|
Post by Dave on Feb 22, 2021 4:31:58 GMT -5
Notice bara is here in complete spelling. meaning "engineer"Strong’s Definition: to shape, create The KJV translates Strong's H1254 in the following manner: create (42x), creator (3x), choose (2x), make (2x), cut down (2x), dispatch (1x), done (1x), make fat (1x). www.wordsense.eu/%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%90/#Hebrew(Qal)- To create. (Hil) -To clear, to clear-cut, to cut down. Brown-Driver-Briggs' to create, shape, form (Qal) to shape, fashion, create www.hebrewversity.com/god-order-creation-deeper-hebrew-meaning-first-verse-bible/‘Bereshit Bara Elohim’ and in English ‘In the beginning God created.’ Gen 1:1 (OJB) In the beginning Elohim created Notice bara is here in complete spelling. meaning "engineer"NOTICE bara here = בָּרָ֣א the Qal-Perf-3ms form of בָּרָא – and no one else ion the planet thinks it means to engineerYOU NEED TO STOP PLAYING WORD GAMES AND GET SERIOUSNotice elohim is here in complete spelling. meaning "family-power"HERE IS ANOTHER ONEWhat would be better for me, is to show the Hebrew in its original Ancient Hebrew letters. SO if you isolate the sentences down to ROOT words, the meanings of those ROOTS come with basic SINGLE meanings.YES – this is a valid statement – the root of a word never changes In the word – root beer – root always means root – which is totally different than root beer For example Genesis 1:1 is: Beginning engineered family-power the skys the earth. In my opinion you already have two failed words and you have complete ignored two othersD"4 x 7 =28 different inflections of a single verb R " Hmm? I am not sure we fully understand the grammar of ancient Hebrew, we assume it follows the grammar of modern Hebrew, the precepts of man. Really – is this a correct statement You can just read ahl with modern Hebrew rules Why do they call it translation – you seem to think it is just reading D" 2Co 12:7 there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, YES – it is called yester ra – biology – the nature of the beast So we are not talking about biology, biology is merely the machine You are correct – it is about the soul/spirit – but you just cannot admit itConsider the angel who lives with also this divine code within him. Angels are not flesh or biologyAND I am done listening to your efforts to get me to accept your satan as a godI have begged and begged for you to give me one verse stating that your satan opposes God And you just keep repeating two words of one verse and a bunch of church doctrine cherub chata If your satan is as powerful as you say - you should be able to turn to many verses to support your doctrine All you have is there is a ra – therefore it is a sin – therefore your satan must be the cause somehow and that is your proof your satan oppose God Give me a verse where satan disobeys God So where would you go looking to see if "opponent" actually "opposes" GOD? Line upon line, here and there, remember, how to read Scripture? D - Please prove to me that satan is God’s opponet – here are the versesAnd your answer isAll your "hoo har" over 49 verses verses 23, doesn't matter, I need only one verse, apart from Ezek 28 I have Rev 12. There was war in heaven? D - At least we have discovered the value of line by line – it doesn’t matter if it goes against Catholic doctrine Or give me one Jewish Rabbi that supports your viewCourious- even tho you cannot support your own doctrine with scripture - you continue to cling to it because you are SDA and your are suppost to believe SDA doctrine - this you have been taught - and it clouds the way you see scripture Jesus saidMat 5:17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Torah or the Prophets! I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. Mat 5:18 Amen, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or serif shall ever pass away from the Torah until all things come to pass. A Jew is linited to the ahl A Messanic Jew = a Jew that has accepted Jesus Christ as the Messiah ahl + aglChristians rewrite the ahl to mean something different - a new relegon that rerquires the belief in 1- you have a completely different creation story 2- you deny the spirit - man is only biology 3- you deny the First Fruits = your only objective is the grave 4- you preach that God's Kingdom is divided - Jesus says any Kingdom divided against itself cannot stand5- AND there is a mandatory belief in your satan - as the god of evilDave writes: " See – you have two Kings and two godsRob - Yes I have two Kings and two gods opposing each other. What's wrong with that? Roman Chrstianity follows the precepts of Rome - and is a completely different religon - than Messanic Judaism
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2021 13:49:28 GMT -5
D" NOTICE bara here = בָּרָ֣א the Qal-Perf-3ms form of בָּרָא – and no one else ion the planet thinks it means to engineerR" Create means what specifically? something from nothing? Engineer is the process of creating from existing material you work on. Where is the text that GOD creates from nothing? Hab 3:4 And his brightness was as the light; he had horns coming out of his hand: and there was the hiding of his power. Used once, the Hebrew word has something coming from His hands during creation. D" YES – this is a valid statement – the root of a word never changesR thank you so why do the translators make different English words for each Hebrew ROOT? Jeff Benner's translation is much more faithful and consistent. ----------------------- D: "If your satan is as powerful as you say - you should be able to turn to many verses to support your doctrineR: "Really? If Scripture has an important message there should be plenty of verses about it?R: "Really? How many OT verses speak of how to be saved by GOD? one De 30:12-13 How many verses speak of Jacob's trouble for believers in the end of time? one Jer 30:7 How many verses speak of the HS as feminine in clear terms? few Lu 7:35 How many verses clearly define elohiym as a Family Power? one passage Eph 3:10-16 How many verses speak of a Great Controversy? Rev 12 : 8 - 12 How many verses speak of the third coming of Jesus to earth? one Zec 14:4 How many verses speak of attending CHurch? one Heb 10:25 How many verses speak of paying tithe? few Mal 3:10 How many verses speak of the true Sabbath day in the NT ? few Lu 23:56 How many verses describe the Ten COmamndments as absolute laws? few Mt 5:17 How many verses explain why a new covenant and a second covenant? few Ro 10:3 How many verses explain if the feasts were done away with? few Mt 26:29 How many verses explain if the law was done away with? few Col 2:14 How many verses explain if the OT torah rules were done away with? few Eph 2:15-16 These are all major doctrine themes, Dave, hardly a clear answer for any of them. If sinning was such a big deal to GOD, why it the command NOT to eat NOT repeated more than ONCE, but once is all you get for the greatest doctrine of them all, the first sinning. D" Give me a verse where satan disobeys GodThe word opposer has to mean opposing your opponent, otherwise the word meaning oppose makes no sense. Did God oppose Baalim? Yes Why? Because Baalim was a false prophet and GOD opposed Baalim to force him to bless Israel. Does this mean Baalim would normally oppose GOD? The Bible doesn't answer this question, but does it have to... you want a clear verse? Of course Baalim would oppose GOD, why? Because ra opposes tov. And tov opposes ra. I can see this idea, but you can't Dave. You have God creating ra. I read this verse differently because GOD cannot do ra, the ra is created for the sinner choosing ra. My understanding is ra canot exist normally under GOD, so techncially sinners cannot sin, unless GOD creates a world in which sinners can see their sinning, otherwise it doesn't exist. This is why a sinner naturally must also oppose GOD, who is sinless. Two Beings playing a tennis match must both oppose each other. If