Anyone one seen The Christ,

[Dirt Man]

31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and behold _it was_ very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

And here he doesn't add: Except 'man.'

I wouldn't come down on you for a simple mistake; but this isn't. You blacken the character of human beings, in a way neither the Jews nor the mainstream Christians do. A Jew in particular, would be appalled since Judaism never got into innate human corruption and 'original sin.'


J.

{{Added: 12:03 pm est Mar 4. I have deleted a number of harsh words and cutting pieces of rhetoric, above. Sorry Dirt Man. }}

Sorry, but the fact is that in the translation of the Holy Bible that I read in verse 31 it doesn't say the word good, or even very Good.

In my bible, it says: Genisis 1:
Verse 31: Then God looked over all that he had made, and it was excellent in every way. This ended the sixth day.

But if you wish, I'll conced that words Very Good take excellent's place. Or if you wish the whole verse from your bible will do. Since no matter what I say you may disagree with my perseption anyway. As that is your right. However it was said in either of our Bibles I think we agree that what God was talking about in verse 31 was what he had created thus far as a whole. He was no longer talking about each individual thing that he had created.

Now from here after we may disagree; in that I think: He was looking at the whole picture, and he was pleased with what he'd accomplished, and how things would turn out in the very end because of his creative accomplishments. Everything before this verse 31 is more discriptive of each creation. So he is saying that all he had created was very good still in no ways takes away from the fact that he never said man was good.

However, he never said man was bad either. Which is what I would have thought you would have brought up for your argument. Anyway, I think the reason he didn't say man was Good, or Bad was because he was talking about mankind as a whole which is what Adam and Eve represented. And mankind as a whole is neither all good, or all bad, and God takes each individual to task, not all of mankind lumped together for his judgements. Though quite often mankind as a whole has sorely tempted him to the point of almost doing just that.


As Always
I Am the
Dirt Man

 

[Pure]

Hi Dirt Man,

I'm surprised you want to get picky about translations. Esp of Gen 1:31 where God pronounces all his creation 'very good'. You are really pushing the corruption of 'man' beyond all bounds of Genesis text.

you say-- DM: Sorry, but the fact is that in the translation of the Holy Bible that I read in verse 31 it doesn't say the word good, or even very Good.

In my bible, it says: Genisis 1:
Verse 31: Then God looked over all that he had made, and it was excellent in every way. This ended the sixth day.


The question is how it compares to e.g. 1:25, regarding land animals; and 1:27 regarding 'man' (humans, male and female).

You don't bother to cite your translation. Please do. In any case, it says 'excellent,' and further, 'in every way' which is rather close to very good, wouldn't you say (you 'concede' this, with apparent reluctance)?

Indeed an unbiased reader would see that 'excellent in every way' is stronger positive wording, and works against your argument that man was the last, but corrupt, item of creation.

I think you might have mentioned NIV, but you're not using it here.

The Hebrew word is TOB.

It's the same in both places 25 (animals) and 31 (all), except the additional 'very' in 31

Besides the Jewish word, I rely on these translations accepted by all the major protestant ( including evangelical), catholic, and orthodox churches of US and England. Name and cite yours and a few others that agree with it.

King James 25: 'good' 31 'very good'
NIV 25 'good' 31 'very good'
RSV 25 'good' 31 'very good'
NRSV 25 'good' 31 'very good'
Jewish Tanach 25 'good' 31 'very good'
(1917/55)
Tanach (1985) 25 'good' 31'very good'

You imply that the absence of 'good' in the verse 27 is Very Significant.
Indeed that it indicates bad disobedient, morally corrupt etc (see below). This is the same verse saying 'in God's image' which I think is mildly complimentary (irony.)

Since every item on the list was declared good, the addition of a negative item (or even a neutral one), as you propose, would cause the whole list to become LESS good (or remain good only). Would it not?

Instead, after adding 'man' God says the whole is "very good" (in your version, 'excellent in every way). What does that suggest? That 'man' is as good as or better than the other items of creation. If you're making a raisin cake, and evey ingredient is 'good' and you add raisins and the cake comes out very good/excellent in every way, it's simply logic that the raisins were not inferior or defective compared to the other ingredients.
Do you agree?

What your doing, imo, is inserting a theology and agenda into a silent spot. You have a 'corruption of man' approach, Calvinist/Reformed, roughly (or more dire), and seem determined to apply it, like an iron boot, to every text.

J.

------



Dirt Mans' original statement.
And he had proclaimed everything he had created; Good, as he created each. EXCEPT: Man. It's all there in Genesis, check it out for yourself. In fact he made a point of calling each of his creations Good before he created Man. His Omniscience, and Omnipresence would not allow him to say it. He already knew the future of Mankind. Disobedient, hardheaded stubborn, and blasphemous, ignorance steep within his own intelligence, greedy, loathsome, and in general morally corrupt unto death, that was the future of mankind. So he could hardly pronounce his last creation Good already knowing the nature that mankind would inherent after eating the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good, and Evil as he already knew Adam would.

 

[Dirt Man]

In the Beginning Part III:

And so Man (Defined here as mankind) made in the very image of God, who had walked, and talked with God in the Garden of Eden that it was his job to tend, and needed no tending, was kicked out of the only home he’d ever known into world what God considered the same as a briar patch. Adam and Eve are told by God to go forth and multiply as if it were a commandment. Again, though speaking only to them he meant all of mankind as they represented mankind at that moment. Imagine telling two hard bodied 8-day-old young teens to go and have lots of sex, and make lots of babies, and that’s what God was saying. And since Adam alone lived to close to a thousand years old (930) just the two of them alone probably could have parented a small town, even if we only know about just three of their sons. Which means that all of their children, by today’s definition committed incest. And though it doesn’t mention it Adam may even have sired grandchildren from his own offspring for all we know. In fact it would have been in humanity’s best interest if he did as his and Eve’s Genes were still the purest, and straight from God himself even if corrupted unto death. So obviously incest isn’t evil. But again I digress.

