Jump to content

What The Bible Is About


Recommended Posts

This is what the Bible is about: the vindication of Jehovah God's name through the ransom sacrifice of Christ Jesus. 

 

Let me explain.   

 

God created Michael first. Then Michael, as Jehovah's master worker, created everything through Jehovah's Holy Spirit or active force. The word Holy means sacred, or belonging to God. Spirit means an invisible active force, like wind, breath, mental inclination. Something that we can't see but that produces results that we can see. The first thing that was created was the spiritual heavens. This was followed by the spirit beings, often called angels. Then the physical heavens, or space as we know it, including Earth, the stars, sun and moon. Then everything on Earth eventually concluding with Adam and Eve. 

The angels existed for a very long time before man was created, and they had time to mature, like children, so that they knew what was good and bad from their creator. It is important that you understand that being created perfect is much like being born a baby. Parents see their newborn children as perfect, but think about it. They can't walk, talk, feed themselves, go to the bathroom properly - they are bald, toothless, chubby, defenseless little creatures. Perfect in the sense that they have great potential and innocence. 

By the time man was created the angels had already reached their potential. 

On the seventh day, when the creation was complete, God "rested." This doesn't mean that God was tired or that he stopped working, it means he set aside a period of time in which we were allowed to mature, as the angels had done.  When we would have accomplished this we could, as the Bible says, enter into God's day of rest. In other words, the seventh "day" or more accurately, period, of creation continues to this day.  So the knowledge of what is good and what is bad is the eventual possession of that maturity. The ability to decide for ourselves what was good and what was bad, predicated upon an acknowledgement of our own accord, of our creator, Jehovah's rightful sovereignty. 

This is why, once Adam rejected that concept by deciding for himself what was good and bad before he had matured in able to best do that, Jehovah had to shorten his life from living forever to eventually dying. Because if he and his offspring, mankind, were allowed to live forever under those conditions, they would never reach that maturity and they would bring about an endless series of chaos and destruction.

So, in effect, Satan charged Jehovah with the crime of withholding some knowledge from mankind. He knew this wasn't true, but he wanted to try and seize control of the power that Jehovah's sovereignty represented even if it meant destroying all that it represented and everything else in the process. Even destroying himself. Like a jealous child breaking a toy so no one else can have it.

But to Jehovah justice is very important. You can't just wave away a crime due to the damage that has been incurred. So he allowed the charges against him to be tried, as in a court of law. He allowed Satan's theory to be tested in a manner of speaking. With the stipulation that 1. he wasn't going to allow it to prevent his original purpose for the angels and mankind from being fulfilled beyond what was necessary to establish his defense. That they should live forever in peace, in heaven and on earth respectively. And 2. that justice would be done. 

So immediately after Adam's sin Jehovah put in motion the plan for all of this to take place while Satan's theory was being tested. In a basic sense the steps were as follows. 

1. Select a group of people.
2. Form a nation for those people. 
3. Demonstrate to them what was going on by establishing a law which they couldn't keep due to their imperfection, or the incomplete nature of their lack of the aforementioned maturity. 
4. Provide a way out through a Messiah or Christ, namely, Michael, who volunteered due to his love for mankind and his father, Jehovah's purpose. So Michael came to earth as a man, Jesus the Christ. 

One final point of consideration regarding mankind. From Jehovah's perspective the life he created, the life he gave us, is sacred. You may recall that sacred means belonging to God. According to the Bible our soul is our life, represented by our blood, so blood is sacred. To kill someone, or take their soul, requires the payment of the killer's own soul because it is taking something sacred to Jehovah. So the blood sacrifices represented a respect for or acknowledgement of his created life granted to us. For example, if a person was found murdered and no one knew who did the killing then they had to sacrifice a bull and spill its blood on the ground as a symbolic acknowledgement of God's possession. Sacred life. A sort of gesture of justice.

Since we inherited sin through Adam then the only man who could pay the price for the blood of Adam, which had been perfect and without sin from the start until he did sin - was the blood of a man who was without sin. 

