A Question for S.T.Ranger
31-05-2012, 06:45 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(30-05-2012 09:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: S.T. Ranger,
It is apparent from this response that I will need to be more careful to speak in a manner so as not to confuse.
Did you read the post at all? Or just skim through so you could post your normal responses? You will need to try to examine the context of the discussion a little better, which will cut down on the need to respond to arguments that have nothing to do with what I have said.
Let me try to put this in context for you:
Quote:Quote:I would like to point out, that even before the Sinaitic Covenant, (the one which the many editorial revisionists of the eventual Pentateuch left us with), the original historical Covenant had to do with the origins of the Yahweh god.
As is asked...which covenant do you speak about? I have to ask because there are several Covenants that we do not ignore when discussing the New Covenant.
The institution of the First Covenant dealt with the idolatry which man as a general rule had fallen into.
Can you now understand that the explanation was already there? But, if you need further explanation, just be patient, that is why this is called a discussion. Do you think that you can settle this discussion in a few short posts?
(30-05-2012 09:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: In addition the totally "out of the blue" introduction of the moon-god cult, (Islam), has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. Where EXACTLY did I try to "make Christianity (and apparently Judaism) fit the mold of Islam" ? Are you hallucinating ?
Well you see, ever since I became a believer there has been, according to the disciples of science, a chemical change in my brain, so perhaps I am...lol.
Reread your own words. It is no different than the development of Islam.
(30-05-2012 09:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: You assertion that "Scripture tells us of the idolatry man fell into after the Fall", belies your fundamental problem. You are reading scripture as history, with no other external sources, (obviously).
This is humorous. You may not realize it, but this is a familiar tactic in debating and discussion: charge someone with a particular trait or belief, deny there evidences by discrediting them.
How about something you mention: the Israel Stela. Is it a matter that any archaeological discovery that might verify historical veracity of the scriptural account (which I do, by the way, consider to be a legitimate historical account)...is somehow to be dismissed?
Here is another tactic used by those that lack the ability to address a discussion and stay focused on the subject: change the subject.
And another: charge them that if they do not read their religious literature...they are purposefully blinding themselves to, interestingly enough, the light.
Okay, I will try this again: do you want to talk about the New Covenant as found in scripture, or not?
(30-05-2012 09:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: There simply is no point in any further discussion with such a totally fundamentalist, ignorant position.
And that is the difference between a "fundy" like me and you: I am willing to talk to anyone without demanding they embrace my beliefs.
(30-05-2012 09:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: The "Scriptures" are faith texts, and have nothing to do with the modern concept of "historical accuracy", and indeed there even IS no word in Ancient Hebrew for the concept.
Is there a word for archaeology in the ancient Hebrew culture?
How many concepts can we list as not being found in ancient Hebrew culture? Here's a good one...the brushing of teeth.
(30-05-2012 09:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: My point of view has been formed by evidence, which has been assembled from many sources, something which you obviously find threatening, as you can't even look at a 15 minute video, and refute one assertion in it.
Trying to force your literature on me, eh? This is your proof...what other men have told you? Of course anything that points to the veracity of the historical record is certainly fairy tales made up by men with suspect motivation, but the literature and sources you place your faith in are without error, infallible, and not to be questioned by a fundamental ignoramus like me?
The main reason I do not look at all (and I look at some of them) of the links is my compulsion to answer them in a detailed manner. I just don't have the time.
Is it so much to ask that you simply lay out your beliefs, give the supporting "evidence," and go from there? Better yet, could you try to stay on topic?
But, just like all false religion, you are set on proving me to be of inferior intellect (of which I would not deny, I never said I was smart...lol), and all I need to do is read your literature, your own bible so to speak. Then, VOILA! Maybe I will see the light.
You know...you sound an awful lot like me, fella. lol
At least, what I am accused of. lol
Now, in very simple terms, you claim to know scripture, yet you have completely avoided what scripture has to say about the New, and the First Covenant for that matter. What little you have said has been in error (and I WILL NOT give further explanation until you engage the conversation, rather than a tirade filled with your own "propaganda" lol), and if you wish to discuss it, excellent.
Maybe we should discuss Star Wars to get some practice on a discussion of a book...lol.