In any event, right off the parents of humanity have two children, Cain, and Able. Again we aren’t privy to any other children at this time, and daughters are never even mentioned for some reason. Cain works the land, pretty much a farmer like his father, but Able tends sheep becoming the first shepherd. We aren’t made privy to why, but for some reason both men make an offering to God. Cain’s offering is from what he has toiled over from the dirt, and as any farmer will tell you his work was back breaking, sweaty damn hard work just to produce enough food to feed himself let alone the whole family. Cain’s gift was farm produce. Able also gave an offering unto God. The fatty cuts of meat from his best Lambs. If we know anything about Sheep herding, it is certainly not back breaking work, though it may at times be exasperating. God accepted Abel’s offering, but rejected Cain’s.

Now in itself this has Great Meaning that God accepted the fatty cuts of meat from the best Lambs offering, and rejected the farm produce as an offering. God had almost everything to do with the lamb other than tending them, but the farmer had more to do with his harvest of farm produce than God did. Don’t believe it? Only God can make a Lamb, the grass that it eats is in the same soil as the farm produce, and gets the same rain, but God put the grass there, the Farmer planted his, after working the soil in preparation, then pulled weeds, and such as the produce grew, and toiled through the harvest at the end. Therefore Man can easily say that if he hadn’t grown it, it wouldn’t be there for him to eat. That’s not true for the lamb whose cuts of fatty meats were offered. A shepherd basically just watches over his sheep, and tries, sometimes without success, to keep the predators away. If he doesn’t watch over them, the sheep will still grow up without his intervention, or until a predator takes them. And predators have to eat too.

Now Cain gets pissed that God rejected his offering after all of the work that he put into producing it. Now some say that the reason that God rejected it was that what Cain offered weren’t the best of his harvest. Personally, I sincerely doubt this. Cain revered, and depended on God every bit as much as his parents, and his brother Able did. In fact it was him who made the first free will offering not his younger brother Able. Able, as the younger brother was just following his brother’s lead by giving the best of his harvest too. In any event, Cain is pissed, and God comes to him knowing this, and asks:

(Gen. 4:6&7 Paraphrased): “Why are you angry? Why is your face so dark with rage? It can be bright with joy if you will do what you should! But if you refuse to obey, watch out. Sin is waiting to attack you, longing to destroy you. But you can conquer it.”

Now I’m going to go out on a limb here and assume that since God was talking to the 2nd most intelligent man on this planet at the time that Cain understood already what God accepted as good free will offerings here. He could have easily bartered with his brother Able the same produce that he had offered to God for his own free will offering. But he hadn’t. Why? Because he was proud of what he had produced from the dirt from his own labors. And why did God step in out of nowhere to warn him like he did? To give Cain a chance to think this over, something he regretted not doing with Lucifer, even knowing that both would do as they would do as they willed even with a warning from God himself of the consequences. But this way the heavenly host could see how it played out on their own. And obviously Cain did think about it. Because the next thing that happens in Genesis obviously takes place after some time has passed.

Gen. 4: 8-12 paraphrased: One day Cain suggested to his brother, “Let’s go out into the fields.” And while they were together there, Cain attacked and killed his brother.

But afterwards the Lord asked Cain, Where is your brother? Where is Abel?”

“How should I know?” Cain retorted. “Am I supposed to keep track of him wherever he goes?”

But the Lord said, “Your brother’s blood calls to me from the ground. What have you done? You are hereby banished from this ground which you have defiled, with your brother’s blood. No longer will it yield crops for you, even if you toil on it forever! From now on you will be a fugitive and a tramp on the earth, wandering from place to place.”

Okay, so Cain Murder’s his brother. In fact the very second man on this planet Cain has committed the first premeditated Murder on the planet Earth. And why did Cain commit premeditated murder in the first place? As a juror my only conclusion with the fact presented as they are thus far was that he murdered his brother for no other reason but out of jealousy, and because of his own simple pride. The similarities between this and Lucifer’s trying to ascend to the throne of God are incredible, and out there for all of the heavenly host to observe. But again, does God snap Cain out of existence? No.

What takes place next is almost a post mortem for Lucifer’s dark side’s part in the previous upheaval in heaven. Gen. 4:13-16 paraphrased:

Cain replied to the Lord, “My punishment is greater than I can bear. For you have banished me from my farm, and from you, and made me a fugitive and a tramp; and everyone who sees me will try to kill me.”

The Lord replied, “They won’t kill you, for I will give seven times your punishment to anyone who does.” Then the Lord put an identifying mark on Cain as a warning not to kill him. So Cain went out from the presence of the Lord and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden.

What really hits me here is that Cain feels that he is banished from God. That wasn’t what God said as is plain to see earlier. However if this hadn’t been an important point it wouldn’t have been left there for us to see. Cain, not God built up a wall between them in his own mind from his feelings of guilt, and shame. But that’s how guilt works in us. It builds up walls between us, and our creator. It also explains why we can’t hear God’s voice in our heads anymore the way these first humans could. And I think Cain was the very first human to lose this ability entirely. What Cain failed to see here was that God still loved him. His proof of this was the mark he put on Cain’s forehead that would stop anyone from killing him, or even punish him in any way for his sins. God hates to lose any souls. And as we see, right after this Cain lives what many would consider a normal life here on earth, has a wife, and with her a son named Enoch. An heir becomes the first cattleman, and those living in tents, another one later on the first musician, and inventor of the harp, and lute. We know this because Cain’s linage is given. My only conclusion to this is that Cain must have later repented of the murder of his brother, and made an offering of atonement that pleased the Lord God who accepted it. Or, that he died in sin. But many people live their so called normal lives in sin, so neither conclusion on my part is anything other than speculation. I just know God is merciful. Well, once again I have gone overly long here. Time for someone else to speak their mind.


As Always
I Am the
Dirt Man

 

[Dirt Man]

Just out of curiosity, Pure. What is it about my faith, in the Lord our God, and Jesus Christ as my savior that has you attacking me personally by calling me names, and using insinuation to insult me? Not that I can stop you obviously, nor will it put a dent in my faith, no more than I expect to put a dent in yours, I was just curious.

As Always
I Am the
Dirt Man

 

[champagne1982]

You folks may as well be asking if anyone's seen Elvis.

I seriously doubt any of you have been ordained or called rabbi or any other teacher of dogma and religion.