 

To save time I haven't included any scriptural support but everything I've said can be supported by scripture upon request. 
 

  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

This is what the Bible is about: the vindication of Jehovah God's naHeyme through the ransom sacrifice of Christ Jesus. 

 

Let me explain.   

Hey, maybe check out this course (it's free) https://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-145

Then see how your knowledge stacks up against those who have actually studied the Old Testament

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

To save time I haven't included any scriptural support but everything I've said can be supported by scripture upon request. 
 

     Nah.

 

          mwc

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3. Demonstrate to them what was going on by establishing a law which they couldn't keep due to their imperfection, or the incomplete nature of their lack of the aforementioned maturity. 
4. Provide a way out through a Messiah or Christ, namely, Michael, who volunteered due to his love for mankind and his father, Jehovah's purpose. So Michael came to earth as a man, Jesus the Christ. 

 

....

 

Brilliant plan! /s

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
12 hours ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

This is what the Bible is about:

 

Mythology. 

 

12 hours ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

Let me explain. 

 

No, let me explain....

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mmmmm in the words of my old church. Show me book, chapter, and verse for all that. Not that anything in the old testament is a credible source of information anyway. It can all be proven to be false. Through archeology. ....... oh..... my bad.... thats one of those sciences you don't like. Like geology.

 

Doesn't even look like ya got the order of creation correct. 

 

Question: I've never studied what Jehovas witness believe. Is this jargon part of their beliefs? If so. Why do you think the God lort almighty waited so damn long to set the record straight? I would ask the same of the SDA or LDS aswell. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
8 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

Mmmmm in the words of my old church. Show me book, chapter, and verse for all that. Not that anything in the old testament is a credible source of information anyway. It can all be proven to be false. Through archeology. ....... oh..... my bad.... thats one of those sciences you don't like. Like geology.

 

Doesn't even look like ya got the order of creation correct. 

 

Question: I've never studied what Jehovas witness believe. Is this jargon part of their beliefs? If so. Why do you think the God lort almighty waited so damn long to set the record straight? I would ask the same of the SDA or LDS aswell. 

 

The issue of the Michael as jesus I think came from the Mormons. But in very early SDAism there were some now embarrassing writings from founder Ellen G White that were going the same direction. Charles Taze Russell came in behind SDAism and was something of a split off from it. I need to tighten my pencil on the details, but this is of course regarded as heretical beliefs by most evangelicals. And SDA's have tried to distance themselves from some of the more embarrassing beliefs to try and blend in better with evangelicals. 

 

The funny thing is that Jehovah is basically considered a corrupted version of the tetragrammaton (YHWH) by modern yahwistic focused believers. So yeah, this guy appears to be influenced at least by these considerably apostate views. And somehow branched off onto his own and found his way here to meet his match.....

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

The issue of the Michael as jesus I think came from the Mormons. But in very early SDAism there were some now embarrassing writings from founder Ellen G White that were going the same direction. Charles Taze Russell came in behind SDAism and was something of a split off from it. I need to tighten my pencil on the details, but this is of course regarded as heretical beliefs by most evangelicals. And SDA's have tried to distance themselves from some of the more embarrassing beliefs to try and blend in better with evangelicals. 

 

The church I was a bishop in had a similar belief of micheal and Jesus being the same entity. But they did not believe that God created micheal first and then micheal did all the work. 

 

I actually did study some into SDA when I was dating a woman that was in the church. You may have heard of calhoun GA. There us an SDA headquarters there. Thats where I grew up. My dentist was SDA, my Orthodontist was SDA, hell the hospital is owned by the SDA. And there is a SDA private school there. I had some good friends in the church as well. Do you think Ellen G. White got all her visions from brain trauma from the accident with the horse?

 

I really thought the most interesting thing about the SDA was their history with William Miller. You said he is a relative of yours correct? The great disappointment. Kinda felt sorry for the old codger when I read about what happened. He really believed Jesus was coming didn't he?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
47 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

You may have heard of calhoun GA. There us an SDA headquarters there.

 

A friend of mine had gone up there to pastor the Calhoun church. 