(30-05-2012 09:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: "Idolatry" ((which YOU have no other explanation in your simplistic worldview for, other than to explain it by calling it, (moral) "error")) belies your judgemental fundie view of history. Saying " that while idolatry was definitely an error on the part of the Hebrew people, this really has nothing to do with the First Covenant", is a meaningless assertion, unsupported by even one reason. ?
See how easy it is to change what someone says? I do not recall saying moral error. If you do it, what makes you think that your own prophets don't?
You make a good point here, though, when viewed from an overview of the discussion, however, I would make the analogy of "doctrinal error plays a role in English history but it has nothing to do with the Constitution."
My point was this: you are making "the Hebrew culture" and "Israel under the First Covenant" to have no distinction.
Does this clarify the statement any?
(30-05-2012 09:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: If it's the "basis for the establishment" it has EVERYTHING to do with the First Covenant.
And in this regard you are correct. But you miss my point concerning your attempt to liken the institution of the First Covenant with Islam's idolatry, thus an attempt to discredit the events as recorded. Which is why I pointed out that the idolatry of the Hebrews...is no secret.
(30-05-2012 09:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:S.T. Ranger Wrote: "Ever wonder why there are correlations between the false religions of the world. Ever thought of the fact that man had a knowledge of God in his beginnings, and that knowledge became corrupted, man basically deciding to believe what he wanted to, creating God and theology to his liking?"No. Not really.
Give it some thought.
I will break this up.
31-05-2012, 07:14 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
31-05-2012, 07:30 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(30-05-2012 09:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: Show me the Archaeological evidence for your "knowledge of God in his beginnings"...and all that other stuff.
Show me your archaeological evidence for the beginning of the world.
Be glad to look at that.
But, to quote someone: "the scriptures are faith texts."
I will, like millions before me, take the view that God has said this is His word for mankind.
(30-05-2012 09:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: The Hebrew people appropriated to themselves the "chosen people" idea, to justify the land expansion, (as they still do to this day), and to comfort themselves during and after the Babylonian Exile, when their world was rocked by the fact that a supposed "god chosen" nation had been defeated, (and the God of the Armies had proven ineffective).
And the accounts of the events in which they were victorious in battle?
You say that you have read scripture, but apparently you have forgotten that during and after the conquest their were victories.
And according to scripture, their idolatry was rampant. As I said before, God judged them.
You say, "as they still do to this day," are you anti-semitic? I can understand your doubt concerning the history scripture records, but will you at least look at it from a perspective of heritage? Do you deny the fact that Jews once possessed that land?
(30-05-2012 09:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: Where EXACTLY does any text say even one word about "the oracles of God".
King James Version (KJV)
2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
King James Version (KJV)
12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
1 Peter 4:11
King James Version (KJV)
11 If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
Of course, if we looked at the passages which do not directly use this term, that would take up quite a bit of space.
(30-05-2012 09:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: Along with any bible text be sure and include at least one extra biblical reference, for validation, otherwise, it's circular.
An extrabiblical reference to what? lol
Well, every time you post your literature...include a biblical reference. You don't catch on very quick, do you? All I have asked (and this in response to a challenge) is to discuss what scripture actually says.
Here is another example: I think Yoda was really a New Yorker...not like George Lucas (who corrupted the original manuscript) teaches that he was not.
What would we do? Well, we could look at the movie (probably on youtube), read the book (and take it for granted that the story hasn't changed from the original manuscript), or look at the original manuscript penned by Lucas himself.
It's really not that difficult. If you do not want to do this, okay. But please, give up on the proselytization...lol.
(30-05-2012 09:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: Of course they said they were "the Witness Nation", (actually they NEVER said that). The VERY late comers, (the Christian fundies cooked that one up).
Okay, just as a starter, consider:
King James Version (KJV)
18 Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him?
19 For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.
Perhaps the implicit teaching is not enough for you, so here is another one:
King James Version (KJV)
10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
11 I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour.
Isaiah, I am pretty sure, would take issue with you on the results of your conclusions.
(30-05-2012 09:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: Did you think they were going to call themselves the "Land Grabbers" ? The destructioin of the Temple around 70 CE, and the complete destruction of Jerusalem, (after the Second Revolt), caused a complete re-evaluation for the loss of the nation, and the lack of the advent of the sought after political messiah.
As we have not conversed enough for the many facets which have to be examined to begin understanding the progressive revelation of God's word, let me just say at this time that you have at least proven the complete innacuracy of your own statements here.