Please continue to debate, but please, qualify your statements with the admission that what you say is YOUR opinion and interpretation and not the way all people of faith see it.

 

[Pure]

Hi Dirt Man,

You did not respond to my request for the 'translation' you used that called creation 'excellent in every way.'

1)You did not acknowledge my examples of eight translations by Christian and Jews, including Calvinists and Evangelical. Do they seem OK and/or convincing to you??

2)Where are your quotations coming from, including your latest? 3) Or are you putting the Bible into your own, more easy to understand words with some explanation along?**

**{{Added PS, I notice you are now saying (Gen. 4:6&7 Paraphrased): . That is an improvement. What is further needed is 1) The translations used by the paraphrasers; 2) who the paraphrasers are, or if it is you, in which case "my paraphrase [DM]" would be the way to indicate that. I believe readers have a right to know if a poster is putting Holy Scripture into their own words, beyond any recognized translation.}}

4) Do you agree that if creation is 'excellent in every way" that this strongly implies that God found man to be a creation that was (at least) good, though that word is not used?

You said I was attacking me personally by calling me names,

Please list the names I have called you IF they occurred after my revised earlier posting or in the latest one. If there are truly insulting 'names'-- for example 'jerk'-- I will apologize, and delete them.

If you are referring to deleted material, I would ask, "Why do you bring that up again after it was deleted and apologized for?"
(I have deleted nothing in the latest post, so if that's the one, show me the words.)

Please answer the above questions as sign of good faith continuation of dialogue. If you simply want to paste quotes as a way of witnessing, and you refuse to identify the source including translation, just say, "Here are the quotations, I refuse to say from where, or the translation. Do not attempt to talk to me." or words to that effect.

In that case, I will continue to show where your mistakes are, but won't expect any answer as I would from good faith discussants in these threads. (As opposed to those pasting messages or sermons or parts of their 'holy writ')

J.

PS: Your complete statement is below. To answer your question, as part of good faith dialogue: I know of no case where, aside from retracted material, you might be called names. But the gist of your question is what sometimes annoys me a lot. Right? The answer is, Your way of proclaiming your faith in a very self assured, dogmatic way; your 'proclaiming' by long pasted quotations or, until now, unacknowledged (pasted?) paraphrases with little or none of your commentary identified as such; your way of NOT listening to others or truly acknowledging others' points of view and faith. Oh, and I find your eyes are the wrong color, too . And the way you part what's left of your hair.

Peace bro.
J.

Just out of curiosity, Pure. What is it about my faith, in the Lord our God, and Jesus Christ as my savior that has you attacking me personally by calling me names, and using insinuation to insult me? Not that I can stop you obviously, nor will it put a dent in my faith, no more than I expect to put a dent in yours, I was just curious.

 

[Pure]

Hi Champagne,

None of us here, afaik is a ordained minister/priest (of a recognized religious group) or PhD professor of Bible studies.

No one in the Roe thread is a licensed lawyer.

I believe that by default, we in these forums are all amateurs, lay people with varying knowledge and expertise to be demonstrated. So of us say we have degrees, but no one knows. Readers should assume amateur status to be the case, in absence of other claims, which would need to be verified, such as "I [followed by real name] teach NT studies at Yale University."

No posting here or anywhere should be taken as authoritative. Good faith, referenced (with url) citations of authorities are the only way to be (derivatively) authoritative.

best,
pure.

Champagne in full:

//You folks may as well be asking if anyone's seen Elvis.

I seriously doubt any of you have been ordained or called rabbi or any other teacher of dogma and religion.

Please continue to debate, but please, qualify your statements with the admission that what you say is YOUR opinion and interpretation and not the way all people of faith see it.//

 

[English Lady]

Lads....should you be arguing all this out now? can't you both just leave it alone? We all have our seperate opinions which we are voicing here, we all disagree with others on points but lets just accept that and keep this debate nice. I've been drawn in on the snappiness myself at times and I apologise for that. When you are talking matters of faith people get very defensive for quite obvious reasons.

Pure...dearest you are being quite imflammatry in how you're wording yourself....maybe you don't realise it bu i am really sure that your last post is not going to make Dirt man any less inclined to snap at you*L* Dirt Man...take a deep breath before you reply(i find it helps me lots) and add these (or similar) words to your posts. This is what I believe. I know we're witnessing here but everybody has individual faith and their own interpretation of things.


Now lets have a group hug and get on with the debating......

*takes off her Mother hat now*


Ok so pure....going back to answer a post you aimed at me before...

Pure... this comes down to a person's perception of repentance and forgiveness. I beileve that ANYONE who truely repents of an act deserves forgiveness. Yup Everyone.
To come to a true faith in Christ you've got to repent of your sins and accept responsibility for them and ask for forgiveness. A truely evil person isn't going to get to that point Well i don't think so anyway.

The good deed thing just leaves me cold..what if you're just one good deed off being forgiven when you kick the bucket? Surely thats not fair? Least with the Faith thing you either have faith or you don't. you can't just miss eternal life*L*

Also what counts as a good deed? People are forced to do good acts all the time....people doing community service, those who are made to do things by their mother/family member,people who's job it is to do good deeds. You can do a good deed and not have a good intention in your heart.

That's the one Pure. You are held responsible for your deeds...here is the passage in it's entirity (i know i know but i do think this is a good one for people to see on this thread)

31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

This passage is pro good deeds...quite obviously so but the one little key to me is that it says "those blessed by my Father" which is obviously open to interpretation but to me indicates a person who accepts his son as Saviour as this is the way(I think) to get the Fathers blessing. So to me this passage says it's all well and good you getting the faith bit right but you need to sort out the good deeds end of the deal too...which is what i mean by a person having TRUE faith. A living faith that makes a change in your life and inspires a person to do good deeds.

My view (completely my view) is that God,knowing everything would know which pre-Christ person would accept Christ and his death and ressurection and so it works that way...I will try and do osme more research into this when i am feeling more like my old self..right now it's hard to concerntrate on anything for an extended period of time.

Surely the point is that it was nigh on impossible to gain entry to Heaven before Jesus came along..I always thought that was the whole point...or have I missed something?

Well surely anyone would want their sentance reduced...be they saved or not....