a Being sins, this means the being is disobeying GOD according to you. There is opposing here than. So the sinner must now oppose GOD. SO GOD opposes the sin, but loves the being still, because the being was once created sinless. Therefore sin as a verb and a noun, must oppose GOD and God's principles of function. Any being or creature that sins must therefore oppose GOD because of that sinning he does. So all one has to do to show one angel opposes GOD is to show that angel sinning. There are many Hebrew words that detail sinning. war in heaven (transgression) I will be like the Most HIgh (pride) cherub chata (sinning) bow down and worship me (breaking royal law) you will NOT surely die (lie) opposing GOD's words, is a SIN, anyway you look at it. The angel could have said, Eve touching the fruit will not cause the transgression God asked, you have made a mistake. Only eating the fruit will make you surely die. The angel covers the words in mystery, so lies are twisted in. Your spirit immortal thing is twisted in here, people never die upon mortal death, the spirit lives. This is a part of this lie. Indeed the nephesh ceases when you die. It does not live after mortal death somewhere else. D"Jun 6, 2020 at 9:55am robertt said: Dave writes: "S ee – you have two Kings and two gods Rob - Yes I have two Kings and two gods opposing each other. What's wrong with that?R" You keep playing my quote... is this fair? I will ask you a question? How many burning beings were placed upon the pole in Numbers as Moses was directed? One or two? Did the one symbol represent two burning beings (saraph)? The firey serpent bit the people and they died. A look at the pole, caused them to live. So the people looked at the ONE being and lived, the same ONE being that is killing them? Or the pole had TWO opposing "gods" upon the pole, one strong authority causes them to die from snake bite, the other strong authority causes them to live. What is this story about? Were there TWO strong authorities placed upon the pole? Do these strong authorities OPPOSE each other? SHalom
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Feb 22, 2021 23:33:07 GMT -5
D"NOTICE bara here = בָּרָ֣א the Qal-Perf-3ms form of בָּרָא – and no one else ion the planet thinks it means to engineer R" Create means what specifically? something from nothing?You flip flop – we have had this discussion before and you strongly disagreed with me – no you assume my position as your own and argue something different Engineer is the process of creating from existing material you work on.Correct – I would agree with that engineer a person who designs, builds, or maintains engines, machines, or public works. Similar: designer, planner, builder, architect, producer, fabricator, developer, inventor, originator, deviser, contriver, mastermind Verb - design and build (a machine or structure). Correct an engineer needs the material to work with – you have no source You say God planned it – God designed it – God was the Architect an engineer needs the material to work with – you have no source My argument for “fattened” – God is the source – God fattened Himself into creation E = mc2 – the very first step = expansion In the beginning was the Word – then the Word was with God = spirit = matrix / ether / medium of the ALL that sustains the ALL – the tov and the ra Where is the text that GOD creates from nothing? Hab 3:4 And his brightness was as the light; he had horns coming out of his hand: and there was the hiding of his power. Used once, the Hebrew word has something coming from His hands during creation.DUH – “fattened” / expansion / distance / SpiritD"YES – this is a valid statement – the root of a word never changes R thank you so why do the translators make different English words for each Hebrew ROOT?You omit grammar and spelling – all these words are not spelled the same There is absolutely no harm in deciphering a words root meaning But you are attempting to eliminate any depth to scriptureOlogy = is a Greek word that mean ‘to study’ – how many forms of this root can you count? Biology – psychology – eschatology – etc etc = all mean something different Run, ran, will run, have run, should have run, surely will run, am running, running it up a flag pole – All have the same root – all are spelled differently in the ancient languages – to define their meaning ----------------------- If Scripture has an important message there should be plenty of verses about it? R: "Really?How many OT verses speak of how to be saved by GOD? one De 30:12-13 How many verses speak of Jacob's trouble for believers in the end of time? one Jer 30:7 How many verses speak of the HS as feminine in clear terms? few Lu 7:35 How many verses clearly define elohiym as a Family Power? one passage Eph 3:10-16 How many verses speak of a Great Controversy? Rev 12 : 8 - 12 How many verses speak of the third coming of Jesus to earth? one Zec 14:4 How many verses speak of attending CHurch? one Heb 10:25 How many verses speak of paying tithe? few Mal 3:10 How many verses speak of the true Sabbath day in the NT ? few Lu 23:56 How many verses describe the Ten COmamndments as absolute laws? few Mt 5:17 How many verses explain why a new covenant and a second covenant? few Ro 10:3 How many verses explain if the feasts were done away with? few Mt 26:29 How many verses explain if the law was done away with? few Col 2:14 How many verses explain if the OT torah rules were done away with? few Eph 2:15-16 These are all major doctrine themes, Dave, hardly a clear answer for any of them. Confuse – I asked about verse proving your satan theory You post a list of doctrine which one on your list are the scripture that say your satan disobeys God – or opposes GodD" Give me a verse where satan disobeys God The word opposer has to mean opposing your opponent, otherwise the word meaning oppose makes no sense. YES – and satan opposes man I have begged you for a verse saying otherwise – but instead post listing a long list of verses to teach me my error You just keep repeating the same doctrine – I am asking for it foundationDid God oppose Baalim? God is an opposer – God is your satan case solved I can see this idea, but you can't Dave. You have God creating ra. I read this verse differently because GOD cannot do ra, So killing an entire planet of life is not a ra To punish Adam and Eve with death is not a ra And scripture like Isaiah 45:7 – can be denied
Sorry Robert – just religious talk in consistent with the bulk of scripturesAny being or creature that sins must therefore oppose GOD because of that sinning he does.Scripture says you are a sinner – why do you oppose God?D"Jun 6, 2020 at 9:55am robertt said: Dave writes: "See – you have two Kings and two gods Rob - Yes I have two Kings and two gods opposing each other. What's wrong with that? R" You keep playing my quote... is this fair?You keep repeating it over and over – two rulers rule you
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2021 14:18:12 GMT -5