First, that you have no understanding of Israel's judgment, particularly in view of the New Covenant, shows that you, like most, invest your study (research) in that which man says about scripture rather than what scripture teaches. As a hint:
King James Version (KJV)
7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.
There is coming a time when Israel will be brought into relationship with God through the New Covenant, and until then, their understanding is veiled.
Secondly, whether the Messiah is viewed as political or not does not change the fact that you admitting something you denied only yesterday (or the day before, I am not sure): they looked for Messiah to come.
Third, and lastly, The Messiah they looked for would rule over a kingdom, and in this time, they viewed this as salvation, redemption, if you prefer.
(30-05-2012 09:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: There were many known Semitic settlements in Canaan BEFORE the Mernepteh Stele documents an "exodus event". Your statement that "in fact, it took very little time for even these people, delivered, saved (which you deny is present in Judaism) from their bondage in Egypt...to once again return to idolatry. The golden calf", essentially just supports my position, or otherwise is also a non-sequitur. It proves they only saw the Yahweh god as one of many, (Baal being one).
Is this supposed to make sense? I mean really, did you read the post?
For the last time, lol, they were idolaters. Now, understand this: everyone that is separated from God...are idolaters. Deny it if you will, makes no difference to me...facts are facts.
You keep saying this like I have refuted what has been said.
(30-05-2012 09:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: The problem is, you "choose" to believe as historical, a non-historical set of texts, and close off the matter there.
The scriptures are non-historical texts? Would you accept them more if there were only a couple, such as most of the documents you claim to be true historical texts?
This is an amazing position that shows you are a man of great faith...lol.
Of course you are.
31-05-2012, 07:54 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(30-05-2012 09:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: Every thing you have said is just parroting the old fundy BS, and shows not one original thought. Not one.
We have not conversed enough for you to truly judge whether I parrot the same fundamental message. You assume, as many do...that you already know what I believe.
But this is true: while you claim to base your beliefs upon evidence and truth, you betray the nature of your beliefs in your conversation. I know this is lost on you, but if you will stop to think about that, you might see what I mean, and then, you might actually try to aquire a few true facts before making your conclusions. This will be difficult, I know, but we all have to learn this if we are to know better how to discuss opposing views with others.
(30-05-2012 09:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: Your assertion that "god finds man" is not the subject here. But since you raise the Psychological issue, lets go at it. You have not one shred of evidence that what goes on in your head is NOT the result of your brain chemistry. In fact there are now many studies which show how the god delusion changes brain chemistry.
First, the subject has been madfe clear many times: The New Covenant. You hijack the conversation, in typical fashion, by stating that the Old Covenant must be discussed first. This, I assume, because you actually believe that you have an understanding of the First Covenant, and feel more comfortable setting the stage.
Secondly: so science has actually verified that belief in God does affect people. Do you understand that this is not an argument in your favor? lol
Have they done studies to show what changes occur when people turn atheist. Why don't you post some of these resources, these I will gladly look at, as, believe it or not, I have quite a bit of faith in scientists and science.
(30-05-2012 09:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: Saying "god finds us" is just a cop out attempt to justify the delusion, by asserting passivity, (which we know from the studies, is false).
God has done so since the beginning...lol.
What exactly would you know about heresy?
You identify the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil...as an apple.
This is like me identifying the Millenium Falcon as a schooner.
But this is one of your primary problems: you claim to seek truth, but in reality, like most religious people in the world, you merely seek resources that back up what you already believe. Or that which you want to believe.
(30-05-2012 09:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: as Christians would say they have to assert "faith" before, (or at least concurrently) the "finding" can occur.
And what Christians are those? If you want to make statements concerning Christian Theology, you will first have to study the source of that doctrine, and unlike many want to believe, Biblical Doctrine is not a "this is true for them but this is true for others" kind of doctrine.
Those that deny that salvation is wholly the work of God, from start to finish, are those that have found religion...it is a works-based mentality.
If you want to discuss this, I will be glad to.
Sorry to hear that. But perhaps you should refrain from joining conversations with those that actually do care.
(30-05-2012 09:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: Until I see a credible god, who stands up to Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics, and Logic, I do not care. The attempt to get me to care, (ie follow you down the rabbit hole), ain't gonna work here.
You are probably right, but, you again make the mistake of thinking I believe I can, or am seeking to...change your mind. That poer is not mine. So again, lets try to gather facts before making statments such as this.