And hey..who mentioned Hitler? *L* I said something along the lines of ANYONE who confesses his/her sin and accepts the gift of Jesus Sacrifice gets forgiven and therefore gets eternal life. I believe that that is fair. Everyone deserves forgiveness if they are truely sorry for their acts. It is hard to grasp that as humans...we're not very inclined to forgive as we see certain sins as worse than others but really what it comes down to is we all sin in some way or another and that sin is the problem not the amount of sinning we've done.

 

[English Lady]

Karen AM:

You're right with the difference between fogiveness and redemption...I guess the redemption we'll get is being realeased into heaven(eventually) for eternal paradise with God.

Oh yes i do believe there is some of God's spirit in all his creations...that goes without saying. I think when you do the whole accepting Jesus as your Savous thing you get a constant stream of this holy spirt flowing through you, so much so that it overspills into your life and it effects the people you meet. Thats how i think about it anyway


Champagne...this is all our own belief's. It is a line used over and over again "this is what I believe, My own take on this..." as with EVERYTHING. You have to make up your own mind as to what is true.

 

[Pure]

English Lady said,

To come to a true faith in Christ you've got to repent of your sins and accept responsibility for them and ask for forgiveness. A truely evil person isn't going to get to that point Well i don't think so anyway.

The good deed thing just leaves me cold..what if you're just one good deed off being forgiven when you kick the bucket? Surely thats not fair? Least with the Faith thing you either have faith or you don't. you can't just miss eternal life*L*

Please note that I don't accept the 'faith/deeds' distinction or dichotomy. It's one's life, way of living that's the issue, including, as I said, thoughts, commitments, actions, slipups, hypocrisies.

I think the Matthew quote makes that clear by implication: It's not saying, "Having done 100 sins, there must be 1000 feedings of the hungry to insure/earn salvation."

It's saying, "If your life's essential content is following the example of Jesus in compassion to fellow humans; in such example things as** feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, etc.--THEN you are saved." {my interpretation and paraphrase}

**This list is based on Jewish sources in the OT/Tanach.

There is not necessarily any stress on mere 'deed', in your terms, but in sincere actions, constituting a faithful pattern of following in the footsteps of JC.

I do not have a 'good deeds' thing, so that point would not apply to me. BUT I note that the 'one short' issue could apply to 'coming to true faith in JC'. Suppose you're just on the verge of (one step from) being there, in true faith; then you die.

I refuse to carry on the 500 year debate of catholics and protestants about 'faith versus works' since I'm neither catholic nor protestant, in part because of such pointless divisions.

Your good humour, efforts to make peace, and attempts to engage in sincere dialogue are MUCH appreciated. You are a fine example Christian, imho, though not in the neck of the woods where I spiritually reside.

 

[English Lady]

You do have a good point with the poor person who was on the brink of making a commitment...but I'd like to think God has some kind of fail safe for this kind of situation..i don't think i have any proof for it but i'd like to think God would sort it all out in the end. In fact I think that basically is what I like to believe*L*

And yes, we could argue on about the faith/deed argument but it probably own't get anyone anywhere*L* I think people have put forward alot of different views and have been made to think about what they do or don't believe in. That is the greatest good thing to come from this thread...


The second is EL getting a rose from Pure cheers mate! I'm just doing my bit but it is nice to be appreiciated

 

[Dirt Man]

Hi Dirt Man,

You did not respond to my request for the 'translation' you used that called creation 'excellent in every way.'

I have three different bibles in my house actually. But up here in the computer room I am using "The Living Bible," paraphrased. Tyndale House Publishers of Wheaton, Ill.

1)You did not acknowledge my examples of eight translations by Christian and Jews, including Calvinists and Evangelical. Do they seem OK and/or convincing to you??

I don't care which bible you use Pure, I just thought you had already assumed that of me.

2)Where are your quotations coming from, including your latest? 3) Or are you putting the Bible into your own, more easy to understand words with some explanation along?**

I have three different bibles in my house actually. But up here in the computer room I am using "The Living Bible," paraphrased. Tyndale House Publishers of Wheaton, Ill.

**{{Added PS, I notice you are now saying (Gen. 4:6&7 Paraphrased): . That is an improvement. What is further needed is 1) The translations used by the paraphrasers; 2) who the paraphrasers are, or if it is you, in which case "my paraphrase [DM]" would be the way to indicate that. I believe readers have a right to know if a poster is putting Holy Scripture into their own words, beyond any recognized translation.}}

I have three different bibles in my house actually. But up here in the computer room I am using "The Living Bible," paraphrased. Tyndale House Publishers of Wheaton, Ill.

4) Do you agree that if creation is 'excellent in every way" that this strongly implies that God found man to be a creation that was (at least) good, though that word is not used?

If you can specifically show me where it says that "God saw that man was good," then sure. And please don't put words in my mouth as I never said that God said man was bad either. Now since I've answered your question/s, how about you answering one of mine? Here's the question: Don't you think it strange that after creating each thing that "God said it was good, and it was good," but when he creates man in his own image no less, that he specifically doesn't say that "God saw that man was good, and he was good?" I mean he made a big point out of saying it right after everything else he created up to that point, didn't he.

Please answer the above questions as sign of good faith continuation of dialogue. If you simply want to paste quotes as a way of witnessing, and you refuse to identify the source including translation, just say, "Here are the quotations, I refuse to say from where, or the translation. Do not attempt to talk to me." or words to that effect.

In that case, I will continue to show where your mistakes are, but won't expect any answer as I would from good faith discussants in these threads. (As opposed to those pasting messages or sermons or parts of their 'holy writ')

J.

PS: Your complete statement is below. To answer your question, as part of good faith dialogue: I know of no case where, aside from retracted material, you might be called names. But the gist of your question is what sometimes annoys me a lot. Right? The answer is, Your way of proclaiming your faith in a very self assured, dogmatic way; your 'proclaiming' by long pasted quotations or, until now, unacknowledged (pasted?) paraphrases with little or none of your commentary identified as such; your way of NOT listening to others or truly acknowledging others' points of view and faith. Oh, and I find your eyes are the wrong color, too . And the way you part what's left of your hair.

Peace bro.
J.