D" There is absolutely no harm in deciphering a words root meaning But you are attempting to eliminate any depth to scripture Ology = is a Greek word that mean ‘to study’ – how many forms of this root can you count? Biology – psychology – eschatology – etc etc = all mean something different Run, ran, will run, have run, should have run, surely will run, am running, running it up a flag pole – All have the same root – all are spelled differently in the ancient languages – to define their meaningR" Consider one example in the KJV only for Genesis, as Jeff Benner has only translated Genesis so far mechanically. Gen 45:26 “Yoseph [Adding]” is still alive and given that he is regulator in all the land Gen 1:18 and to regulate in the day and in the night Gen 4:7 and you will regulate in him, Notice KJV use of Hebrew "mashal" Gen 45:26 and he is governor <mashal> Ge 1:18 And to rule <mashal> over the day Gen 4:7 and thou shalt rule <mashal> over him. Notice Jeff Benner is more consistent than the KJV. Jeff uses a different English word that "rule" to "regulate" I do not see regulate, regulated, regulating and regulator, as really different word meanings, sure I get your point, they are spelled differently. But there basic single meaning remains the same. D" YES – and satan opposes man I have begged you for a verse saying otherwise – but instead post listing a long list of verses to teach me my errorR" Oh sorry. So what opposing things of GOD would convince you? (1) Does a creature who disobeys GOD, therefore oppose GOD? (2) Does a creature who negates what GOD says about something, therefore oppose GOD? (3) Does a creature who tries to stop GOD saving somebody, therefore oppose GOD? (4) Does a creature who tempts other creatures to sin, is this tempting behaviour opposing GOD? (5) If GOD is living, if a creature tempts other creatures to kill, thus oppose living with death, does this make the creature who suggested to the other creatures to kill, also guilty by association? (6) If a creature causes mischief to another creature, so its fruit dies, the penalty for this mischief is eternal death for the creature causing the mischief, in the laws of GOD. Now you can negate all these questions of mine because you have GOD creating a creature with inherent self in the creature. So the lion naturally kills and eats flesh off other animals. Isa 65:25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: Well Scripture says originally that lions were heribvores, and the wolf were also herbivores.In fact everything in Eden were heribvores, including the sharks that ate seaweed. You laugh at this idea. I see no inherent self in any animal, from this verse, all is created functional, no RA seen. This is the reason you cannot see my view, because you have GOD creating animals with RA already as a part of their nature during Creation Week. And I say NO to this idea. The only animals with RA already on earth during Creation week were the angels that sinned, assuming the angels are animals? But they are creatures, hence created. And once these angels left their beginning, sinned and made war in heaven over GOD. You say some angels never opposed GOD? What is war in heaven about than? Other angels? hardly. And you call this war a six second bustle, also negating Scripture word meanings. And you claim not to play word games. You never did show me a verse showing "bustle". If you agree with me in the next Creation all RA is removed, why wasn't it removed in the Creation humans have now? Obviously GOD is dealing with a SIN problem. But you negate this idea. You have man inherited with natural RA, and man has to live with yester TOV, opposing the yester RA inherited in him. Scripture does not speak of Creation Week in this way. The tree of living was all Adam was created under. No mention of tov or ra, in this tree. Only the forbidden tree has this contrasting world of tov and ra, not the tree of living. You ignore this idea of utopia. The tree of living has no tov and has no ra, the tree of living is about utopia bliss, where everything is perfect. Not this idea of struggling with tov opposing ra, and mankind fighting a contest. But man chose to sin, because some sinning angel tricked the humans to sin, though Adam was not tricked to sin, He chose to sin because He chose to die for his wife, who was tricked to sin with the angel who sinned also, to get Eve to sin. You have this strange idea that a self creature does not sin, getting a sinless creature to sin. Sure if the creature has no moral responsibility, that I agree, the creature cannot sin. But GOD does not create such creatures. Only Gnostic writings suggest this.
It says in Scripture the angel sinned/ It says in Scripture the angels warred with other angels./ It says in Scripture the first angel who sinned, wanted to be like the Most High. (isn't this your answer, ? opposing God?) But you say this is just a poetry metaphor about man. Why can't it refer to both angels and man? They are both creatures. But you negate this idea, saying only man has free will? So a angels who sins, can't repent and return to GOD again? So this war in heaven wasn't a war about repentance than? Are wars on earth about repentance? the idea to return to normal friendly relationships? If the Scots clash, and so start fighting? is this not over RA relationship? And if they stop fighting, is this not over TOV relationship? a sense of returning? the idea of repentance? leave out the moral bias here. D" So killing an entire planet of life is not a ra To punish Adam and Eve with death is not a ra And scripture like Isaiah 45:7 – can be deniedSorry Robert – just religious talk in consistent with the bulk of scripturesR" I think I see what your saying here. Jeff Benner does not see RA with moral implications. I think he sees RA as dysfunctional, not the English term evil.
Hence I think Jeff is saying that RA is not a SIN per se. I see RA as a consequence of SIN, not the origin of SIN, a fruit of SIN, not it's cause. DO you follow me? It's like you can be angry, but not sin. (is this strange act even possible?) It's like you can end living, but not kill. (is this strange act even possible?) You can love a sinner, but hate the sin (is this strange act even possible?) I have tried to explain this before (ra thing) using shadow and light and experiments, but you don't follow. Where does a umbra shadow come from? Sure the shadow is created. But how is the created shadow come into being? And more important WHO is responsible for bring the umbra shadow into being? Shadow experiments require several relationships (GOD- light) (You-sinner) ( SHADOW - sin affect) To create a umbra shadow you walk away from GOD, and the affect is created. So who created the RA? God did. WHOM wanted the RA? You did. So the RA is a consequence of YOU, who made the decision. You chose to walk away. If a globe of people walk away from GOD, a global flood washes umbra shadows of death over the entire planet. All I see is GOD dealing with a SIN problem, umbra shadows of death problem. You have this strange idea that RA comes inherently from GOD, as if RA is natural somehow? RA is not natural? friction chaos and entropy are not naturally occurring laws of nature. These things have to be consequences of the shadows of sin, from YOU, the sinner who chooses to SIN. Scripture says plainly, God is not mocked, you reap what you sow. If you want umbra shadows, you live in umbra shadows, and this type of living is NOT living. But you seem to think Eden lived years with friction, decomposition and sharks eating fish for food, long before Adam sinned. I would say No to this idea. You have not convinced me that RA can be created naturally. It can't. You can make pre-umbra shadows naturally, but not umbra shadows naturally. Try it yourself, to make umbra shadows of death, you must walk away from GOD as the light source. We assume the heavens are black? no light in the heavens? Maybe this is caused by man sinning/ \ spiritualsprings.org/images/light3.jpg (the forum no longer allows my images to show ) BOTHER -------------------- How many burning beings were placed upon the pole in Numbers as Moses was directed? One or two? You did not answer my question Dave? -------------------- Have to go to work, answer more later Please watch this video, my son found, interesting about Skinner Box on global stage tube.mills.io/v/tdeMZcr4KScxNqFae4CH93.mp4?quality=240pShalom
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Feb 23, 2021 17:39:38 GMT -5
R" Consider one example in the KJV only for Genesis, as Jeff Benner has only translated Genesis so far mechanically. Notice KJV use of Hebrew "mashal" Gen 45:26 and he is governor <mashal> Ge 1:18 And to rule <mashal> over the day Gen 4:7 and thou shalt rule <mashal> over him. Notice Jeff Benner is more consistent than the KJV. Jeff uses a different English word that "rule" to "regulate"
WOW – WHAT A BIG DIFFERENCE!