(30-05-2012 09:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: I am immune. Saying "You are in error" without explaining EXACTLY how, just makes you look ignorant , and very foolish.
I am okay with that, really. I have never claimed to have some great intellect, nor claimed to be one with all the answers.
However, if one cannot understand a conversation nor follow along, there is not much I can do about that. I have, by the way, in line for line addressment, explained myself on every point. That you in turn are not getting it is out of my hands. If I have not explained well enough, let me know, with quotation, that which you are having trouble with.
And by the way, are CAPS supposed to make your statements more valid, MORE aceceptable somehow, or are you just yelling at me?
31-05-2012, 08:34 AM (This post was last modified: 31-05-2012 08:52 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(31-05-2012 06:45 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote: If you mean the First Covenant, there is no question that the Hebrew people were idolaters. Thus...the Covenant of Law.
No I can't. You, with no historical support, have asserted that "man had fallen into idolatry". There is abosolutely not one shred of archealogical evidence that humans, (or members of Hebrew communities) ever had a PRIOR period of monotheism, (actually there is, but you don't know where to find it). If you can come up with evidence that
Hebrews were monotheistic at anytime prior to, or even after the First Covenant, you will be made Chairman of Ancient History at Harvard, this afternoon.
Congratuations in advance. You cannot state something which there is NOT one piece of evidence for. That is how you explain the world to yourself. It's delusional. As I tried to hint to you, your judgemental pejorative use of the word "idolatry", is your simplistic negative view of a morally neutral, completely natural, human development process, documented all over the world, in many cultures. Your simple minded view of that, and your need dump a complex historical process into your simple minded fundie "idolatry" paradigm, is evidence you are not up to this task.
"deny there evidences" ... it's "their" evidences. Those bells are ringing again. Loud and clear.
"How about something you mention: the Israel Stela. Is it a matter that any archaeological discovery that might verify historical veracity of the scriptural account (which I do, by the way, consider to be a legitimate historical account)...is somehow to be dismissed?"
I have not dismissed the Mernepteh stele. I simply said there is evidence, as every archaelologist now agrees, that there were Semitic settlements in Canaan before the event documented on the stele, thus proving that whatever happened, the Hebrews were already there, and Genesis is not an accurate portrayal, if we take it as the total picture. (BTW "stele" is spelled s,t,e,l,e).
"Do you want to talk about the New Covenant as found in scripture, or not?"
Not really. It has become more than apparent, as evidenced by your post that all you can do is preach with your bible texts, which you do not know word one about, historically, but spout as if they support your position, because that's all you ever studied. You need to study some objective history.
I only talk about historical reality. You can interpret your scriptures any way you like, as many people in your cults do, because you have no objective criteria for their use, and NO historical knowledge of their development. You make up anything you like to fit your whims. There IS no word for "archaelology" in ancient Hebrew. So what. It has nothing to do with that fact that there was no word for "historical", (speaking of changing the subject), and this fact is irrelevant, to your argument, and completely relevant to mine. Thank you for supporting my point that your business is non-historical, and has no archaeological evidence.
"How many concepts can we list as not being found in ancient Hebrew culture? Here's a good one...the brushing of teeth."
The bells have now just rung for the last time. You total ignorance of your own (supposed) subject, (not even knowing what "textual criticism" is all about, or why it might be important) has made this a useless enterprise. I don't waste my time with First Graders. You ARE an ignoramus. YOU have provided the proof, over and over here. You are not up to this task. The reason you don't answer the links, is because you can't, and as you have proven here, your only argument is "they fell into idolatry". As I have stated, I have respect for people of faith who can back up their positions with some knowledge. You spout verses from texts you know nothing about, and have no knowledge of their historical context.
Don't bother to "break it up". This is a waste of time. Speaking of breaks, it's time for a long one. While I'm gone, tell Mark when you became a Gnostic, and explain to him how the Bible (the "word") IS your god.
"And you quit footing the bill for these nations that are oil rich - we're paying for some of their *squirmishes* that have been going on for centuries" - Sarah Palin
The following 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post:1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
Mark Fulton (01-06-2012)
31-05-2012, 08:38 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(30-05-2012 09:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: I might be willing to look at the mystical concept of the "Cloud of the Unknowing" (unknown Medieval author), but see no reason to do so. Humans don't need gods anymore. The Universe is explainable without them. They add nothing.