Quite a list, but that at least satisfies my curiousity. However I do listen to others points of view, and faith Pure. I just don't attack them the way you do mine. I try not to assume, presume, or even imply. I am nobody's judge. The Hebrews have what they call the Day of Atonement. Where in the Blood a Lamb atones for the sin of all Isreal. My Lamb is Jesus Christ. You say that you don't believe in atonement, or the need for it. Okay. I heard you. Saying it twice or more won't make me hear it any better, or clearer. The same is true about anything else you say here. It is all said in text Pure.

As Always
I Am the
Dirt Man

 

[Dirt Man]

Please continue to debate, but please, qualify your statements with the admission that what you say is YOUR opinion and interpretation and not the way all people of faith see it.

I don't believe anyone here has said otherwise, dear. If they have please point them out. I'm sure there are a few here who will supply the rope to hang them with, or the firewood to burn them at the stake.

As Always
I Am the
Dirt Man

 

[sweetnpetite]

God didn't lie:

Their innocence died the moment that they ate that fruit. So in a manner of speaking they did die that day.

But God didn't say, "You will die in a manner of speaking." or "You will start to die" He said, "In that day, you shall surely die."

To explain that they died 'in a matter of speaking' to me, rather sounds like a rationalization. After all, God *can't* lie, because God is Truth, therefore what God said has to be true, therefore he didn't mean it 'that way'.

 

[Pure]

Yes, sweet, that point has been made for centuries. It seems God was bluffing or threatening and the Serpent told the truth (you will not die).

Another old conundrum. Were the beasts created before humans as per Gen 1 or after as per Gen2. The orders of creation are different. Make two lists. Compare.

 

[Dirt Man]

But God didn't say, "You will die in a manner of speaking." or "You will start to die" He said, "In that day, you shall surely die."

To explain that they died 'in a matter of speaking' to me, rather sounds like a rationalization. After all, God *can't* lie, because God is Truth, therefore what God said has to be true, therefore he didn't mean it 'that way'.

In the Living Bible paraphrased that I have up here in my computer room in Genesis: 2:16,17 it says: But the Lord God Gave the man this warning: "You may eat any fruit in the garden except fruit from the Tree of Conscience--for its fruit will open your eyes to make you aware of right and wrong, good and bad. If you eat its fruit, you will be doomed to die."

The Living Bible paraphrased was written taking from the original scriptures, and translated into the more standard written English language used today in America. So that one gets a better feeling for what was really said as if it happened today. There are no thee's, or thou's in it anywhere like you'd find in the King James version. Of all of the theologians who were a part of the editing process of this book not all agreed that it was a perfect interpretation throughout, but the same is true of the King James version. All did agree that it was a close enough translation of both the Hebrew, and the Greek as to not to be a rewriting of the original scriptures, or their intent. And in fact in many ways was much closer a Translation from the original scriptures than the King James version as compared to the use of the English language at the time each was published. The only comparison between the King James version and this one that is in common with both is that they use the same exact scriptures in both.

As Always
I Am the
Dirt Man

 

[English Lady]

DM the living bible is great because it gives every podssible twist of every verse,it's a bit hefty for general reading I find though

What is there about the sentance "and you will surely die" that says it will be drop down dead the minute the damn fruit enters your mouth? Theres no time limit on surely die...surely?


And maybe the serpent was half true...they didn't drop down dead straight of but they did die in the end....not something that would have happened if they'd kept away from that particular fruit!

 

[Pure]

Comments --- also Note to Dirt Man,
The NIV New International Version is accepted by many evangelical Christians. It's quite readable, if a little slanted:

2:16 The LORD God took man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. And the LORD God commanded the man. You are free to eat from any tree in the garden.

2:17 But you must not eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, for when you eat of it, you will surely die."


Eve repeats what God said, in talking to the Serpent:

3:3 "You must not eat fruit from the tree, .... or you will die"

One could look for commentaries on the various bible parphrases, and translations, but the NIV and NRSV, between them are accepted by, I estimate 90% of Christians. Traditionalists still like the King James, or the slightly updated New King James.

There are translations even more readable than NIV, like The Good News Bible.

At the level of paraphrase, it's clear from DM's pasting that the paraphrasers are a little too active. I.e., 'doomed to die' (so to say, _solves_ an old problem raised by critics, AND the reader never knows it existed.

==
To Dirt Man,
Don't you think it strange that after creating each thing that "God said it was good, and it was good," but when he creates man in his own image no less, that he specifically doesn't say that "God saw that man was good, and he was good?"

I can see a possibility of significance, BUT, on reading a little further, God declared the whole of creation 'very good', so the addition of humans to the 'good' labeled ingredients did NOT lower the quality of the whole.

How would you reconcile your 'man [we infer] is not good, but morally corrupt' with your own favorite paraphrase which you quoted as saying creations was "excellent in every way"?

Further, arguments from silence are always weak. Suppose I ask you how things are, and you have three children, A,B, and C. You say "A and B are fine." Well, I might wonder. ( It's a bit much to think _C is likely very sick_. ) HOWEVER, if you went on to immediately add [paralleling Genesis] "My whole family is excellent in every way" I'd not worry at all, about C. What do you think?

J.


J.

 

[Pure]

I can't locate DM's "Living Bible" (LB) online, since he hasn't given a url, but even its publisher has thought better of it, and published the "Living Translation." Here's what a couple *conservative* sites say about LB


Comment on the Living Bible at
http://www.kenanderson.net/bible/living_bible.html
a traditional, evangelical site:

//The LB is an appealing and readable paraphrase that has aroused among many a new interest in the Bible. It is not an accurate translation of the Bible, however, and it does not pretend to be. It is a paraphrase of a translation, and doesn’t pretend to be otherwise. Furthermore, Taylor has taken liberties in leaving out or adding thoughts that do not appear in the original languages. He himself suggests, “For study purposes, a paraphrase should be checked against a rigid translation.” //

