One Verse At A Time...

[Amanda]

But it's still interesting that the Noah story is so widespread, it's very much like urban legends like the "cat in the microwave" etc. Everyone knows the story, but know one really knows when/where/who, and we could give the lady and the cat a name to make the story more believable, but still it's just a legend.

 

Not only widespread, but the similarities between the Gilgamesh flood story (written around 2700 BC if memory serves me correctly) and Noah are indisputable.

 

I think that there may be a tendency to build a myth or allegory surrounding an actual event. This may have given emphasis to the moral of the story, IDK. It may just serve to comfort the mind to know how it happened and feel some control over it happening again, providing everyone alligned with the moral of the story... again IDK. I now believe that the Noah's Flood is an allegory and NOT a true fact. (Yet I must admit there was a time I thought it really happened. *sigh*) However, considering that these accounts of this event is after the last ice age, glaciers melting rather quickly, there seems there was a great flood according to the information here. Good luck finding the ark though.

 

5600 BC Noah's flood (?); catastrophic flood of the Black Sea (science);

With rising global sea levels, salt water from the Mediterranean and Aegean seas apparently burst into the Black Sea, then a landlocked freshwater lake. The Black Sea rose with terrifying swiftness, inundating more than 60,000 square miles of coastal plains and giving the body of water its current size and configuration. ("Plumbing Black Sea for Proof of the Deluge")

 

Geological research finds reason to believe there was indeed a vast, sudden, and deadly flood around 5600 B.C., close enough to the possible time of Noah to fascinate biblical literalists and liberals alike. ("Noah's Flood: The New Scientific Discoveries About the Event That Changed History" by William Ryan and Walter Pitman, adjunct geology professors at Columbia University and senior scientists at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory)

[Open_Minded]

And this doesn't even begin to address conflicts in the Noah story between the YAHWIST and Priestly verses.....

O_M...Can you please clarify here. I'd love to know to what you are referring to specifically. Perhaps I'm already aware of the discrepancies but just am not aware of it in the context of your post above. Are you referring to the clean/unclean animals?

 

Sure Serenity:

 

Check out the following link explaining the documentary hypothesis. In essense, most mainstream scholars (both Hebrew and Christian) feel that the OT is a compilation of many different oral and written traditions. Literary clues abound with conflicts between different versions of the same story, doublets and triplets of the same events/story/themes, etc...

 

http://www.answers.com/topic/documentary-hypothesis

 

In regard to the flood story - scholars feel that two traditions make up that story. The YAHWIST (J) tradition and the Priestly (P) tradition. Following is a quote from that site:

 

The flood story in Genesis appears to claim that 2 of all kinds of animal went on the ark, but also that 7 of certain kinds went on, and that the flood lasted a year, but also lasted only 40 days.

 

Following is some information from my own personal records.

 

J – YAHWIST VERSES

Condition of world; God’s decision 6:5-8

Instruction about ark and animals 7:1-5

Boarding the ark as flood begins 7:7-8, 10, 12, 16b

The flood itself 7:17, 22-23

The end of the flood 8:2b-3a, 6-12, 13b

God’s promise 8:20-22

 

P - PRIESTLY VERSES

Condition of world; God’s decision 6:9-13

Instruction about ark and animals 6:14-22

Boarding the ark as flood begins 7:6, 9, 11, 13-16a

The flood itself 7:18-21, 24

The end of the flood 8:1-2a, 3b-5, 13a, 14-19

God’s promise 9:1-7

 

 

 

 

Does this answer your question?

 

More appropriate to the thread... Can Sub explain the conflicts in a legitimate way?

[Ouroboros]

And this doesn't even begin to address conflicts in the Noah story between the YAHWIST and Priestly verses.....

 

But... I'm sure Sub has a good explanation for it all

Yeah, the stories are similar enough so a Young Earth apologist/literalist would claim "See, the Noah story must be true." Which still can be disputed. But what's really important to see is that the oral tradition of the story had been corrupted so much, which you can see from all the hundreds of versions of the Noah story, that we know that the Adam&Eve story must have been twisted from its original version too, and many, many more of the stories in the Bible. There could be some truth to the stories still, but they've been modified and redesigned so many times that no one really knows the true story.

 

 

Thanks for the link Amanda.

 

I do think the Noah story is build on a true event, but not like the Bible depicts it. And Amanda, you're not alone, I used to believe too that the flood was global and the story in the Bible was literally true.

 

I saw a TV documentary once about Noah, and the team had pieced together the stories into the most likely story. Noah was a merchant, having a boat already from start, that he used for trading. He had livestock and his family living on the boat. And during a localized flood, he managed to escape the devestation, while all the villages got destroyed. He then thanked the gods for saving him.

[thunderbolt]

And this doesn't even begin to address conflicts in the Noah story between the YAHWIST and Priestly verses.....

 

But... I'm sure Sub has a good explanation for it all

Yeah, the stories are similar enough so a Young Earth apologist/literalist would claim "See, the Noah story must be true." Which still can be disputed. But what's really important to see is that the oral tradition of the story had been corrupted so much, which you can see from all the hundreds of versions of the Noah story, that we know that the Adam&Eve story must have been twisted from its original version too, and many, many more of the stories in the Bible. There could be some truth to the stories still, but they've been modified and redesigned so many times that no one really knows the true story.

