces, prostrating themselves and calling him lord- Yahovah without being rebuked for doing so. on the other hand when it's angels neither are done - or - if done, the angel(s) quickly tell them not to do so because they are only angels and angel can not take away or accept gods worship.

Now - with Jacob, if it was pre-incarnate Jesus he would have been just as holy as the father and not have wrestled with him, therefore it is an angel, i believe, not an epiphany of Jesus, I'm not even sure of any pre-incarnations but i will except the fact that you do for discussions sake.

Now i know you will comment that Jacob/Israel,says i have seen god face to face - but it cannot be so in my opinion, for god would not nor ever did "touch men" [in a physical sense] till his incarnation. correct? if not then where and when? thnx.