Same site comment on the NIV
//The NIV is perhaps the best, most accurate, and readable of the translations of the Bible into modern English. While there are several available alternatives, some of them have language that is too informal, regional, or colloquial to be suitable for use in a church. Others use language that is artificial or wooden. Some are freely translated, lacking adherence to the original text. Still others are one-man translations that have not been subjected to the checks and balances of a larger, organizational group. [...]The translators came from several denominations, including Baptist, Brethren, Church of Christ, Episcopalian, Lutheran, Mennonite, Methodist, Nazarene, Presbyterian, Christian Reformed, and others. Effective steps were taken to safeguard against sectarianism.//

Comment on the Living Bible:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/lbp.html

//Such renderings, in which the sovereignty of God's grace is practically nullified, did not sit well with many evangelicals who did not share Taylor's views. That these interpretations would be passed off on readers as if they were the words of the Bible itself shows the danger of this manner of presenting the Bible. The theological bent of the interpreter (however well-meaning he may be) will inevitably result in such problems

The complaints were such that, in 1989, Tyndale House commissioned an extensive revision by ninety evangelical scholars. The work was not far advanced before a decision was made to scrap the Living Bible as the basis for this work, and to create instead an entirely new "dynamic equivalence" translation, the New Living Translation (published 1996). The new translation was however advertised by Tyndale House as if it were a revision of its popular Living Bible, as originally planned.//

Other comment on the Living Bible (critical)
http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/living.htm
Compares

KJV "Cry aloud: for He is a god: either he is talking, or he is pursuing."

TLB "Perhaps he is talking to someone or else is out sitting on the toilet."
=====
BIBLE SITES; examples of passage we are discussing KJB, RSV and LT (tyndale)

Excellent Site:
http://www.bibles.net/

Several translations available in parallel on the same screen; nice! for example

King James Version 1611
15: And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
16: And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
18: And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
19: And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
20: And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
21: And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22: And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Revised Standard Version 1962

15: The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it.
16: And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may freely eat of every tree of the garden;
17: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die."
18: Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him."
19: So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.
20: The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper fit for him.
21: So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh;
22: and the rib which the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.

---
www.tyndale.com
New Living Translation {more accurate than The Living Bible--pure}

Genesis 2:
15The LORD God placed the man in the Garden of Eden to tend and care for it. 16But the LORD God gave him this warning: "You may freely eat any fruit in the garden 17except fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If you eat of its fruit, you will surely die." 18And the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a companion who will help him." 19So the LORD God formed from the soil every kind of animal and bird. He brought them to Adam* to see what he would call them, and Adam chose a name for each one. 20He gave names to all the livestock, birds, and wild animals. But still there was no companion suitable for him. 21So the LORD God caused Adam to fall into a deep sleep. He took one of Adam's ribs and closed up the place from which he had taken it. 22Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib and brought her to Adam.

 

[Dirt Man]

Comments --- also Note to Dirt Man,
The NIV New International Version is accepted by many evangelical Christians. It's quite readable, if a little slanted:

2:16 The LORD God took man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. And the LORD God commanded the man. You are free to eat from any tree in the garden.

2:17 But you must not eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, for when you eat of it, you will surely die."


Eve repeats what God said, in talking to the Serpent:

3:3 "You must not eat fruit from the tree, .... or you will die"

One could look for commentaries on the various bible parphrases, and translations, but the NIV and NRSV, between them are accepted by, I estimate 90% of Christians. Traditionalists still like the King James, or the slightly updated New King James.

There are translations even more readable than NIV, like The Good News Bible.

At the level of paraphrase, it's clear from DM's pasting that the paraphrasers are a little too active. I.e., 'doomed to die' (so to say, _solves_ an old problem raised by critics, AND the reader never knows it existed.

==
To Dirt Man,
Don't you think it strange that after creating each thing that "God said it was good, and it was good," but when he creates man in his own image no less, that he specifically doesn't say that "God saw that man was good, and he was good?"

I can see a possibility of significance, BUT, on reading a little further, God declared the whole of creation 'very good', so the addition of humans to the 'good' labeled ingredients did NOT lower the quality of the whole.


Further, arguments from silence are always weak. Suppose I ask you how things are, and you have three children, A,B, and C. You say "A and B are fine." Well, I might wonder. ( It's a bit much to think _C is likely very sick_. ) HOWEVER, if you went on to immediately add [paralleling Genesis] "My whole family is excellent in every way" I'd not worry at all, about C. What do you think?

J.


J.

I'm afraid your analogies don't work for me, Pure. For instance this last one: "My whole family is excellent in every way," would not preclude one of the three children having a cold, or that one child is missbehaving, or retarded, dislexic, etc. et al. To the protectant proud parent, and in their love, the whole family was excellent in every way to them. Even if their were problems, the parents felt that they could handle them. And the parent obviously doesn't want to talk about it further. (That last sentence was a subtle hint by the way.)

And in your other analogy, bakers, and cooks often are forced to work with substandard ingrediants, and still make an excellent bakery, or prepared food product.

Again I say, and if this helps I'll clarify it for you: that when God made man that man was innocent, not good, or bad. That sounds to me like excellent in every way, or very good, or what have you as far as all of creation was concerned. And it still doesn't define man as being good, or bad at that moment.

 

[Dirt Man]

I can't locate DM's "Living Bible" (LB) online, since he hasn't given a url, but even its publisher has thought better of it, and published the "Living Translation." Here's what a couple *conservative* sites say about LB


Comment on the Living Bible at
http://www.kenanderson.net/bible/living_bible.html
a traditional, evangelical site:

//The LB is an appealing and readable paraphrase that has aroused among many a new interest in the Bible. It is not an accurate translation of the Bible, however, and it does not pretend to be. It is a paraphrase of a translation, and doesn’t pretend to be otherwise. Furthermore, Taylor has taken liberties in leaving out or adding thoughts that do not appear in the original languages. He himself suggests, “For study purposes, a paraphrase should be checked against a rigid translation.” //

Same site comment on the NIV
//The NIV is perhaps the best, most accurate, and readable of the translations of the Bible into modern English. While there are several available alternatives, some of them have language that is too informal, regional, or colloquial to be suitable for use in a church. Others use language that is artificial or wooden. Some are freely translated, lacking adherence to the original text. Still others are one-man translations that have not been subjected to the checks and balances of a larger, organizational group. [...]The translators came from several denominations, including Baptist, Brethren, Church of Christ, Episcopalian, Lutheran, Mennonite, Methodist, Nazarene, Presbyterian, Christian Reformed, and others. Effective steps were taken to safeguard against sectarianism.//