They don't believe in the JEPD hypothesis, and they will just say it's junk research and wishful thinking. You ought to know by now; anything that disputes the claims of the is Bible junk research. So whilst this makes sense to you and me on an intellectual level, it's just not going to wash with them - or as Robert Turdel (aka Tektonics) say "it was just the way the ancients wrote" (paraphrased). Yeah sure!

[Open_Minded]

But... I'm sure Sub has a good explanation for it all

 

You ought to know by now; anything that disputes the claims of the is Bible junk research. So whilst this makes sense to you and me on an intellectual level, it's just not going to wash with them - or as Robert Turdel (aka Tektonics) say "it was just the way the ancients wrote" (paraphrased). Yeah sure!

 

.... as I said, "I'm sure Sub has a good explanation for it all.

 

From the website linked to earlier in my post to Serenity: http://www.answers.com/topic/documentary-hypothesis

 

The documentary hypothesis is a hypothesis proposed by many historians and academics in the field of linguistics and source criticism that the Five Books of Moses (the Torah) are in fact a combination of documents from different sources rather than authored by one individual. Although the hypothesis is widely accepted (the Vatican itself estimates that 90% of academics in the field of biblical scholarship support it), it has a number of critics.

 

90% of academics in the field of biblical scholarship support the hypothesis. 90%.... but .... Ahhh you're right. Sub will say it's "junk research". I guess "beam them up Scotty" makes more sense.

[Ouroboros]

Wow! 90%!

 

Unfortunately it's the 10% of the cog-wheels that squeaks most.

[thunderbolt]

Friedman's Who Wrote the Bible is a very good resource on this - but thanks for the link.

[Open_Minded]

Just a thought....

 

Why is it that 90% of the academics in OT scholarship accept documentary hypothesis and 10% of the "academics" make most of the noise and get most of the influence in the way the Bible is treated?

 

Just a thought....

 

Why is it that 90% of the academics in OT scholarship accept documentary hypothesis and 10% of the "academics" make most of the noise and get most of the influence in the way the Bible is treated?

 

 

HanSolo.... you beat me to it... but the question is valid....

[thunderbolt]

Just a thought....

 

Why is it that 90% of the academics in OT scholarship accept documentary hypothesis and 10% of the "academics" make most of the noise and get most of the influence in the way the Bible is treated?

Because they are ideologues driven more by a political agenda than faith, as has always been the case with literalist movements. Such as Mohammed – from mystic to mobster. And Gnostics to literalist Christians under decree from the emperor by sword …

[Open_Minded]

Just a thought....

 

Why is it that 90% of the academics in OT scholarship accept documentary hypothesis and 10% of the "academics" make most of the noise and get most of the influence in the way the Bible is treated?

Because they are ideologues driven more by a political agenda than faith, as has always been the case with literalist movements. Such as Mohammed – from mystic to mobster. And Gnostics to literalist Christians under decree from the emperor by sword …

 

You're so... right

 

Some days ago I started a thread in the News and Current Events forum titled: Democrats In 2 Southern States Push Bills On Bible Study, Debate over a text book: The Bible and Its Influence

 

Link: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=6720

 

The long and short of it is that there is a new text book out on the market: The Bible and Its Influence

 

Public School systems are looking at it as a way to teach the influence of Christian religion on American culture.

 

Following is a quote from one review of the book by The Society of Biblical Literature:

 

The "down side" of the attribution approach is that this textbook does not engage in what most SBL members would consider academic study of the Bible. There is no real critical analysis concerning such matters as authorship, date, and historicity of biblical books. The treatment of the biblical material is essentially a superficial summary of content. Statements in the text are, for the most part, accepted at face value without the recognition that such acceptance is in itself an interpretation. Thus, Gen 2:4b-25 is referred to as the second part of the Genesis creation account (p. 31). Similarly, there is no reference to source division of the flood story or to Mesopotamian parallels. No historical problems relating to the Joseph-exodus-conquest sequence — or any other part of the Bible, for that matter — are mentioned....

 

90% fricken percent of Biblical scholars accept the documentary hypothesis and because of the political power of the few.... discussion of authorship is left out of a classroom text book.

 

Not the first time .... I know.... but still.... :angry:

[crazy-tiger]

90% fricken percent of Biblical scholars accept the documentary hypothesis and because of the political power of the few.... discussion of authorship is left out of a classroom text book.

 

Not the first time .... I know.... but still.... :angry:

Maybe we should start insisting that they "teach the controversy"?

[Open_Minded]

90% fricken percent of Biblical scholars accept the documentary hypothesis and because of the political power of the few.... discussion of authorship is left out of a classroom text book.

 

Not the first time .... I know.... but still.... :angry:

Maybe we should start insisting that they "teach the controversy"?

 

Wouldn't that be nice... wouldn't it be great to see the "liberal" media do a piece on this new text book and address this issue??