H4910 - A primitive root; to rule: - (have, make to have) dominion, governor, X indeed, reign, (bear, cause to, have) rule (-ing, -r), have power. (LXX)- G757 - ἄρχω – (ARCHON) A primary verb; to be first (in political rank or power): - reign (rule) over.
All you have proven is that 2020 Dallas Texas uses language differently than 1611 England
Hell is a better example – in 1611 England it meant Hades – to hide away – unseen In 2020 it means some evil Catholic hell fire and brimstone ruled by satan
D" YES – and satan opposes man I have begged you for a verse saying otherwise – but instead post listing a long list of verses to teach me my error R" Oh sorry. So what opposing things of GOD would convince you? (1) Does a creature who disobeys GOD, therefore oppose GOD? (2) Does a creature who negates what GOD says about something, therefore oppose GOD? (3) Does a creature who tries to stop GOD saving somebody, therefore oppose GOD? (4) Does a creature who tempts other creatures to sin, is this tempting behaviour opposing GOD? (5) If GOD is living, if a creature tempts other creatures to kill, thus oppose living with death, does this make the creature who suggested to the other creatures to kill, also guilty by association? (6) If a creature causes mischief to another creature, so its fruit dies, the penalty for this mischief is eternal death for the creature causing the mischief, in the laws of GOD. Again you spout doctrine – where is your scripture The writtings of Ellen White do not override the Word of God
Now you can negate all these questions of mine because you have GOD creating a creature with inherent self in the creature.
(1) Does a creature who disobeys GOD, therefore oppose GOD? NO – the man that opposes God is simply guaranteeing his own punishment
2) Does a creature who negates what GOD says about something, therefore oppose GOD? I do not know how to respond to your religious talk – give me a scripture What creature can negate God - ridicules – scripture please
(3) Does a creature who tries to stop GOD saving somebody, therefore oppose GOD? If I hinder your salvation – ten I am your satan But you have to make the choice to listen to me
(4) Does a creature who tempts other creatures to sin, is this tempting behaviour opposing GOD? If I tempt you to sin I am your satan and I am tempting you to choose world If you listen to me and follow me instead of God – you have also made a chata choice
(5) If GOD is living, if a creature tempts other creatures to kill, thus oppose living with death, does this make the creature who suggested to the other creatures to kill, also guilty by association? For the laws of man – written by man - for man - this person would be an ‘assessary’
God can make you and God can break you – it is divine righteous – or divine judgment And has nothing to do with laws for man
(6) If a creature causes mischief to another creature, so its fruit dies, the penalty for this mischief is eternal death for the creature causing the mischief, in the laws of GOD. Are you now suggesting that true repentance is not available to some?
So the lion naturally kills and eats flesh off other animals. Isa 65:25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock:
Well Scripture says originally that lions were heribvores, and the wolf were also herbivores. In fact everything in Eden were heribvores, including the sharks that ate seaweed. You laugh at this idea.
Actually I laugh at your ability to read and comprehend English You BUTCHER grammar at will and don’t even realize what you read
Isa 65:25 (OJB) The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, Isa 65:25 The wolf and the lamb will feed together. The word in Hebrew = יִרְע֣וּ = Qal-Imperf-3mp In Biblical Hebrew the Imperfect conjugation is used generally to describe actions that are not completed or actions that occur in the future.
Isa 65:25 (LXX) = βοσκηθησονται G1006 - Tense: Future, Voice: Passive, Mood: Indicative, third person [they], Plural
Well Scripture says originally that lions were heribvores, and the wolf were also herbivores. In fact everything in Eden were heribvores, including the sharks that ate seaweed. NO – scripture say it will be that way in the future tense – New Heaven and Earth This verse has absolutely no bearing on the past
This is the reason you cannot see my view, because you have GOD creating animals with RA already as a part of their nature during Creation Week. And I say NO to this idea. Where is your scripture? Because it is NOT Isaiah 65:25
The only animals with RA already on earth during Creation week were the angels that sinned, assuming the angels are animals? The only scripture about ‘sinning angels’ refer to the bane elohiym of Gen 6
If you agree with me in the next Creation all RA is removed, why wasn't it removed in the Creation humans have now? Obviously GOD is dealing with a SIN problem. But you negate this idea. Yes Robert – the idea of God having to react and adjust in response to creation is rediculas
But man chose to sin, because some sinning angel tricked the humans to sin, It not my fault God satan made me do it – is the comeback of a child
R" I think I see what your saying here. Jeff Benner does not see RA with moral implications. I think he sees RA as dysfunctional, not the English term evil. Hence I think Jeff is saying that RA is not a SIN per se. There you go – if it is ra – somebody had to sin
For years Catholics if you were sick – it was punishment for sin Joh 5:14 Afterwards, Yeshua finds him in the Temple. He said to him, “Look, you’ve been healed! Stop sinning, so nothing worse happens to you.”
If a volcano erupts – who sinned to cause it
I see RA as a consequence of SIN, So who created the RA? God did. WHOM wanted the RA? You did. So the RA is a consequence of YOU, who made the decision. You chose to walk away. Agree - the RA is a consequence of YOU, who made the decision. You chose to walk away
You have this strange idea that RA comes inherently from GOD, as if RA is natural somehow? RA is not natural? friction chaos and entropy are not naturally occurring laws of nature. (wiki) Entropy predicts that certain processes are irreversible or impossible, aside from the requirement of not violating the conservation of energy, the latter being expressed in the first law of thermodynamics. Entropy is central to the second law of thermodynamics, which states that the entropy of isolated systems left to spontaneous evolution cannot decrease with time, as they always arrive at a state of thermodynamic equilibrium, where the entropy is highest.
But you seem to think Eden lived years with friction, decomposition and sharks eating fish for food, long before Adam sinned. I would say No to this idea. You seem to think the entire globe was Eden Why did a cherub prevent man from re-entering the Garden if the entire globe changed – your Ededn would have been eliminated - Why did a cherub prevent man from re-entering the Garden
Most believe it was a Garden sequestered away from the rest And this is why - a cherub prevent man from re-entering the Garden
You have not convinced me that RA can be created naturally. Who cares – Nature - unnatural – it is all part of God’s creation Isaiah 45:7
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2021 3:11:40 GMT -5
D" It not my fault God, Satan made me do it – is the comeback of a child
There are many Scriptures that negate this idea:-
1Co 10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.