Comment on the Living Bible:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/lbp.html

//Such renderings, in which the sovereignty of God's grace is practically nullified, did not sit well with many evangelicals who did not share Taylor's views. That these interpretations would be passed off on readers as if they were the words of the Bible itself shows the danger of this manner of presenting the Bible. The theological bent of the interpreter (however well-meaning he may be) will inevitably result in such problems

The complaints were such that, in 1989, Tyndale House commissioned an extensive revision by ninety evangelical scholars. The work was not far advanced before a decision was made to scrap the Living Bible as the basis for this work, and to create instead an entirely new "dynamic equivalence" translation, the New Living Translation (published 1996). The new translation was however advertised by Tyndale House as if it were a revision of its popular Living Bible, as originally planned.//

Other comment on the Living Bible (critical)
http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/living.htm
Compares

KJV "Cry aloud: for He is a god: either he is talking, or he is pursuing."

TLB "Perhaps he is talking to someone or else is out sitting on the toilet."
=====
BIBLE SITES; examples of passage we are discussing KJB, RSV and LT (tyndale)

Excellent Site:
http://www.bibles.net/

Several translations available in parallel on the same screen; nice! for example

King James Version 1611
15: And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
16: And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
18: And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
19: And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
20: And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
21: And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22: And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Revised Standard Version 1962

15: The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it.
16: And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may freely eat of every tree of the garden;
17: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die."
18: Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him."
19: So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.
20: The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper fit for him.
21: So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh;
22: and the rib which the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.

---
www.tyndale.com
New Living Translation {more accurate than The Living Bible--pure}

Genesis 2:
15The LORD God placed the man in the Garden of Eden to tend and care for it. 16But the LORD God gave him this warning: "You may freely eat any fruit in the garden 17except fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If you eat of its fruit, you will surely die." 18And the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a companion who will help him." 19So the LORD God formed from the soil every kind of animal and bird. He brought them to Adam* to see what he would call them, and Adam chose a name for each one. 20He gave names to all the livestock, birds, and wild animals. But still there was no companion suitable for him. 21So the LORD God caused Adam to fall into a deep sleep. He took one of Adam's ribs and closed up the place from which he had taken it. 22Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib and brought her to Adam.

This is absolutely amazing, Pure. I am impressed even. However, I have only one question in reguards to this effort. What part of: It doesn't matter to me which bible is used here, didn't you understand? As I said I have three different ones here in my house. I'm only using the Living Bible here because it's handy, and easier on the eyes to read. I'm a diabetic.

Oh wait, I get it now. Your bible is bigger, er.. better than mine, more accurate to your way of thinking so therefore I must be full of shit in any point that I try to make, especially on that atonement thing, right? (What am I getting at here? You attack my faith at every turn, but you can't see that I am not attacking yours.)

Well, congratulations, I go out of my way to make things easier for you to prove your point, and you instantly attack me for my bible source? You really are incredible. And you don't even see what you've put here above in that it is recommended that people check the Living Bible against say the King James version or your own sanctioned bible. (Why can't you see that I don't care which bible you use? The spirit of God's words are in every one of them that I have read.)

All that work, and research to beat an already dead horse into the ground. Look, I can't change my face, or eye color, (I can't use contacts), but I'll start combing all of my hair back from now on, how's that sound?

As Always
I Am the
Dirt Man

 

[Dirt Man]

In the Beginning Part IV:



So Cain is ostracized, and kicked out from the only home he’s ever known. Genesis gives us his linage, then tells us that Eve bears another son, Seth. How many other children she had boy, and girl babies isn’t told to us as they are unimportant to the main story itself. And she must have had other children as whom else could Cain have married? Now Adam was 130 years when Eve had Seth, Gen: 5: 3,4,5, and Seth was the very image of his father in every way. And immediately we get the linage of Adam through Seth all the way to Noah. This happens a lot in the Bible, and is often called the Begats. The simple reason for this is to the connection between Adam, all the way to Noah, then to Abraham, right to King David is hereditarily connected through Adam’s son Seth. And after King David all the way to Jesus Christ. This was all chronicled along the way to point to the coming of the Messiah, the chosen of God.

Now immediately after this linage, which is all that Gen.: 5 is about we come to chapter 6 of Genesis. Now a population explosion took place upon the earth. It was at this time that Angels looked upon the beautiful earth women, and took any that they desired to be their wives. It doesn’t say what side of the issue these Angels were on exactly, however it is evident to me that they are from Lucifer’s third of the Angelic horde in heaven. The dark side.

I come to this conclusion because Gen.: 6:3 of my Living Bible immediately says after these Angels have taken earth women as wives: Then Jehovah said, “My Spirit must not forever be disgraced in man, wholly evil as he is. I will give him 120 years to mend his ways” Then Gen.: 6: 4-6 In those days, and even afterwards, when the evil beings from the spirit world were sexually involved with human women, their children became giants, of so many legends are told. When the Lord God saw the extent of human wickedness, and that the trend and direction of men’s lives were only towards evil, he was sorry he had made them. It broke his heart.

This was an obvious intervention on the part of the dark side of the on going issue in the court of heaven to sway the outcome. But what is important is that it shows that Angels do exist, and that they do intervene in the affairs of mankind. We now know who the we, or us God spoke of earlier in Genesis is all about. So now God has to intervene. Another thing I believe here because of what is said is, because this is when the population explosion takes place, is that God is speaking in general when he says that man is wholly evil, he means mankind in general. Why do I think this? Because Gen.: 6:8 : But Noah was a pleasure to the Lord. Here is the story of Noah: This definitely tells us that God’s judgments are always directed to each individual to what they rightfully deserve.

And we find out from the story that Noah wasn’t the only one in God’s good graces either as all of Noah’s family, his wife, their sons, and the wives of their sons go aboard the Ark with two of every kind of animal. All the rest of life on the planet is pretty much wiped out by the flood. What isn’t drowned is only saved by the grace of God himself, or already lives in a watery environment. Other human lives may have been saved, but from the vantage point of this book they don’t really matter to the story. So that all the wickedness of mankind induced by the dark side Angels to sway matters on the issue in heaven is flushed down the drain so to speak. God promises mankind to never flood the earth again, and seals this promise with the Rainbow. The great experiment can now continue again unhampered. Or so it seems. At least for the moment. This goes on from Gen. 6, 7, and 8.