 

Hell... they could easily get several scholars to talk about the controversy over teaching students the reality of Biblical scholarship.

 

How about you, Sub? What do you think.... 90% of Biblical scholars... hmmm. Don't you think we should really be teaching public school students how to read the Bible "One verse at a time"?

 

I for one - as a Christian - would support such a curriculum

[Amanda]

I do think the Noah story is build on a true event, but not like the Bible depicts it. And Amanda, you're not alone, I used to believe too that the flood was global and the story in the Bible was literally true.

 

I saw a TV documentary once about Noah, and the team had pieced together the stories into the most likely story. Noah was a merchant, having a boat already from start, that he used for trading. He had livestock and his family living on the boat. And during a localized flood, he managed to escape the devestation, while all the villages got destroyed. He then thanked the gods for saving him.

 

HanSolo, before I went to seminary... I had a similar mindset to fundamentalism, not an enthusiastic one by any means. Anyway, I saw this show that showed the building of the ark, just like the Bible had said... and they showed that the discription of it as dipicted in the Bible would be perfectly sound for the journey! I was convinced!

 

Then in seminary, my teacher kept telling me his opinion of the Noah's Ark was just an allegory... I really respected my teacher, but I always doubted that... till I came here. When I started thinking of it rationally... Serenity Now kept challenging me, although I still believe in the moral :wink: , and Mythra started posting all these myth's through the ages, and I saw how people ran wild with the real St. Nicholas story to what it is today, I didn't believe in supernatural occurrences... I finally realized, it's not real logical that Noah could know ahead of time... that much, nor that he could get 2 of every animal, and considered the plants too... even if the flood didn't cover the entire world, which I always doubted. I finally decided you all and my teacher are probably very right.

 

Okay, Okay... you guys may have convinced me there... and I still think my beliefs are always refining. However, I just found this quote today that I really liked:

 

I am not one who was born in the possession of knowledge; I am the one who is fond of antiquity, and earnest in seeking it there. -Confucius

[Guest sub_zer0]

Once again I don't think you can read

And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD

 

What part of "they teach no more" and "for they shall all know me", do you not understand. No one need to be taught about God, since he is gonna be in personal contact with everybody?

 

Please explain to me how the NC has come to pass if the House of Isreal and House of Judah has not accepted it?

 

But how will they be able to "teach no more"? Through "every man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD' that is how the "least of them unto the greates of them".

 

The only way they will ever be able to "teach no more" and "all shall know me" is by "every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD"!

 

Well when you say that, it just displays the faithfulness of God to continue with absolute certainty (verses 35-36). This New Covenant would not be conditional like the Mosaic Covenant.

 

Which part of it is talking about Messiah?

 

Well you see when it states "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it;"... The words "My law" are referncing Christ. Like I have stated before the OT implicitly states what the NT explicitly states.

 

Once again the verse doesn't say that "MORE PEOPLE" will know about God. It says all will know him.

 

I have already explained the verse.

 

The convenant makes no mention of such a thing

 

You are arguing that the passage states "ALL WILL KNOW HIM" and now you state it doesn't any such thing?

 

Once again no accused anyone of stealing.

 

Lev 19:9-10, makes no mention of such about you working with sabbath. The Disciples were Jewish and they were not picking up corns from the ground.

 

Leviticus 19:9-10 (New International Version)

 

9 " 'When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. 10 Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God.

 

BTW, what nice morals, let the poor and aliens eat the crap from the ground

 

The point is the disciples and Jesus were not in the wrong because they were not working on the Sabbath. Besides the Sabbath is not binding to us any longer. The point of Christ not breaking it is to show how He fulfilled it.

 

So if you have faith you should do the "works", right?I don't see you doing any "works", does that mean you lack faith

 

I am spreading the very thing that I have faith in and with that faith produce works. That faith is in Jesus Christ. Do you not see my works of spreading His name staring at you in the face?

 

Matthew 7:3

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"

 

Luke 1:5-6

There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.

And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

Job 1

1There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

 

So you were saying something about men not living up to God's expection.

 

When dealing with the Mosaic Covenant established with Israel not Job or any other individual, you have to realize that the nation of Israel did not live up to Gods expectation!

 

Isaiah 24:5

The earth is defiled by its people; they have disobeyed the laws, violated the statutes and broken the everlasting covenant.

 

Jeremiah 11:10

They have returned to the sins of their forefathers, who refused to listen to my words. They have followed other gods to serve them. Both the house of Israel and the house of Judah have broken the covenant I made with their forefathers.

 

You mean to say God lived up to his own expectations fully?

 

Jesus did not live upto the full expection, and we were discussing this another thread. Please answer the question about baptism which is illegal to do according to the OT.

 

No, one who is God and human lived up to expectations. Jesus was tempted just like every one of us is to sin, but He didn't, that is what seperates Him from us.

 

Apart from the fact that sacrifices had to be free of blemish, it was also an animal, and it was supposed to sacrifced at the altar.

 

Jesus did not fulfill any of the requirement, on the other hand he was bruised and beaten up, so that outright diqualifies to be valid sacrifice.