 

47 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

Do you think Ellen G. White got all her visions from brain trauma from the accident with the horse?

 

When she was a little girl someone hurled a rock at her and it basically hit her around the top of her nose. It's believed that she suffered front lobe epilepsy through life. And that much of the visions were a result of that. She would read books and then have visions that were basically stemming off the books that she'd read, including illustrations that can be found in books that she was known to possess in her library. Most of her heavenly visions amount to that. She would read and see things and then go off into these frontal lobe epileptic visions of what she'd taken in previously. 

 

47 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

I really thought the most interesting thing about the SDA was their history with William Miller. You said he is a relative of yours correct? The great disappointment. Kinda felt sorry for the old codger when I read about what happened. He really believed Jesus was coming didn't he?

 

Yeah, he was like Herald Camping or anyone similar who recently had all of their beliefs crushed. We have blood relation through my paternal side. The SDA church arose out of the wake of the great disappointment of 1844 through EGW and my Millerite relatives became SDA's. My great grandfather was rebellious against it and dropped out. But my grandfather stayed in the church with his mother until they eventually disfellowshipped him for several issues, including questioning the authority of EGW. Which then calls into question the authority of the SDA general conference. 

 

Until I came along and took it much further in the wake of my grandfather. Calling into question the authority of the bible itself and the legitimacy of anything to do with the bible. The bible being a faulty foundation for truth seeking....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 God created Michael first. Then Michael, as Jehovah's master worker, created everything through Jehovah's Holy Spirit or active force. The word Holy means sacred, or belonging to God. Spirit means an invisible active force, like wind, breath, mental inclination. Something that we can't see but that produces results that we can see. The first thing that was created was the spiritual heavens. This was followed by the spirit beings, often called angels. Then the physical heavens, or space as we know it, including Earth, the stars, sun and moon. Then everything on Earth eventually concluding with Adam and Eve. 

The angels existed for a very long time before man was created, and they had time to mature, like children, so that they knew what was good and bad from their creator. It is important that you understand that being created perfect is much like being born a baby. Parents see their newborn children as perfect, but think about it. They can't walk, talk, feed themselves, go to the bathroom properly - they are bald, toothless, chubby, defenseless little creatures. Perfect in the sense that they have great potential and innocence. 

By the time man was created the angels had already reached their potential. 

On the seventh day, when the creation was complete, God "rested." This doesn't mean that God was tired or that he stopped working, it means he set aside a period of time in which we were allowed to mature, as the angels had done.  When we would have accomplished this we could, as the Bible says, enter into God's day of rest. In other words, the seventh "day" or more accurately, period, of creation continues to this day.  So the knowledge of what is good and what is bad is the eventual possession of that maturity. The ability to decide for ourselves what was good and what was bad, predicated upon an acknowledgement of our own accord, of our creator, Jehovah's rightful sovereignty. 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Hebrews 11 : 1 - 3,  King James Version

 

1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

2 For by it the elders obtained a good report.

3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

 

 

 

The above portion of Semmelweis Reflex's opening post comes under the scope of Hebrews 11 : 1 - 3. 

 

None of the events described above were seen by human eyes.  Things not seen by human eyes are accepted as true and real by faith.  There exists no physical evidence to corroborate or authenticate them.  That is why faith is used by believers to understand how the worlds were framed (created) by god speaking them into existence.   According to faith, the things which human eyes do see (the physical world around us) were formed by unseen things.  Specifically, god.

 

The upshot of applying Hebrews to Semmelweis Reflex's introduction is simply this.  

 

Everything he writes about, everything he claims happened and everything he explains rests upon the foundation of his faith.  Not on facts.  Not on physical evidence.  Not on anything that can be verified, authenticated of confirmed from scientific investigation.  Not on the basis of any oral history and not on the basis of any eyewitness accounts.  No human saw the the events he believes in by faith.  And since the physical world which we can see and touch and examine was, according to scripture, made from unseen things, there is no possibility of ever using what we can see, touch and examine to discover if Semmelweis Reflex's belief are true.