Well, most religions can explain how the universe came into being. Could you let me know your thoughts on that?
(30-05-2012 09:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: The only "savior" the Hebrews were looking for, was a political one, and that hope arose when they were defeated by the Babylonians, as Mark tried to tell us.
So you have gone from "no Savior" to a political one. Is this a flip-flop on your thorough knowledge of the ancient Hebrew culture?
I mean, a savior is a savior, right?
(30-05-2012 09:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: The fact that YOU actually think that there was a "spiritual" messiah, expected, (which BTW is TOTALLY different from the need for a sacrificial appeasement to a eons long pissed off god), tells us you know no real history.
Well, leave me to my fairy tales, then.
I will just say this: while I agree that Israel did not understand the role of Messiah, and in fact, even the closest disciples of the Lord did not in full understand, they did look for redemption. The view that somehow Babylonian captivity just completely changed the beliefs of the Hebrew people is laughable at best. Were their influences? I think so. Were those influences good? I think not.
But, just as you and many atheists make the mistake of viewing the "religion" of the Jews in Christ's day as valid and in accordance with the Doctrine of scripture, you make the mistake of viewing viewing all things that are called Christian as in accordance with the Doctrine of scripture.
Then you have the utter gall to say that you know scripture better than Christians...lol.
(30-05-2012 09:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: Don't even start with either Isaiah or Deutero-Isaiah. They said the things they did in context of the Exile, about a POLITICAL messiah.
And your point is?
Look, if you want to have a real discussion, let me know. Are you aware that just days before the Crucifixion, the disciples of Christ...were not saved. Of course that is my belief derived from my study, but I would just suggest that there is more to Christian Doctrine than the surface elements you propose to know so well.
(30-05-2012 09:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: Even the Apostles at the very end of Jesus' ministry, STILL thought of him as a political messiah. Acts 1:6 "Lord wilt Thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel ?" (So yeah, I read it all, many times).
I agree with this, however, I would push you a little further: how could the disciples, after three years of teaching from the very Messiah Himself...be so utterly ignorant of redemption from sin?
I know your answer will probably run along the lines of the argument presented so far, "Paul made all this stuff up," but I would suggest to you that there is a very simple reason: the New Covenant had not been instituted yet.
Furthermore, just as God had promised a kingdom to Israel, your quotation of Acts verifies that, once again illustrating your mishandling of the facts found in scripture. It was, after all, fulfillment of those promises they looked for.
And this has been denied by some here as not existing in the Old Testament.
Would you at least admit to that? Would you admit that despite the fact your knowledge is flawed and your argument contradictory...you, and others, have thus far shown only ignorance of the Covenants, the First and the New being the primary concern?
(30-05-2012 09:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: The "salvation" in Paul, is NOT the "expectation" in Judaism.
No, it the revelation of mystery explaining in better detail the promises of God.
Israel looked for a Messiah to come, a kingdom to be established, and redemption from oppression, just to name a few aspects.
Fulfillment of prophecy.
I put this a link that those that do not wish to see this...do not have to.
Consider carefully the context of our discussion when you look at this.
(30-05-2012 09:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: Christians attempt to connect the two, but fail historically.
And you can identify a Christian?
What is the scientific process you have performed to qualify yourself as one that can identify Christians...or Christian doctrine?
Your statements are hollow.
According to you. But if you knew the progressive nature of revelation and the internal evidence that salvation in Christ through His One sacrifice has always been the plan of God and revealed in full according to the order of that progression, you might think otherwise.
This does not mean you have to embrace it, only that you might recognize it without feeling the need to dismiss it.
Just as I recognize that no, Yoda probably was not a New Yorker.
(30-05-2012 09:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: In Paul, it has morphed into an (Greek) ontological paradigm, of "atonement", of humans with a (Greek), idealised being, who shortly got slapped with the Greek Gnostic overlay of Jesus being the "word".
Atonement begins in the very beginning of Genesis.
The shedding of blood can be seen performed by God Himself in the Garden, Abel, Noah, Abraham...it is not a new concept.
Yet because someone told you that the greeks, and Paul, invented it, you buy it hook, line, and sinker.
(30-05-2012 09:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: There was no "period of expectation of salvation from the Lord' until the Babylonian Exile, and after. If you have proof of it, let's see it.