 

Those blemishes were to symbolize sin. If there was sin then there were blemishes. The blemishes were not meaning as physical wounds but the perfect nature of the sacrifice, spotless, blameless, innocent.

 

No it is not, the servant is clearly identified as a nation of Isreal in Is 52.

 

You are missing the point of it. Isaiah 52:13-53:12 is a prediction of the sufferings of Christ in connection with His crucifixion. The result will be, however, that blessings will extend to many nations (verse 15; Romans 15:21).

[thunderbolt]

But how will they be able to "teach no more"? Through "every man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD' that is how the "least of them unto the greates of them".

 

The only way they will ever be able to "teach no more" and "all shall know me" is by "every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD"!

 

Well when you say that, it just displays the faithfulness of God to continue with absolute certainty (verses 35-36). This New Covenant would not be conditional like the Mosaic Covenant.

Just out of curiosity, how long did it take you to move the punctuation and to restructure the sentence to say what YOU want it to say, instead of allowing it to say what it actually DOES?

 

Please do us a favor and familiarize yourself with Hebrew, or point us to any Hebrew resource that translates the second part to mean that there will be an “every man teaching his brother to know the Lord” interpretation. Not a single Bible translation opts to move the punctuation in the way you have chosen to get around this failed prophecy.

 

It's not what those verses are saying in context, no matter how much you twist it to say that, and what you are doing is simply dishonest. So, listen up:

 

And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD

 

Is a unit of words to state that NO MORE TEACHING will be done in the new covenant, and the very fact that there are churches is a violation of this part of the prophecy, why?

 

Because

 

for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD

 

Did you notice? This first part will be done away with, so that the second part can be fulfilled - that’s why there is a “for” in the sentence. The fact that any evangelization takes place shows us that Christ did not fulfill this prophecy.

[SkepticOfBible]

 

And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them,

 

But how will they be able to "teach no more"? Through "every man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD' that is how the "least of them unto the greates of them".

 

The only way they will ever be able to "teach no more" and "all shall know me" is by "every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD"!

 

Oh my god,

 

You are just like the author of Matthew. You just don't seem to understand HEBREW PARALLELISM

 

Parallelism in Hebrew Writing(Christian Website)

 

Another feature that is sometimes included within the idea of parallelism is the use of several words or a series of words to refer to the same thing for emphasis. For example, the well known passage of Deuteronomy 6:5 uses a series of three words: "You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might." Here the terms heart, soul, and might do not refer to separate parts of a person, but are actually synonymous, referring simply to the person

 

So similarly "The every man his neighour" and "every man his brother" are not seperate sentences.

 

The verse saying no one will not teach neither his brother nor his neighbour about God, because God will know each one "least of them unto the greates of them" personally.

 

Well when you say that, it just displays the faithfulness of God to continue with absolute certainty (verses 35-36). This New Covenant would not be conditional like the Mosaic Covenant.

 

the OT covenant was eternal one. This new covenant is nothing more than a renewal of the contract, but this time it will be more "borg" like.

 

Well you see when it states "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it;"... The words "My law" are referncing Christ. Like I have stated before the OT implicitly states what the NT explicitly states.

 

So in other words, you are saying that the verse isn't saying that what it actually says.

 

So every time when God said to his people "follow the law", he meant "follow christ", and each time when he said "you broke my law", god really meant "you broke christ". Do you realise how stupid this sounds to a Jew?

 

Why can't you honestly admit that the OT does support the idea that the law represented the messiah, and that it doesn't say anything about faith in self sacrifice of messiah?

 

 

I have already explained the verse.

You have explained nothing, on the contrary you have tried to retrofit your christ/messiah when there is nothing mentioned about it.

 

You are arguing that the passage states "ALL WILL KNOW HIM" and now you state it doesn't any such thing?

No I am not. I am saying that the passage doesn't mention anything that you said.

 

The point of the New Covenant is to make it possible to spread the word all over the earth.

 

There is no need of the word to be spread to the world, since god will be in direct contact with all.

 

The point is the disciples and Jesus were not in the wrong because they were not working on the Sabbath. Besides the Sabbath is not binding to us any longer. The point of Christ not breaking it is to show how He fulfilled it.

 

Wait a second, you said that christ did not break the sabbath, and you tell us to follow in christ footsteps. Wouldn't keeping the sabbath means that you following in his footsteps?

 

So once again by saying that the "sabbath is not binding on us", you are mocking one of God's 10 commandments, and god's eternal law?

 

And yet christians want to display them in public. Why do you observe the sabbath on sunday when it is a pagan holiday?

 

You are also declaring that the God of the bible practices moral relativism.

 

You still haven't shown me a single verse that supports the assetion God's Laws aren't in binding on it's followers in certain times?

 

The OT repeated states that in NC, laws will be followed completely. You also don't want to listen to Jesus when he says that fathers laws/will should be obeyed.

 

You worship Paul and his ideas about God, not God.

 

I am spreading the very thing that I have faith in and with that faith produce works. That faith is in Jesus Christ. Do you not see my works of spreading His name staring at you in the face?

 

Look man, I showed the verses which directly mentions that those who have faith and the holy spirit will do the "works" of following the law. That is how righteousness is achieved. You are showing me signs of neither.