God limits the opposing angel ruling over mankind.
1 John 4:4: "Little children, you are from God and have overcome them, for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world."
God as a ruler is more powerful than the ruling opposing angel who sins.
The serpent deceived me, and I ate" (Genesis 3:13). God did not buy her excuse, and won't buy it from us either. Adam, in turn, blamed Eve for his sin. God didn't buy that, either. God holds us accountable for our actions.
When a person is possessed by a demon, that demon has complete control over the person, not allowing the person control (Mark 9:22).
A sinner is tempted to sin yes, often by our own propensities and self dwelling in us. It is a poor excuse to blame another authority when all of heaven is available to you, to empower you, if you support GOD correctly.
D" Why did a cherub prevent man from re-entering the Garden if the entire globe changed – your Eden would have been eliminated - Why did a cherub prevent man from re-entering the Garden
The angels blocked access to eating from the tree of life, in a Garden yes, otherwise the sinner would have lived forever, while sinning as well.
If you agree that GOD creates the next world as a perfect utopia, why do you doubt our own original creation was not a perfect utopia as well? God does not change. But you have GOD changing His Creation. The first one for man was flawed, but the second one will be a utopia of perfection. This does NOT sound like a very good Creation to me, especially when you agree with me the next Creation will be perfect.
Shalom
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Feb 28, 2021 9:46:01 GMT -5
Points of Clarification
Rephrase 1- Spiritual Christians – led by (yester tov) – with help by the Comforter – communion in spirit – spirit to spirit – allowing praying in the spirit – those who are First Fruits Scripture is filled with these type of men – men who had/have direct knowledge
2Ki 6:14 … and they came by night, and compassed the city about. 2Ki 6:15 And when the servant of the man of God was risen early, and gone forth, behold, an host compassed the city both with horses and chariots. And his servant said unto him, Alas, my master! how shall we do? 2Ki 6:16 And he answered, Fear not: for they that be with us are more than they that be with them. 2Ki 6:17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.
Two types of Christians Elisha – who had no fear – who knew (gnosis) – who understood the spiritual warfare His servant – that could only see the physical – the 3D world view
And here is a difference – Elisha can fully understand the servants doubt But the servant does not have a clue of what it is like to be Elisha
2- Believing Christians – a wide range of churchians - that could only see the physical – the 3D world - who swallow doctrine – who gather themselves into (us vrs them clubs) – you have SDA doctrine – I have family that are Amish – I have family that are Presbyterian – and we have all been judged by a Baptist - today there are over 2500 different types of doctrinally driven churchians
These churchians know about (yester tov) – BUT the WORLD is a great burden upon them (yester ra) – food – money – jobs – insurance – laws – taxes – health demands – propaganda by the Government – propaganda by the media – and the advertising machine selling sex, drugs, and (Rock-n-Roll of my day – is still better than) the music today
Someone quoted life as – The things I have to do – to live the life I choose – how true
Elisha was a Rabbi – 24/7 it wasn’t his job – it was who he is
Today – so few of us have this luxury Today – churchains make room for God – they desire (yester tov) but the demands of (yester ra) keep getting in the way – taking priority – hinder that 24/7 full time commitment
Some – it is only Sunday 10am till noon Some – it includes Sunday School as well – maybe even a Wednesday night – a Bible study – a prayer group – any worship thing they can squeeze into their busy daily lives – confessions – communions with wine and crackers – attendance – prayers to memorize and regurgitate – thing after thing
2 types of Christians Elisha – who had no fear – who knew (gnosis) – who understood the spiritual warfare Elisha was a practicing Jew – he just woke up and lived for God His servant – that could only see the physical – the 3D world view Was a religious Jew – knew the words – attended the meetings – performed the daily rituals and even served the Temple
3- non-believers – non-Christians – just living for self
Am I saying I am Elisha – NO – I am saying to be Elisha is the goal You say – it is all impossible – no spirit – only biology and memories
What a cop out! You preach over and over your God can do no harm of any kind – if God did a ra it would make God a sinner So all your ra must come from a different creator god satan
I say God disciplines His children by the hand of God 2Sa 24:1 And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David
You say – impossible – all the ra comes from satan 1Ch 21:1 And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David
I say – God is satan – or satan works for God – and you change the subject How can the opposer of God – work for God – just does not fit your doctrine – so you evade
We have been all over those verse once before – REMEMBER
How can the word "oppose" mean also "obey" it can't. Seriously word man – is this a joke – I can only believe you are being desperately defensive In all of those verses satan obeyed God and opposed man And you question how this is possible?
Your saraph is a created being – the snake is a 3D physical being – the archon are created beings – even your satan is a created being There is no such thing as a created being becoming God All of the ‘other gods’ (man included) are just delusional creatures that think their little kingdoms are everythng
If you really want to have this discussion – answer my question Why is Day 7 is not 24hrs but days 1-6 must be The word day cannot be polysemious – it must mean 24hrs – nothing else This is one of your absolutisms – defend it
Religious double speak Sure Tov is never divided into tov and ra. Impossible. But the tree Adam chose has two kingdoms named, tov and ra. And this divides God’s Kingdom – that is impossible to divide Both have to be created by GOD – but God is not the father of ra, the devil angel is the father of ra
The only reference to “sinning angels” are in reference to the bane elohiym of Gen 6 The bane elohiym are not angels – they are the offspring of the First Archon – the Beast/Dragon And their sin was against mankind
It is our yester ra that desires first – if we choose to act upon it – choose it – our choice is the chata All the archon do is appeal to our yester ra – make the world attractive – desirable They cannot force you to sin – they do not rule you to sin – they just plant the idea The choice is always yours alone before God
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2021 16:05:51 GMT -5
D" What a cop out! You preach over and over your God can do no harm of any kind – if God did a ra it would make God a sinner So all your ra must come from a different creator god satan
I say God disciplines His children by the hand of God 2Sa 24:1 And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David
You say – impossible – all the ra comes from satan 1Ch 21:1 And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David