 

This immediately flags up three questions.

 

 

1

Why should his faith-based understanding of prehistory be any more accurate than that of another Christian's faith-based understanding of the same period?

 

2.

Why should his Christian faith-based understanding be any more accurate than that of the faith-based understanding of a Muslim, a Sikh or a Jew?

 

3.

Which is more likely to be objectively true and trustworthy - a faith-based understanding of prehistory that cannot be tested or measured or a scientific understanding that relies upon testing and measurement?

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, WalterP said:

 God created Michael first. Then Michael, as Jehovah's master worker, created everything through Jehovah's Holy Spirit or active force. The word Holy means sacred, or belonging to God. Spirit means an invisible active force, like wind, breath, mental inclination. Something that we can't see but that produces results that we can see. The first thing that was created was the spiritual heavens. This was followed by the spirit beings, often called angels. Then the physical heavens, or space as we know it, including Earth, the stars, sun and moon. Then everything on Earth eventually concluding with Adam and Eve. 

The angels existed for a very long time before man was created, and they had time to mature, like children, so that they knew what was good and bad from their creator. It is important that you understand that being created perfect is much like being born a baby. Parents see their newborn children as perfect, but think about it. They can't walk, talk, feed themselves, go to the bathroom properly - they are bald, toothless, chubby, defenseless little creatures. Perfect in the sense that they have great potential and innocence. 

By the time man was created the angels had already reached their potential. 

On the seventh day, when the creation was complete, God "rested." This doesn't mean that God was tired or that he stopped working, it means he set aside a period of time in which we were allowed to mature, as the angels had done.  When we would have accomplished this we could, as the Bible says, enter into God's day of rest. In other words, the seventh "day" or more accurately, period, of creation continues to this day.  So the knowledge of what is good and what is bad is the eventual possession of that maturity. The ability to decide for ourselves what was good and what was bad, predicated upon an acknowledgement of our own accord, of our creator, Jehovah's rightful sovereignty. 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Hebrews 11 : 1 - 3,  King James Version

 

1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

2 For by it the elders obtained a good report.

3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

 

 

 

The above portion of Semmelweis Reflex's opening post comes under the scope of Hebrews 11 : 1 - 3. 

 

None of the events described above were seen by human eyes.  Things not seen by human eyes are accepted as true and real by faith.  There exists no physical evidence to corroborate or authenticate them.  That is why faith is used by believers to understand how the worlds were framed (created) by god speaking them into existence.   According to faith, the things which human eyes do see (the physical world around us) were formed by unseen things.  Specifically, god.

 

The upshot of applying Hebrews to Semmelweis Reflex's introduction is simply this.  

 

Everything he writes about, everything he claims happened and everything he explains rests upon the foundation of his faith.  Not on facts.  Not on physical evidence.  Not on anything that can be verified, authenticated of confirmed from scientific investigation.  Not on the basis of any oral history and not on the basis of any eyewitness accounts.  No human saw the the events he believes in by faith.  And since the physical world which we can see and touch and examine was, according to scripture, made from unseen things, there is no possibility of ever using what we can see, touch and examine to discover if Semmelweis Reflex's belief are true.

 

This immediately flags up three questions.

 

 

1

Why should his faith-based understanding of prehistory be any more accurate than that of another Christian's faith-based understanding of the same period?

 

2.

Why should his Christian faith-based understanding be any more accurate than that of the faith-based understanding of a Muslim, a Sikh or a Jew?

 

3.

Which is more likely to be objectively true and trustworthy - a faith-based understanding of prehistory that cannot be tested or measured or a scientific understanding that relies upon testing and measurement?

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Good post and good questions...clear and to the point.

 

I would like to add to your thoughts.

 

A summary of Hebrews 11:1 is:

 

Faith is wishful thinking.  That wishful thinking is evidence of unseen things.

 

Of course, the wishful thinking is, for the most part, simply the merely asserted claims and dogma of the particular religious sect/group/individual (the unseen things).  Hebrews 11:2 and 3 are examples.