 

When the NT says that in the end times, each person would be rewarded according to the "works", does it means that you will rewarded on the basis of number of people you got to christ?Seems like a brownie point system of reward to me.

 

Does belief in JC gives you a licence to sin?

 

If not then why do keep saying that you don't have to follow god's moral law as defined by the OT?

 

When dealing with the Mosaic Covenant established with Israel not Job or any other individual, you have to realize that the nation of Israel did not live up to Gods expectation!

The fact that the Israelites didn't always keep the laws does not mean God did away with some of them.

 

This would be like a town removing the traffic lights at intersections because some people ran red lights and broke the law.

 

The new covenant, which you Christians are fond of proclaiming that they are living under, says absolutely nothing about some laws being canceled.

 

Jesus was tempted just like every one of us is to sin,

 

Please explain to me how can a god who created everything, be tempted?

 

What can you tempt him with?

 

This is like trying to sell MSDos to Bill Gates.

 

Did you ever realise how absurd this sounds?

 

Those blemishes were to symbolize sin.

 

Verse from the OT please. Or did God forgot to mention this detail too?

 

The blemishes were not meaning as physical wounds

 

Lev 4:3

" 'If the anointed priest sins, bringing guilt on the people, he must bring to the LORD a young bull without defect as a sin offering for the sin he has committed.

 

Lev 4:23

When he is made aware of the sin he committed, he must bring as his offering a male goat without defect

 

Lev 4:32

 

'If he brings a lamb as his sin offering, he is to bring a female without defect"

 

Lev 22:22

"Do not offer to the LORD the blind, the injured or the maimed, or anything with warts or festering or running sores. Do not place any of these on the altar as an offering made to the LORD by fire."

 

Seems to clear to me that it is talking about physical blemishes, and almost all the bible commentary I have read say the same thing.

 

It doesn't mention anything about the nature of the animal, nor does it indicate that the wounds should be considered anything but literal.

 

You are missing the point of it. Isaiah 52:13-53:12 is a prediction of the sufferings of Christ in connection with His crucifixion. The result will be, however, that blessings will extend to many nations (verse 15; Romans 15:21)

 

So even though the servant is identified as Isreal, you still want to proclaim that this is messianic prophecy. Please explain to me in the prophecy thread as to why it is messianic prophecy.

 

I have a few questions for you. Please answer them honestly.

 

Why do work backwards when reading the bible?Do you do the same when read the mormon bible?Have you ever seen any other book do like this?

 

Do you rule out the possibility that the NT could be wrong in it's interpretation of the OT?

 

Do you want to claim that Paul was infallible just like God?

 

Couldn't christianity be nothing more than a cult of Judaism?

 

Have you ever DARED to visit any good counter missionary websites, or atleast contacted a local rabbi?

[SkepticOfBible]

Well when you say that, it just displays the faithfulness of God to continue with absolute certainty (verses 35-36). This New Covenant would not be conditional like the Mosaic Covenant.

 

I forgot to ask,

 

How is the NC not a conditional contract, when it clearly states that this NC is addressed at the House of Isreal and Judah. Isn't the acceptence of the NC by these houses, a condition by itself?

 

What were the conditional terms of the Mosiac(God's) covenant?

[Open_Minded]

 

Hi Sub...

 

From the website linked to earlier in my post to Serenity: http://www.answers.com/topic/documentary-hypothesis

 

The documentary hypothesis is a hypothesis proposed by many historians and academics in the field of linguistics and source criticism that the Five Books of Moses (the Torah) are in fact a combination of documents from different sources rather than authored by one individual. Although the hypothesis is widely accepted (

the Vatican itself estimates that 90% of academics in the field of biblical scholarship support it

), it has a number of critics.

.......

 

How about you, Sub? What do you think.... 90% of Biblical scholars... hmmm. Don't you think we should really be teaching public school students how to read the Bible "One verse at a time"?

 

I for one - as a Christian - would support such a curriculum

 

AAAND......

 

You're right there White_Raven, I'm still waiting to learn:

 

1. How Moses could write about his own death?

2. And how Noah was able to round up, load, carry and feed a pair of every single type of animal on the Ark - without the Ark drowning &/or animals dying?

 

I'm still here and I'm not going away.....

 

Hey Pritishd.... I admire your staying power.

[scotter]

 

You are missing the point of it. Isaiah 52:13-53:12 is a prediction of the sufferings of Christ in connection with His crucifixion. The result will be, however, that blessings will extend to many nations (verse 15; Romans 15:21).

 

Isaiah 53:10: "he shall see his offspring". Tell me who Jesus's son is?

[SkepticOfBible]

Hey Sub_zero,

I responded to your OT proof of "trinity' here

 

Hey Pritishd.... I admire your staying power.

That's ok.

 

Everybody(including christians) can see who is staying true to the "word of god", and who is not. It is quite amazing to see him make tons of excuses as to why he shouldn't follow god's law, and yet christians like him will not hesitate to condemn others.