I say – God is satan – or satan works for God – and you change the subject How can the opposer of God – work for God – just does not fit your doctrine – so you evadeRob replies" Maybe it is a cop out Dave, I claim not to understand the strange act of GOD. All I know is GOD is love, and obeys His own laws, all the time. Yes I do evade the hard questions. You don't evade hard questions. Must you know all things? I have found your style of GOD is not fitting torah as I read torah, so we will have to agree to disagree. D" There is no such thing as a created being becoming God All of the ‘other gods’ (man included) are just delusional creatures that think their little kingdoms are everythingR" I never said they become GOD, or God or even gods. The Hebrew does not really have a term for god anyway. I am happy though to speak in idioms though if people see things that way. The term "al" means "strong authority", not "god" The term "alfh" means "strong authority secure, Behold the Being", thus depicts the Most High Being, in a pagan sense is a chief father god and in the heavenly sense depicts the Most HIgh Father in heaven. The term "alfm" "the strong authority secure. Behold the Being flows" depicts the flow of LOVE, the power from the Father. But the term when looking at all verses refers to a FAMILY POWER. Eg Moses was made a familypower to pharoah, Aaron his brother a prophet. Eg Judges are family powers who represent the law. Eg GOD is described as a family power in many passages of the torah. So when another creature assumes from their sinning to be like the Most High, this is as you say "All of the ‘other gods’ (man included) are just delusional creatures that think their little kingdoms are everythng" Yes correct. And by the way, SATAN (a system of sinning angels who oppose GOD) are not Creators. Never been Creators, in the sense of making matter from initial energy. Only GOD can do this. However, some strong authorities who pretend to be gods, can engineer changes to the divine code of living things. This makes things spoiled. Hebrew speaks of spoilers who spoil. Such engineering can cause the inherited of lost, changed and corrupted DNA code, hence when Adam sinned, the spoiler spoiled some of his code intentionally, however GOD controlled this aspect as well, limiting the powers of RA caused by this spoiler. So I see it as a Great Controversy yes, but GOD controls the Father of RA, the Father of SIN, the Father of death, He was a murderer from the beginning, shows you angels are held accountable for breaking the royal law, just as humans are. D" Personally Robert – what you have just written – just seems childish and so out of touch with reality it borders upon cultism Not only do I disagree – but I think you extremely uneducated for even posting it Sorry – I accept zero evolution in any form – in plants – in animals – or in angelsR" childish? really? Why do you call adaptation, evolution, this is NOT evolution. Micro-Change is not evolution either. Evolution is a myth about large changes across kind barriers that happen when mutations cause functional changes. No such thing as a mutation causing a functional change. Take the racoon for example, eats food, but if it's normal food is scarce, it looks for food in the cities. Is this new adaptation, evolution? No, it is creative normal intelligence to adapt, written in the DNA code during GOD creating such an animal. I suppose you don't read Creation Science information? D" If you really want to have this discussion – answer my question Why is Day 7 is not 24hrs but days 1-6 must be The word day cannot be polysemious – it must mean 24hrs – nothing else This is one of your absolutisms – defend it
R" Creation took place in seven days. Time began from day one at night. On Friday sunset, the 6th day ends and the 7th day begins, as Ceasing. But the ceasing never is closed as evening and morning the 7th day. Why is that? If you say this, you would also mention Sunday morning, the eight day. Creation took 7 sevens of yom, not eight days of yom. What was created on the Ceasing of time ? the concept of a week. So from day one, the events of time as yom, are counted in groups of sevens, and each 7th day is a ceasing day. Ge 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. Ceasing day has a special blessing in it? Why? because this is the day Family-Powers would visit the human family on earth, personally face to face every Ceasing Day. Ge 2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, Here is a profound clue to a perfect utopia earth, earth never had rain, or snow or lightning or violent storms, only mist from the ground watered all the lands. Everything was perfect. D" Religious double speak Sure Tov is never divided into tov and ra. Impossible. But the tree Adam chose has two kingdoms named, tov and ra. And this divides God’s Kingdom – that is impossible to divide Both have to be created by GOD – but God is not the father of ra, the devil angel is the father of raR" Yes correct nice summary of my view You say it's impossible to divide a kingdom into two, but the tree of ra and tov was created by GOD as two kingdoms from the beginning, so in this sense is not divided. However GOD told Adam not to eat of the tree, and Eve yes saw further, not even touch the tree or go near it. So the idea of having two kingdoms was left alone for 33 years, not a Jews say, Adam sinned within an hour or so. D" The only reference to “sinning angels” are in reference to the bane elohiym of Gen 6 The bane elohiym are not angels – they are the offspring of the First Archon – the Beast/Dragon And their sin was against mankind
R" You assume this, I don't. Bane elohiym refers to human children who followed God, from Seth's line while Cain's line were children who did not follow God. One day the true supports wandered off and married mixed becoming unequally yoked. The OT mention of cherub chata is in Ezekiel. D" Gen 3:6 Now the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a thing of lust for the eyes, and that the tree was desirable for imparting wisdom. So she took of its fruit and she ate. It is frustrating to discuss scripture with someone who uses absolutes without foundation or evidenceR" Sorry but this is a poor translation. H 8378 ta'avah, Jeff Benner has the meaning "desired" Ps 10:17 LORD <Y@hovah>, thou hast heard <shama`> the desire <ta'avah> of the humble <`anav>: thou wilt prepare <kuwn> their heart <leb> Ps 38:9 Lord <'Adonay>, all my desire <ta'avah> is before thee; Ps 78:30 They were not estranged <zuwr> from their lust <ta'avah>. Should we impose a negative meaning upon the Hebrew depending upon context, or just change the meaning to one meaning "desire" as Jeff does. I really suspect we have spoiled the manner of translation also with such ideas? D" All the archon do is appeal to our yester ra – make the world attractive – desirable They cannot force you to sin – they do not rule you to sin – they just plant the ideaR" You make the sinning angels as cockroaches that do not rule over mankind, the man chooses to do it by himself. How many people are "sinning angel possessed by them"? Is this possession even possible? And I mean possession in all spectrum from mild to severe. " make the world attractive they just plant the idea" And this is NOT a factor of how rulers rule? BOY you are ignorant. You would love this website article www.the-gospel-truth.info/1-john-519-does-satan-rule-the-world/There is plenty these days. Eph 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Why is this passage written as parallels than? Jude 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. 8 ¶ Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities. (1) Angels that sin are similes of what happened in Sodom (2) Humans that sin are similes of what happened in Sodom God destroyed Sodom as an example. You did not see the saraph upon the pole, does not mean a snake, though snakes can be saraph. other beings are also saraph, apart from snakes. (1) Cherub are saraph (2) Red heifer offering symbolizing Jesus is saraph too. So two burning beings are upon the pole symbolized by Moses as a something we do not know what Moses made, as a saraph. Shalom
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Feb 28, 2021 17:31:08 GMT -5