This is why a study of the Covenants, whether you view them as myth or not, will help you to understand redemption in scripture. This is one of the reasons I chose the topic of the New Covenant.
Okay, how about this:
King James Version (KJV)
24 And Joseph said unto his brethren, I die: and God will surely visit you, and bring you out of this land unto the land which he sware to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.
Merely political? You be the judge. This promise is echoed by the disciples before the ascension of Christ. They are not different expectations.
(30-05-2012 09:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: Do you even know when the texts of the Pentateuch were written ? YOU view their god as "the savior", because that is how you were taught to view him.
YOU YOURSELF...have also called Him Savior. lol
A political Savior.
(30-05-2012 09:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: Salvation in Paul, means that the god sent the son to do the sacrifice, in order to appease himself. THAT means the eternal, immutable god CHANGED, AFTER seeing the sacrifice.
Nothing changed about God. He is still the same. What has changed is the amount of knowledge He has given man. While you may not be able to see the difference, which is due primarily to the fact that you see the Covenants, and the God of the Bible as two different things. However, a look at the subject without the need to call on your prophets' literature, a truly objective look at what scripture actually teaches...will help you to see that.
(30-05-2012 09:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: There is so much about that, that is wrong, philosophically, a First Grader could refute it.
As well as discern that there is no mention of an apple in Genesis.
Study the Covenants in scripture itself, and whether you embrace it or not, you will see that the position and conclusions you hold now are in error.
Tell that to Cain.
31-05-2012, 09:20 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
You have no clue as to what I think the fall was. Is this how you reach all of your conclusions?
Very unscientific if you ask me.
But if you wish to learn the details, get the factors in place...and then begin to draw conclusions, let me know.
(30-05-2012 09:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: The ONLY thing you have read is the Christian, mistaken interpretation of the myth.
Really, I am trying to tell you, if you will just examine scripture yourself, apart from the influences of men that agree with conclusions you want to verify, you will see what I mean.
I have read many Torah scholars.
But if you want to give advice to a bible student, please familiarize yourself, at least in part, with what they believe.
Here is a little start to entering a conversation with a bible student concerning Judaizers (the only legitimate Jew to include in a theological dicussion, in my opinion): most understand they have been, due to the fact that they are still under judgment (awaiting their redemption...the fulfillment of God's promises to National Israel)...have a veil placed over their eyes, or, have been blinded to the truth.
(30-05-2012 09:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: The Garden myth has been hijacked by Christianity to fit Paul's invention.
And apart from your actual presence in the Garden, you are forced to place your faith in the works of men. I am aware that many do not take a literal view of the Garden, and have made it an allegory, but whether you see it as myth or not...does not change the fact the plan of redemption runs in harmony all throughout scripture. Revelation of knowledge has been progressive, but there is no contradiction in the eventual outcome.
Self evidence in the need for literature to verify one's faith, and a refusal to look at the actual source which they speak of.
(30-05-2012 09:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: It is not about sin and disobedience. It is a myth about Chaos and Order.
And I bet you can quote chapter (and verse...lol) of the book that you read that in.
Or were you there?
(30-05-2012 09:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: It is NOT about "disobedience". That is PRECISELY what it is NOT about.
CAPITALIZING YOUR WORDS does not, sorry to say...make something true.
(30-05-2012 09:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: The myth is about the Human Condition, and the impossibility of "encompassing the opposites", (allegorically stated as "eating the apple" from the Tree of Knowledge of BOTH "good and evil").
And there are many Jews who have also rejected their Messiah...who would agree with you.
(30-05-2012 09:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: "Chaos" is "not making a choice". THAT is not "sin". You THINK it's about "sin" because that's what the Christians taught you, because they hijacked the myth to fit their salvation paradigm.
So saith your scripture.
Actually, there are a few who do (they are the ones that never use the word "apple" in the discussion...lol).
(30-05-2012 09:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: They "think" they know the story, but don't look at the text.
(30-05-2012 09:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: Genesis 3:5 says : "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." The temptation, as is obvious, right in front of your face, is NOT about apple ingestion, (disobedience), it's a mythological/allegorical attempt to "become like a god", (and it certainly has NOTHING to do with idol worship).
You seek to run a course of argument that is outside of examination of the text.
Who is speaking? Is what he says true?
DID THEY BECOME LIKE GOD?