[Guest sub_zer0]

Oh my god,

 

You are just like the author of Matthew. You just don't seem to understand HEBREW PARALLELISM

 

Another feature that is sometimes included within the idea of parallelism is the use of several words or a series of words to refer to the same thing for emphasis. For example, the well known passage of Deuteronomy 6:5 uses a series of three words: "You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might." Here the terms heart, soul, and might do not refer to separate parts of a person, but are actually synonymous, referring simply to the person

 

So similarly "The every man his neighour" and "every man his brother" are not seperate sentences.

 

The verse saying no one will not teach neither his brother nor his neighbour about God, because God will know each one "least of them unto the greates of them" personally.

 

34"They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the LORD, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."

 

Let's go over this verse one step at a time. Firstly let me mention the main points of Jeremiah.

 

1) Israel broke the Old Covenant (Jeremiah 7:21-26; 11:1-13) and God will establish, one day, a new covenant with His people.

 

2) It also states that this will happen in "those days" (31, 33), the parties of the covenant will be both Israel and Judah (31); the terms of the covenant are knowledge of God and forgiveness of sin (34).

 

3) And, the most important, is the guarantee of the covenant is the rebuilt city of Jerusalem (38-40).

 

"They will not teach again"... The "they" being "each man his neighbor and each man his brother."

 

It goes on to say how they teach, by saying "Know the Lord." That will not be needed because during the new covenant ages, of which Jeremiah is speaking of, "they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them." Who might that be? It means all people, all nations will know of God! Notice how it doesn't say that just Israel will be Gods people, but all people.

 

How will they know God? Through the forgiveness of "their iniquity", likewise "their sin", in which God "will remember no more." How will they achieve forgiveness of their sins? The establishment of the covenant is by Jesus' atonement (Heb. 7:22; 8:7-13; 10:15-22).

 

the OT covenant was eternal one. This new covenant is nothing more than a renewal of the contract, but this time it will be more "borg" like.

 

You choose to describe a covenant of God as "borg like"? Anyway...

 

The fact that Jeremiah says a new covenant will be established totally negates the eternality of the covenant you are thinking of. The only way it is eternal is through Christ as He is the only one who could fulfill it.

 

So in other words, you are saying that the verse isn't saying that what it actually says.

 

So every time when God said to his people "follow the law", he meant "follow christ", and each time when he said "you broke my law", god really meant "you broke christ". Do you realise how stupid this sounds to a Jew?

 

Jeremiah is speaking of a "new covenant" that new covenant is Christ, so when it speaks of this new law, which is the new covenant that will be established with Israel and Judah through Christ, yes it points to Christ.

 

No I am not. I am saying that the passage doesn't mention anything that you said.

 

The point of the New Covenant is to make it possible to spread the word all over the earth.

 

There is no need of the word to be spread to the world, since god will be in direct contact with all.

 

Yes, God will be in direct contact with all, through the spreading of His word, Christ, all over the earth.

 

Wait a second, you said that christ did not break the sabbath, and you tell us to follow in christ footsteps. Wouldn't keeping the sabbath means that you following in his footsteps?

 

So once again by saying that the "sabbath is not binding on us", you are mocking one of God's 10 commandments, and god's eternal law?

 

And yet christians want to display them in public. Why do you observe the sabbath on sunday when it is a pagan holiday?

 

It is important to note that the point of the Sabbath was for Israel and the Jews to remember the Egyptian slavery and the Lord's deliverance from that. But remember, as Christians we are under a new covenant (New Testament) of God, Jeremiah 31. The Sabbath is never mentioned in light that we need to keep it and abide by it at all costs. The point of Jesus not breaking the Sabbath is irregardless to how we should live our lives. He abided by it to fulfill it not for us to keep it! Paul trys to convert and save the Jews of the synagogues about the Sabbath.

 

You are also declaring that the God of the bible practices moral relativism.

 

You still haven't shown me a single verse that supports the assetion God's Laws aren't in binding on it's followers in certain times?

 

I don't want to prove the assertion that God's Laws aren't in binding on the followers. I want to prove that we should be under a new covenant. And the mere fact that the OT mentions a new covenant negates the fact that the Old is eternal in the sense you think.

 

The OT repeated states that in NC, laws will be followed completely. You also don't want to listen to Jesus when he says that fathers laws/will should be obeyed.

 

You worship Paul and his ideas about God, not God.

 

I assume by God, you mean Jesus? After all Paul spoke of Jesus as God and you say to listen to Jesus. So I will assume that.

 

Where in the OT does it say that the NC laws will be followed completely?

Look man, I showed the verses which directly mentions that those who have faith and the holy spirit will do the "works" of following the law. That is how righteousness is achieved. You are showing me signs of neither.

 

I need not prove anything to you. God is my witness, not you!

 

When the NT says that in the end times, each person would be rewarded according to the "works", does it means that you will rewarded on the basis of number of people you got to christ?Seems like a brownie point system of reward to me.

 

Declaring Christ's name is brownie points?

 

Does belief in JC gives you a licence to sin?

 

If not then why do keep saying that you don't have to follow god's moral law as defined by the OT?

 

I am binded under a new covenant. And no I do not have a liscense to sin, I have the gift of forgiveness for those sins.