Rob replies" Maybe it is a cop out Dave, I claim not to understand the strange act of GOD. All I know is GOD is love, and obeys His own laws, all the time. Yes I do evade the hard questions. You evade – because there are gaps in your doctrine – and you have been previously trained to address these omissions – because they are outside of your doctrine You claim you stick only to the Torah That would be the selected sections used to validate your SDA doctrine This is a very basic Jewish fundamental from the Torah God test Hid children – and God disciplines His children You deny this basic Jewish fundamental - even when scripture says it – because you have another doctrinal explanation for all the ra – it is a god of evil You don't evade hard questions. Must you know all things? If you have a valid cosmology – the pieces fit together If you have a valid cosmology – you do not have to deny any scripture If you have a valid cosmology – you do not need to bend any scripture into something it isnlt I have found your style of GOD is not fitting torah as I read torah, so we will have to agree to disagree.Correct – you do not accept the One True Creator of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob You have replaced Him with a weaker Catholic version – that cannot be blamed for most of scripture R" I never said they become GOD, or God or even gods. The Hebrew does not really have a term for god anyway. I am happy though to speak in idioms though if people see things that way. The term "al" means "strong authority", not "god"OK 2 strong authorities lock in an eternal controversy = is just as vulgarYou pretend not to call satan a god – he is just the father of all the ra – father of all the world – and ruler of all men R" childish? really? Why do you call adaptation evolution, this is NOT evolution. Change is not evolution either. I suppose you don't read Creation Science information?CREATION SCIIENCE is not a science by definitionScience is published and offered for peer review so other scientist can fact check you and review your math CREATION SCIENCE is not published – you could not find access to Dr Brown’s science But you could buy his book of $70USD – still not published science – just a book about that science All you had access to were articles by creationist about Brown’s work It is INSULTING to call it science – it is not – it is a propaganda mill supporting a specific doctrine I have ZERO respect for ICR – it team – and its publications Everyone educated that reads any of their propaganda - has the same conclusion Christianity is BUNK fueled by MYTH – and here id the Creation Institute proving itD" If you really want to have this discussion – answer my question Why is Day 7 is not 24hrs but days 1-6 must be I read you answer – blah blah blah I can quote you as to 6 24hr days – no polysemy – this is your view At least you came off you absolutism that all that days were longer – so how long were they? Are you a young earth supporter of not? R" Yes correct nice summary of my view You say it's impossible to divide a kingdom into two, but the tree of ra and tov was created by GOD as two kingdoms from the beginning, so in this sense is not divided. Nice try to change the topic You have two opposing strong authorities that hate each otherYou claim Ezk 28 mandates that an loyal angel turned against God and divided Hid Kingdom and Rev 12:4 mandate your satan was flowed by 1/3 of all God’s angels and Rev 12:7 mandate a war against God = your Great Controversy between two strong authorities I don’t say this type of kingdom cannot stand Jesus did – is he to be doubted?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2021 1:22:58 GMT -5
"I have ZERO respect for ICR – it team – and its publications"
Sorry you feel that way Dave. I love Johnathon Sarfetti, and the other Creation Science team. (not to be confused with Ken Ham from the USA, I think of Creation something too? )
Creation Science is based in Queensland Australia, not the USA.
D" Are you a young earth supporter of not?
R" I am. However the yom days of time can look old because of relativity, time can be stretched, according the the Jew Professor Schroeder. There is a Hebrew text on this
Ge 2:4 ¶ These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
Generations of time in a day they were created? How is this possible? Time can be stretched, it's called relativity, as as Einstein suggested.
SO the earth is only less than 6,000 years old, but in terms of relativity, the time span could be longer, but still 6,000 yom days have passed.
When earth moves away from other references of light, the time is stretched and so things seem older than they really are. Words from my Jewish professor.
If there is no great controversy Dave, why did Jesus die for our sins? Why can't GOD forgive us without a death process, after all GOD put mankind on a planet with archons GOD designed with SELF, so their sinning obviously would rub off unto Adam sooner or later.
The archons are not going to die for being SELFISH are they? God keeps the archons living forever with SELF, doesn't He?, despite obvious sinning they do or don't do as sinning, is this correct according to you?
Why did GOD create RA according to you?
If GOD creates RA, than GOD can uncreate RA, or NOT create RA. SO according to you, why does RA exist in the first place?
I suspect creating archons with SELF, is creating them with RA, is this a fair idea according to you?
Why would God create something evil?
Your GOD created a flawed world, makes no sense to me? Explain how something less than perfect is something a perfect GOD would create?
Are these the kind of questions Gnostic supporters get, from questioners like myself? The God you follow makes no sense, if both the evil and the good comes from the same heavenly Strong Authority.
Shalom
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Mar 1, 2021 4:58:01 GMT -5
"I have ZERO respect for ICR – it team – and its publications" Sorry you feel that way Dave. I love Johnathon Sarfetti, and the other Creation Science team. (not to be confused with Ken Ham from the USA, I think of Creation something too? ) Creation Science is based in Queensland Australia, not the USA. You do not know what you speak – we have been over this before – yet you cling to failed references (wiki) In October 2005 Ken Ham separated the US and UK AIG offices from the other offices.[3] In early 2006, the Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa re-branded as "Creation Ministries International".
Sorry Robert – all creation science is based upon the “science” of Dr Walter Brown His science is not published for peer review - (opposed to the term science) And when it is peer reviewed it is always discredited
There is no such thing as a stand alone science Every theory in science is built uopn multiple held premises from multiple scientific disciplines The science of biology is always in agreement with the science of chemistry - chemistry always agrees with the science of physics - and physics is always in agreement with mathamatics The only way Creation Science as presented by Dr Brown is valid - is if all these other sciences must be in error This is why Creation Science is not available for peer review - it does not stand scrutiny
One the one hand you support Dr Brown and on the other hand you speak of adaptive-evolution
Creation Science is not science - it is a religeous doctrine There is no such thing as evolution in any form
D" Are you a young earth supporter of not? R" I am. However the yom days of time can look old because of relativity, time can be stretched, according the the Jew Professor Schroeder. There is a Hebrew text on this Your doctrine is not consistant You flip flopped – from 6 24hr days into a position of relativity saying time is not linear When I said this – you could not possibly fathom what I meant by time is not linear Now you use it to get yourself out of a doctrinal corner Your doctrine is not consistent – if you have the convictions you claim to have – why are you not consistant?