Then at Gen. 9:1-7 God blessed Noah and his sons and told them have many children and to repopulate the earth. “All wild animals and birds and fish will be afraid of you,” God told him; “for I have placed them in your power, and they are yours to use for food, in addition to grain and vegetables. But never eat animals unless their life-blood has been drained off. And murder is forbidden. Man-killing animals must die, and any man who murders shall be killed; for to kill a man is to kill one made like God. Yes, have many children and repopulate the earth and subdue it.” I find it intriguing that every time God starts over, or enters into a new contract, or agreement so to speak with man he gives him at least one commandment to follow, don’t you. It’s like putting his seal of approval on it as a confirmation. His way of signing I would guess. And isn’t it interesting that God now makes murder a capital crime/sin. In effect, it could be said that; an Eye for an Eye policy sanctioned by God now governs the earth by its inhabitants. With no parole for good deeds, or behavior after the fact. And there is no doubt in my mind that many people back then, and even a few now believe this eye for an eye standard to be true when it comes to murder, and some even for accidental killings, or the killing in a war. Personally, I don’t know for sure, but I do know that God was, and is against murder.

In any event it is now a law, to disobey it means the death penalty. By saying this God has in effect said that the penalty for disobeying his law is death as far as he is concerned. And don’t think for a moment that the dark side wouldn’t use this to their advantage either then, or in the future. However what the dark side failed to see was that the law didn’t work to their advantage the way they thought it would. But for the moment, in Lucifer’s mind, it gave Lucifer what later turned out to be a false title claim to the planet, and all that was on it. The Ten Commandments only reinforced his sense of security even further. It was only when Jesus Christ appeared on the scene in human form to atone for the sins of all mankind that Lucifer got even a little inkling of what was in store for him in the future. Okay, I’ve said my say about how it all began for now. Check it out for yourself, pick up the Holy Bible, and read it for yourself.

As Always
I Am the
Dirt Man

PS: And finally, to answer Pure's question of whether I thought that Mel needed to show all of the blood spraying, splashing, and flowing around in his movie the "Passion." The answer is No, he didn't have to. No other movie about Jesus Christ, to my knowledge, ever went big time on showing what the Messiah went through in those 12 hours. And only a few showed any blood from the wounds that would obviously have to have been inflicted by the crown of thorns Jesus was forced to wear. They all played it safe as far as the blood was concerned. But it hardly set right in those who knew the truth of those 12 hours seeing a pristine Jesus Christ up there on the cross. That's right, I said No, he didn't have to. The fact that he did is now acedemic. That he did shows his commitment to the reality of those 12 last hours of Jesus Christ. In my opinion, of course.

 

[Pure]

Hi Dirt Man,

I think we've flogged Genesis 2, enough.

DM said,when God made man that man was innocent, not good, or bad. That sounds to me like excellent in every way, or very good, or what have you as far as all of creation was concerned. And it still doesn't define man as being good, or bad at that moment.

Your previous description, which I can't locate, was that man became disobedient and morally corrupt.

So, according to you, we have an 'innocent' on the verge of great sin and moral corruption. A ticking time bomb, as it were.

The following are my impressions:
1)Further, I believe you hold-- providing for the necessity of Christ-- that Adam's choice, was the source of a continuing taint of humankind. Correct? Iow, original sin. No one of us is in the prefall position of Adam. (I'm not sure if you think Adam had original sin, or just the potential for it.)

2)Further, you believe that Christ's shedding of blood, somehow cancelled, or paid for all this original sin and sin derived from it, that would otherwise lead everyone straight to blazes. Right?

3) you believe that that shedding gives an inestimable salvation advantage--an essential cleansing--to Christians, defined as those having faith in (accepting) Jesus as God's Son. (This isn't to say no one thereafter pays a penalty for sin, or that everyone is guaranteed salvation [gets a not-guilty vedict]; but they at least avoid the virtual certainly of damnation [guilty verdict]).

I'm sure you'll have many quibbles with the way I've put these points, and they may be slightly off, but it's useful to have a rough 'nutshell' of your views on the table. If you can compress your views in these matters to 150 words, point form, do share it.
They are, of course, the views of a great many Christians.


My view and faith, of course, deny all three points above, and deny they have any proper Biblical warrant or basis (i.e., based on what the text actually says, considered whole).** Point 2, is of course, the apparent core of Mel's movie; and by implication, I think, Point 3.

J.

**That's why an accurate translation is important to have and look at here-- and there are a half dozen good ones including ones that satisfy most *conservative* and evangelical Christians; not the sloppy and biased paraphrase of Mr. What's his name (creator of the Living Bible), now apparently replaced by its publisher (can't find it on the Tyndale site).

Is this trying to 'top' your faith. Well, I'm not mentioning translation to critique your holding of the 3 points above, but for holding some odd additions to them, from the voting of the angels to your story of creation. BUT you can believe what you like, including from any source that convinces you.

And yes, I do see a problem where a self labelled Christian sect or person relies on very biased translations or paraphrases, esp. when due to one person (the sect founder). The Jehovah's Witnesses are one example, though they include some fine people.

 

[Dirt Man]

Hi Dirt Man,



And yes, I do see a problem where a self labelled Christian sect or person relies on very biased translations or paraphrases, esp.

And where did I ever say that I did, Pure? I never did. I've asked you over and over to stop putting words in my mouth. When will you stop? Ever? That I use that particular bible for this discourse doesn't mean that I base my faith on it. It's just handy to use right now.

As Always
I Am the
Dirt Man

 

[Dirt Man]

Hi Dirt Man,

I think we've flogged Genesis 2, enough.


My view and faith, of course, deny all three points above, and deny they have any proper Biblical warrant or basis (i.e., based on what the text actually says, considered whole).** Point 2, is of course, the apparent core of Mel's movie; and by implication, I think, Point 3.

J.

Once again you are repeating yourself. So why say it over and over again.