(just thought I would see if caps actually do make something truer...lol)
(30-05-2012 09:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: Or is it what you have now changed the "fall" to be, and cooked up the "idolatry" thing ?
I did not cook up the fall, I did not cook up idolatry. Honestly, your arguments are a bit disjointed.
Again, you must first understand what scripture declares truth before assuming to discern heresy.
(30-05-2012 09:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: If you actually look, every biblical text is very different from the other, in many ways.
This...coming from someone that thinks they ate an apple? Did youlearn that from Aerosmith?
(30-05-2012 09:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: For example the "divinity" of Jesus is totally different in each one, (and was added to Mark later).
Again, the Divinity of Christ and the Doctrine thereof begins in the Old Testament, just like the Doctrine of the New Covenant.
(30-05-2012 09:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: Have you never actually taken any serious academic course on Exegisis or Form Criticism ?
It is said by some that there are about five Bible Colleges left in America that actually view God's word...as God's word. Many of them take the views expressed here.
My formal education is limited, so, there you go, another reason to dismiss me. I will say that I do like to fish though...lol.
Hope you get that one.
Gasp! Study the Bible itself? Come on, how can anyone learn about the Bible by actually studying it?
(30-05-2012 09:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: I don't know if they run scripture on You-Tube. I do know that, unlike you, I am not afraid to look for truth, no matter where the search leads. I have actually been listening to all the Craig stuff. No hope for him, yet. But I'll keep looking.
Again, an extra-biblical resource. It is really a simple concept...really.
Not very familiar with them. Even with the study of other false religions, I try to keep the lion's share of my study in scripture. These men are, I am sure, fabulous sokesmen of your faith, but, when you study the true, such as in currency, you are better able to discern the counterfeit. You should try this sometime.
(30-05-2012 09:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:S.T. Ranger Wrote: "This shows a lack of knowledge concerning salvation in regards to Hebrew Culture, which, it should be kept in mind, predates the First Covenant. Need to get things clarified a bit. And in regards to Israel, under the Covenant of Law, scripture is clear that Israel sinned, and fell into idolatry, and were judged of God."
Well, how about the topic at hand? The New Covenant? You have demonstrated that this is probably a new subject for you. I understand that, really. It is seldom discussed, even among Christians.
The question is...why? It is central doctrine, in my opinion, in understanding Christian Theology.
(30-05-2012 09:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: First of all, even in traditional Christian Theology, the "fall" was NOT "into idolatry".
Nothing in my posts even suggests this. You have failed to understand what was said.
I never said that The Fall "was into idolatry." While idolatry was a result of the Fall, what was in view, if you will reread it, was sin.
I can tell you this: misrepresenting what I said and then making conclusions from your own error can be lessened if you would simply quote what it is I said.
(30-05-2012 09:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: So ding ding ding..the lights go on. You are a total amateur. You don 't even know your own religion.
Care to discuss that? lol
(30-05-2012 09:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: Even in traditional Christianity, the "fall" was disobedience.
The Fall cannot be summed up in one concept, such as disobedience. The Fall kept in the context of the entirety of scripture, both implicit and explicit teaching, is a many faceted discussion, just as the New Covenant cannot be summed up as "it simply means covenant."
Scriptural comparison is vital to understanding God's word.
Or the mistake of making an erroneous conclusion will result.
(30-05-2012 09:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
Let's say for the sake of argument you are right: this does not change the fact that you refuse to address the topic at hand. I have given you leeway to view this as myth and makebelieve, like Star Wars, and to look at the content. You refuse to do that.
(30-05-2012 09:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: You can "synchronize" anything you NEED to, (we are the Pattern Seeking Money after all), but it's all the same as doing the "bible code" stuff.
Again, try to hear what I believe before making conclusions.
(30-05-2012 09:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: It's all totally on subjective nonsense, unless you have EXTERNAL sources, which YOU NEVER ONCE mention.
And this is important to you, I know this.
What does that have to do with the New Covenant. I expect discussion with some to break down and the emotional responses and name-calling to begin, but boy! that was rather quick.
You mock and ridicule the notion of spiritual evidences, and it is ironic you would mention science that documents physical change in believers.
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT WILL SUFFICE FOR YOU. (does this actually work? caps, I mean...lol)
If there were, you would seek out the man or men that could provide you with the reasoning or evidence that strengthens the beliefs you chosse to have and hold. Deny that. You know the methods of your "research." You claim objectivity but your statements betray that.