Ge 2:4 ¶ These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, Generations of time in a day they were created? Generations does not refer to time – I do not accept your argument Generations means many cycles of birth-life-death-and rebirth
If there is no great controversy Dave, why did Jesus die for our sins? Because man is a sinner – because man fails to obey God once given the choice All men are born perfect – all men choose yester ra – because all men are animals Jesus died to save man from himself – to save man from physicality
Why can't GOD forgive us without a death process, Enoch and Elijah would prove that God can save us without the death process
after all GOD put mankind on a planet with archons GOD designed with SELF, so their sinning (selfishness) obviously would rub off unto Adam sooner or later. Or God placed man and archon together - so that man could witness to this world as scripture says Jer 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
The archons are not going to die for being SELFISH are they? God keeps the archons living forever with SELF, doesn't He?, despite obvious sinning they do or don't do as sinning, is this correct according to you? The more you speak – the more you prove that you do not know scripture – Please read your Bible sometime Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are,
Why did GOD create RA according to you? According to scripture Isa 45:7 I form light and create darkness. I make shalom and create calamity. I, Adonai, do all these things. God does all these things because he is God – and he does all these things Col 1:16 For by Him all things were created—in heaven and on earth, the seen and the unseen, whether thrones or angelic powers or rulers or authorities. All was created through Him and for Him. Col 1:17 He exists before everything, and in Him all holds together. FOR HIM – BY HIM
I suspect creating archons with SELF, is creating them with RA, is this a fair idea according to you? Why are cows, cockroaches, ants, flies, all ra to you? Are cows evil? I agree the archon were made with SELF – I agree
Why would God create something evil? Adam and Eve both suffered from SELF – why would God make them you ask? To offer them an opportunity to be the PRODIGAL SON
Your GOD created a flawed world, makes no sense to me? Explain how something less than perfect is something a perfect GOD would create? Then why did God make man less than perfect? You question why God would make man – something less than perfect If man would only be perfect – love would not be bi-lateral / bi-directional If man would only be perfect – than man is the Son that never left home If man would be only perfect – man would not be given the CHOICE to choose God If man would only be perfect – man would be a robot And there could be zero opportunity to become the Prodigal Son
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2021 14:13:25 GMT -5
D" One the one hand you support Dr Brown and on the other hand you speak of adaptive-evolution
Creation Science is not science - it is a religeous doctrine There is no such thing as evolution in any formR let's start a new thread, and discuss what you mean? Who is Dr Brown? correct there is no such thing as evolution in any form. I agree. R Why would God create something evil?D" Adam and Eve both suffered from SELF – why would God make them you ask? To offer them an opportunity to be the PRODIGAL SON
R" so are you saying GOD created SELF in Adam and Eve before they sinned, disobeying GOD's command to eat fruit from the wrong tree? You do not see self as ra or evil or the fruit of sin do you? D" Then why did God make man less than perfect?R" Who says God made man less perfect? I say God made man perfect. D" If man would only be perfect – love would not be bi-lateral / bi-directionalR" Why must love be defined your way? Love comes in two froms in the Hebrew, not one form as you imply. D" If man would only be perfect – than man is the Son that never left homeR" correct. the man who never left home. had no reason to know sin. The prodigal son did know sin, and returned to give up sinning. D" If man would be only perfect – man would not be given the CHOICE to choose GodR" The son who never left home had choice, He chose not to leave home. D" If man would only be perfect – man would be a robotR" The son who never left home was no robot. He just never chose to exercise His free will D" And there could be zero opportunity to become the Prodigal SonR" The son who never left home had opportunity to leave home and experience sin, but chose not so experience sin. He had opportunity but chose not to. Shalom
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Mar 2, 2021 17:55:05 GMT -5
R" so are you saying GOD created SELF in Adam and Eve before they sinned, disobeying GOD's command to eat fruit from the wrong tree? You do not see self as ra or evil or the fruit of sin do you?
All biology comes with a program for self-preservation – it is inherent to biology – a bi-product of biology
1- man was created in the first age Gen 1:1-5
Gen 2:4 (TLV) These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
Gen 2:4 (KJV) These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, All the HOST of heaven was created on DAY 1 – the same day as the heaven and earth was created
Gen 2:4 (OJB) These are the toledot of HaShomayim and of Ha'Aretz when they were created, in the Yom that Hashem Elohim made Eretz v’Shomayim, H8435 - תֹּלְדָה תּוֹלְדָה - tôledâh From H3205; (plural only) descent, that is, family; (figuratively) history: - birth, generations.
Eph 3:15 (TLV) from Him every family in heaven and on earth receives its name. Eph 3:15 (KJV) Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,
BOOM - There is your family of all that is in heaven and earth Trinity + angels +archon + man (Adamus the perfect race of spiritual man) All before the first plant – first fish – first fowl – first beast – and first man Gen 1:26-27
2- At conception – spiritual man is place by God into biological conception Spiritual man become the SOUL of that biological conception Spirit/Soul knows = yester tov + Self-preservation instinct come with biology = yester ra
Man = (spirit man +(animal man)) Man is the only creature created by God like this Man is the only creature that is aware of both tov and ra (tree of Knowledge) Man is the only creature that can choose – between the tov and the ra
R" Who says God made man less perfect? I say God made man perfect. Man PROVED that he was not perfect because he choose to sin / disobey God All men are sinners
D"If man would only be perfect – love would not be bi-lateral / bi-directional R" Why must love be defined your way? Love comes in two froms in the Hebrew, not one form as you imply. The love from God is unrequited – he loves us even when we don’t love him back Unrequited love is unidirectional – it comes from one and flows to another The Prodigal Son loves the Father back The love of the Prodigal son is genuine, something the man chose all on his own Now love is bi-directional and complete God loves the Prodigal Son and the Son reciprocates that love back to God
D"If man would only be perfect – than man is the Son that never left home R" correct. the man who never left home. had no reason to know sin. The prodigal son did know sin, and returned to give up sinning. Correct and the Prodigal Son is Rewarded – the son that stayed home gets to help praise the Son that knew the difference and choose God all on his own
D"If man would be only perfect – man would not be given the CHOICE to choose God R" The son who never left home had choice, He chose not to leave home. Well – saying this to a Jew would mean that the son that stayed home never took his commission / his assignment / his function – Jer 1:5 go forth and witness A Jew might say – shame on the soon that failed to fulfill his families’ obligation/ personal obligation
D"If man would only be perfect – man would be a robot R" The son who never left home was no robot. He just never chose to exercise His free will Correct - – saying this to a Jew would mean that the son that stayed home never took his commission / his assignment / his function – Jer 1:5 go forth and witness A Jew might say – shame on the soon that failed to fulfill his families’ obligation/ personal obligation
D"And there could be zero opportunity to become the Prodigal Son R" The son who never left home had opportunity to leave home and experience sin, but chose not so experience sin. He had opportunity but chose not to. – saying this to a Jew would mean that the son that stayed home never took his commission / his assignment / his function – Jer 1:5 go forth and witness A Jew might say – shame on the soon that failed to fulfill his families’ obligation/ personal obligation
I guess it all depends on what you consider the function of one who follows Christ Jesus says we are to witness to the world in every way / anyway we can Why – because we are to love our fellow man as He has loved us He witnessed to us and saved us If we are seeking first the Kingdom of God and loving our fellow man as He did
Then we are fulfilling our commission / assignment / function
Jer 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
Christ came from God – witnessed while He souljourned – died and returned to the Father Gnostics ate called to be a Christ – From God we came – with the commission to witness while we souljourn – then to die and return to God
|
|