The fact that the Israelites didn't always keep the laws does not mean God did away with some of them.

 

This would be like a town removing the traffic lights at intersections because some people ran red lights and broke the law.

 

The new covenant, which you Christians are fond of proclaiming that they are living under, says absolutely nothing about some laws being canceled.

 

I am not saying that they, the Israelites, are under the new covenant during the times of the OT. I am saying after Christ then we all are. The fact that the Israelites didn't keep the laws meanas that God needed to have them fulfilled by one who can take its place, and be established on better promises.

Please explain to me how can a god who created everything, be tempted?

 

What can you tempt him with?

 

This is like trying to sell MSDos to Bill Gates.

 

Did you ever realise how absurd this sounds?

 

I know that does sound absurd, almost as absurd as you thinking that is what I am talking about.

 

Nobody can tempt Jesus, Satan tempted Him to sin against God, but Jesus never did. There was no iniquity found within Him.

Verse from the OT please. Or did God forgot to mention this detail too?

 

What God/Jesus did is call Himself the “Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29; John 1:36), that is in reference to Jesus being the perfect and ultimate sacrifice. In fact the whole sacrificial system established by God in the Old Testament set the stage for the coming Jesus Christ, who is the perfect sacrifice that God would provide as atonement for the sins of His people (Romans 8:3; Hebrews 10).

 

Isaiah 53 speaks of Christ!

 

Lev 4:3

" 'If the anointed priest sins, bringing guilt on the people, he must bring to the LORD a young bull without defect as a sin offering for the sin he has committed.

 

Lev 4:23

When he is made aware of the sin he committed, he must bring as his offering a male goat without defect

 

Lev 4:32

 

'If he brings a lamb as his sin offering, he is to bring a female without defect"

 

Seems to clear to me that it is talking about physical blemishes, and almost all the bible commentary I have read say the same thing.

 

It doesn't mention anything about the nature of the animal, nor does it indicate that the wounds should be considered anything but literal.

 

The physical wounds, or the lack thereof needed for sacrifice, is a symbol of sin in the persons nature, not the animals.

 

Definition of Hebrew word for "defect", is as follows:

 

1. complete, whole, entire

2. whole, sound, healthful

3. complete, entire (of time)

4. sound, wholesome, unimpaired, innocent, having integrity

5. what is complete or entirely in accord with truth and fact (neuter adj/subst)

 

Take note of the bolded parts.

 

So even though the servant is identified as Isreal, you still want to proclaim that this is messianic prophecy. Please explain to me in the prophecy thread as to why it is messianic prophecy.

 

It's a parallel. Notice how the new covenant comes out of Israel and Judah in Jeremiah....

I have a few questions for you. Please answer them honestly.

 

Why do work backwards when reading the bible?Do you do the same when read the mormon bible?Have you ever seen any other book do like this?

 

I don't work backwards, I start with Christ.

 

Do you rule out the possibility that the NT could be wrong in it's interpretation of the OT?

 

Do you want to claim that Paul was infallible just like God?

 

No, the NT and Christ in particular are right on with their interpretation of it.

 

Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit of God, nothing more.

 

Couldn't christianity be nothing more than a cult of Judaism?

 

Have you ever DARED to visit any good counter missionary websites, or atleast contacted a local rabbi?

 

Christianity, or really a relationship with Christ is the true way to go. Afterall Christ is the truth the way and the life.

 

No, I choose to let everyday people, such as yourself try.

[Asimov]

My eyes are bleeding....

 

Christianity, or really a relationship with Christ is the true way to go. Afterall Christ is the truth the way and the life.

 

Would you care to debate that with me in the Colosseum?

[NotBlinded]

 

You are missing the point of it. Isaiah 52:13-53:12 is a prediction of the sufferings of Christ in connection with His crucifixion. The result will be, however, that blessings will extend to many nations (verse 15; Romans 15:21).

 

Isaiah 53:10: "he shall see his offspring". Tell me who Jesus's son is?

I have just went back and looked at Isaiah 51 and read through to 54 and it seems obvious to me that Isaiah is speaking of Zion or Jerusalem. Going back to Isaiah 1, it states this: 1 "The vision that Isaiah son of Amoz saw regarding Judah and Jerusalem during the times of the kings of Judah: Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah." Then Isaiah 66 states this: "7 "Before she went into labor, she had the baby. Before the birth pangs hit, she delivered a son. 8 Has anyone ever heard of such a thing? Has anyone seen anything like this? A country born in a day? A nation born in a flash? But Zion was barely in labor when she had her babies! 9 Do I open the womb and not deliver the baby? Do I, the One who delivers babies, shut the womb? 10 "Rejoice, Jerusalem, and all who love her, celebrate! And all you who have shed tears over her, join in the happy singing."

 

It would appear that Isaiah frequently referred to Jerusalem as people.

[thunderbolt]

Hey Subby

 

Stop making shit up - it's getting really old.