 

It is infected with circularity (i.e., wishful thinking => claims/dogma and claims/dogma => wishful thinking).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/10/2021 at 10:50 AM, SemmelweisReflex said:

..Spirit means an invisible active force, like wind, breath, mental inclination. Something that we can't see but that produces results that we can see.

 

Where is there evidence that any "spirit" exists in reality?

Any spirit, of any kind? God, angels, devils?

What evidence is there of any "human spirit"?

 

What does "wind, breath, or mental inclination" have to do with anything?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, sdelsolray said:

 

 

Good post and good questions...clear and to the point.

 

I would like to add to your thoughts.

 

A summary of Hebrews 11:1 is:

 

Faith is wishful thinking.  That wishful thinking is evidence of unseen things.

 

Of course, the wishful thinking is, for the most part, simply the merely asserted claims and dogma of the particular religious sect/group/individual (the unseen things).  Hebrews 11:2 and 3 are examples.

 

It is infected with circularity (i.e., wishful thinking => claims/dogma and claims/dogma => wishful thinking).

 

You have the truth of it, sdelsolray.

 

The faith of a YEC like Ken Ham is the substance of things that he hopes for, but which his eyes have never seen.

 

The faith of an OEC like William Lane Craig is the substance of things that he hopes for, but which his eyes have never seen.

 

Yet, by faith, these two devout Christians arrive at two totally different conclusions about what the same bible passages in Genesis are saying.

 

Ham has his hopes of a literal 6 - day creation confirmed, because that is his wishful thinking.

 

WLC has his hopes of the cosmos popping out of a singularity confirmed, because that is his wishful thinking.

 

So, rather than giving them the bedrock-solid truth, their Christian faith instead gives them both exactly what they want to hear.

 

This is the circularity of faith that you mentioned.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And by extension, Hebrews 11 can be used to examine how Christian faith (wishful thinking) applies to other biblical things that no human eye has ever seen.

 

Not things of the remote past, but things that have still to come to pass.

 

The faith of the Christian Thumbelina is the substance of things she hopes for, but which her eyes haven't yet seen.

 

The faith of the Christian Ordinary Clay is the substance of things he hopes for, but which his eyes haven't yet seen.

 

Yet, by faith, these two devout Christians arrive at two totally different conclusions about what happens to the damned.

 

Thumbelina has her hopes that god will utterly annihilate them confirmed, because that is her wishful thinking.

 

Ordinary Clay has his hopes that god will eternally exclude them from his presence confirmed, because that is his wishful thinking.

 

So, rather than giving them the bedrock-solid truth, their Christian faith instead gives them exactly what they want to hear.

 

Once again, this is the very circularity that sdelsolray mentioned.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/10/2021 at 11:00 PM, Joshpantera said:

 

Mythology. 

 

 

No, let me explain....

 

 

Look, guys. I would love to have the time to go over everything you've watched, read or discussed but I just don't have the time. In a sense I have, just not with you. Lets live in the now, huh? 

 

Short posts. I'll try to practice the same. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/12/2021 at 5:57 AM, alreadyGone said:

The

Where is there evidence that any "spirit" exists in reality?

Any spirit, of any kind? God, angels, devils?

What evidence is there of any "human spirit"?

 

What does "wind, breath, or mental inclination" have to do with anything?

 

Words and their ever evolving meanings and sometimes their etymologies are important. Let's go over some basics. 

 

Evidence means the data indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or not. From the Latin evidentia meaning obvious to the eye or mind. The eyes and mind can be deceived. Evidence can be true or false. Accurate or inaccurate. Subject to interpretation and misinterpretation. You agree? Evidence doesn't imply truth, accurate, concrete, fact etc. 

 

The word god means mighty; venerated. Anything and anyone can be a god. Angel means messenger. In the Bible it is applied to men who are messengers and spirit creatures who are messengers. Devil means deceiver. Liar. Satan means resistor. The Hebrew word satan is first applied to a righteous angel of God whos resists, or opposes Ballam at Numbers 22:22. 

 

The Hebrew and Greek words translated spirit can, depending upon the context, be translated as anything that is invisible but produces results which are visible. Breath, wind, breeze, mental inclination, or spirit creatures. From the Greek pneuma from which comes the English pneumatic and pneumonia. 

 

The spirit of the horse was broken. He was a mean spirited person. His presentation was spirited. What sort of evidence do you need of the human spirit?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

....

 

The spirit of the horse was broken. He was a mean spirited person. His presentation was spirited. What sort of evidence do you need of the human spirit?

 

 

The "spirit of a horse" = the animal's will to continue behaving as it once did. Common usage would be to express that a human trainer or handler has spent time invoking the animal's more cooperative behavior.

 

"Mean spirited" = a person's temperament coupled with their personal willingness to act in ways toward others that are not destructive to that other person.

 

"Presentation was spirited .." ?  Really?  that = a presentation which was energetic, evocative, exciting.

 

You start with facts.

Then you segue into blather..

 

Was it intentional?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

Look, guys. I would love to have the time to go over everything you've watched, read or discussed but I just don't have the time. In a sense I have, just not with you. Lets live in the now, huh? 

 

Short posts. I'll try to practice the same. 

Note how poster SemmelweisRelex continues in his attempts to control the conversation, laced with rejection of what others say.  He pretends to not have the time for "us", and yet here is is again, apparently in need of additional attention.

 

Also note he provides no evidence.  None whatsoever.  And he is more set on well developed passive-aggressive tactics and devoid of any interest in honest conversation.   If he learned to monetize his behavior, he might become a wealthy grifter.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
42 minutes ago, sdelsolray said:

Also note he provides no evidence.  None whatsoever.

 

Noted. 

 

He hasn't a leg to stand on. No good foundation to build up upon. He seems to be the only one who isn't already aware of it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Noted. 

 

He hasn't a leg to stand on. No good foundation to build up upon. He seems to be the only one who isn't already aware of it. 

 

He provides a normal generic definition of evidence, but fails to follow it himself.  Pretense is his sword.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
1 hour ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

Look, guys. I would love to have the time to go over everything you've watched, read or discussed but I just don't have the time. In a sense I have, just not with you. Lets live in the now, huh? 

 

Short posts. I'll try to practice the same. 

 

I doubt it. In casual discussion you haven't shown too much awareness of the issues we send you links to. That's why you're getting the links.

 

But we can do shorter posts. We can toss aside citation as well. And just bare knuckle duke it out in any given issue from the gut if you'd prefer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, alreadyGone said:

 

The "spirit of a horse" = the animal's will to continue behaving as it once did. Common usage would be to express that a human trainer or handler has spent time invoking the animal's more cooperative behavior.

 

"Mean spirited" = a person's temperament coupled with their personal willingness to act in ways toward others that are not destructive to that other person.

 

"Presentation was spirited .." ?  Really?  that = a presentation which was energetic, evocative, exciting.

 

You start with facts.

Then you segue into blather..

 

Was it intentional?

 

 

It's language. How we use words. How their usage may change. What they mean. How they are applied. How they may differ due to geographical or societal barriers. Translation, transliteration. 

 

You don't have to look at this link if you aren't interested but it gives various definitions. That's usage, not necessarily meaning. Meanings and words change over time. Or not. At the end of the info given on the link it says "Middle English: from Anglo-Norman French, from Latin spiritus ‘breath, spirit’, from spirare ‘breathe’." 

 

Translation is taking one word from one language and trying to match it with another word in another language. Sometimes those meanings, like mythologies, intermingle. Sometimes they are independent similarities based upon meaning. Fagg, for example (which, by the way, I'm) British, American, South Park; applications may differ based upon various reasons. They will also have similarities in their application. These change over time. Fagg. a homosexual, a cigarette, a stupid person, a poor person, a stick gatherer. "There's a fagg." "I'm a fagg." "Give me a fagg." "What a fagg." etc.

 

So, how do they use spirit? How did others use spirit? How does the Bible use spirit? How does the apostate church use spirit? How has it changed? How has it stayed the same? What variations? What similarities? What meanings? What is the etymology? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.