 

The WHOLE chapter talks about the fact that God will make a new covenant with JUDAH and ISRAEL. Whoever forged the Gospels understood even this much when they tell us Jesus said he ONLY CAME for the lost house of ISRAEL. So, either way, Christians are outside the limits of this "new" covenant, and if you assert they are IN, and use this “prophecy” as proof of a new covenant, then by mere fact that you go to a church or witness invalidates the prophecy.

 

Furthermore, should you ever be intellectually honest enough to acknowledge these facts, then you would further understand that the prophecy failed even the Jewish people, as none of the prophecy was fulfilled, not in a Jewish nor a Christian context. Not Jewish, because it should have happened at the time of Jeremiah, and not Christian, because they are excluded from the covenant, no matter how much you TWIST the verses for a new covenant. The only thing Christians have that is new is Paul's dung revelation of the mystery revealed.

 

You are doing exactly what the forgers of the Gospels were doing. Reading back into the text what you WANT it to say, ignoring what it actually says. Jesus did not fulfill a single Jewish prophecy. It's time you begin to deal with the reality of it.

[Guest sub_zer0]

Hasn't happened yet.

 

It happened with Christ's death.

 

Um no. Where does the OLD TESTAMENT say that?

 

It is right there in Jeremiah 31! It says that through the forgiveness of "their iniquity", likewise "their sin", God "will remember no more."

 

Now it has stated what will happen and in the new covenant, i.e. new testament, it happened through Christ (Heb. 7:22; 8:7-13; 10:15-22)!

 

No, Sub_Zero, here you go again. Where EXACTLY does it speak of the "new" law? It does not. Just because I sign a contract for a new car doesn't mean that I can now break laws that have been established.

Jeremiah 31:33: "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it;"

 

Since "My law" is surrounded by context of the new covenant, the law it speaks of is new to mankind and Israel and Judah. It is through Christ and His fulfilment of the Old Law that makes it possible.

 

No, man will be required to travel to Jerusalem. Damn, don't you read your bible? Or do you just take the apologistst word and go from there?

 

Where does it say they will have to travel to Jerusalem when it is speaking of the new covenant (Jeremiah 31) as that is what my statement is in reference to.

 

They have Passover for that and also one set of the 3 sets of ten commandments says to remember the Sabbath because god created the world in seven days.

 

There are not 3 sets of 10 commandments there are only 10 commandments.

How can Christians have a "New Covenant" with god when they never had one to begin with?

 

It is a new covenant with Israel and Judah, but it is also the Gentile's covenant with God!

 

Thats because Jesus made clear that the Laws were not to be broken.

 

Exactly why Jesus did not break it, thus fulfilling it and thus being the ultimate sacrifice to the Old Law and enabling a new covenant to be established.

It's Renewed...ask the JEWS. It negates nothing, it PROVES the NT and everything in it should be rejected by the JEWS.

 

What is renewed, the old covenant?

 

Then why in the OT are the laws being followed still after the Messiah? Blood sacrifices, Sabbaths, Feasts, etc..... nothing you can say will change what the prophets read including Ezekial and Isaiah. Your happy ass will be required to go to Jerusalem to the Feast of Tabernacles and if you don't go, you'll be punished.

 

That makes absolutely no sense. The OT is before the Messiah! The NT is the Messiah (Jesus Christ). It is impossible to answer your question of why the laws are being followed during the OT because they were supposed to be followed before Christ, not after the new covenant (Christ.).

 

Where in the OT does it say the laws need to be fulfilled?

 

The point of the new covenant is because Israel broke the old. Look at Jeremiah 7:21-26; 11:1-13.

 

If you believe that Jesus axed the meat laws, he most certainly did too have iniquity. Anyone that taught against gods laws to the jews is treated like a FALSE PROPHET, jesus got he had coming if he even existed.

 

As far as reference to Scripture of Jesus' perfect spirit. ". . . One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin." (Hebrews 4:16)

 

The point of the meat laws and everything else was to show that Israel was unique from all nations being that beacon of the world. But Jesus never broke any laws of Old because He fulfilled the Law, not abolish it.

 

Again, then WHY will it ALL still be happening according to OT prophets DURING THE MESSIANIC REIGN? Keep in mind there Mr. Zero that if you say I'm wrong then you say the PROPHETS are wrong and if they are wrong they are FALSE PROPHETS and YOU HAVE TO NULL EVERYTHING THEY SAY.

 

Most definately the sacrifices will be started again during the 1000-year Messianic reign of Christ. After the reign of Christ a new heaven and a new earth will be created. The point of Israel re-instituting the sacrifices and the like is to show how it all comes full circle. Israel is restored to what it once was to again become that beacon of the world with Christ as its King of kings and Lord of lords.

 

Hey Subby

 

Stop making shit up - it's getting really old.

 

The WHOLE chapter talks about the fact that God will make a new covenant with JUDAH and ISRAEL. Whoever forged the Gospels understood even this much when they tell us Jesus said he ONLY CAME for the lost house of ISRAEL. So, either way, Christians are outside the limits of this "new" covenant, and if you assert they are IN, and use this “prophecy” as proof of a new covenant, then by mere fact that you go to a church or witness invalidates the prophecy.

 

Exactly a new covenant with Judah and Israel because that new covenant will come from Israel and Judah, i.e. Jesus!