(30-05-2012 09:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: What EXACTLY does "in the beginning" with reference to sin mean. Did Neanderthals commit sin ? When in the history of human evolution, did the first soul get infused ?
Here you actually come back to this point, this time, betrer in context with what I have said, showing that at the very least, what I said at some point registered. Keep that up.
I do not subscribe to the evolution theory, so now the role is reversed: I see this, as you see my beliefs, as a myth, designed to give atheists and those that do not truly believe in God's word comfort.
I especially like this next section.
31-05-2012, 09:40 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(30-05-2012 09:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: Since you said the "Bible is the Word of God", can you tell us when you adopted Gnosticism ?
Here, you "corrupt" (lol) what I said to better try to control conversation.
To my knowledge and the best of my memory, we have not even broached a discussion about the Word of God, to be distinguished from the word of God.
Then you go on to again presume to discern and identify my beliefs through a faulty premise derived from your own inability to discern context, or, at the very least, ask for clarification of what I said.
But that's okay, I am used to it.
(30-05-2012 09:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: The first line of the Gospel of John says, (...BTW...thanks KC ... I only know it in Latin and Greek, and am totally ignorant of translation issues...you are the expert there...) : "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God".
You say you are ignorant of "translation issues?" And ask me where I studied?
Can you not see how you betray yourself?
And this is what I said.
(30-05-2012 09:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: ("in principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbum").
(30-05-2012 09:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: Are you trying to say the Bible existed eternally, before it was written, before the (supposed) sins were freely chosen, or the supposed events had actually happened ?
Never said that. A quick reread will show that. (perhaps that first-grader you were talking about...lol [just kidding])
(30-05-2012 09:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: Or, are you saying that the bible actually IS the second person of the Trinity.
No sir. The Word is the Second Person of the Trinity, the word is the revealed and recorded word of God.
Can you see how much time is wasted simply because you seek to follow a rabbit trail that I am guessing you feel you can stand your ground on, just as you hijacked the New Covenant discussion, and provided my challenger to an out?
Well, the last time you asked me for clarification, it went basically unanswered, other than to be met with your authoritative opinion, which was a little disjointed, if you ask me.
The way this is phrased, it really makes no sense. Similar to your clouding of the subject of the ancient Hebrew culture and Israel.
The Bible is the word of God, I believe that.
I also believe the Gospel account of the Word, the Son of God, Who is eternal, whereas the Christ has a beginning in the sense that before God took on the form of man in that particular body which He went to the Cross in, that body did not exist.
For some it is, there is no question. We see this displayed in those that make the erroneous argument that there is a specific translation that is the only acceptable one.
But no, the word of God is not God, just as the Constitution is not the founding fathers, for example.
(30-05-2012 09:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
Well, it is probably self-delusion, but I feel I have explained mysef as well as can be, and have answered your questions and comments fairly well.
Quote: tell us HOW EXACTLY it's in error.
I have done that. Just go up a few lines and look at the false argument you present concerning the word of God.
(30-05-2012 09:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: You don't actually think you're gonna come to an atheist site and preach do you ?
Call it what you like. I have made clear that I am not here to force anything on anyone. Simply to answer the challenge of "We know scripture better than Christians," and so far, I have seen the exact opposite. And this, because while the claim of approaching the issue scientifically is made, there are so many violations of scientific practice committed that not even a simplle conversation can proceed with a reasonable path.
Thanks for lesson, there, BB. I did enjoy it, though I would have preferred an actual on-topic discussion. For just a split second there, I thought one was going to take place.
31-05-2012, 09:54 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(31-05-2012 08:34 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:(31-05-2012 06:45 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote: If you mean the First Covenant, there is no question that the Hebrew people were idolaters. Thus...the Covenant of Law.
Okay, just to finish up what you call a waste of time (though we never really know the fruit of our own words, whether good or bad, do we?), I will quickly comment on your parting shot and ask: can you not stand on your own two feet in a discussion without appealing to your contemporaries?
Quote:You, with no historical support, have asserted that "man had fallen into idolatry".
Are you unaware that you made this statement...first?
Quote:If you can come up with evidence that
Did you type this with a straight face? Concerning the First Covenant (I guessed you looked that up...lol), are the archaeological discoveries of ancient manuscripts not evidence enough?
Read some Torah scholars.
Quote:There IS no word for "archaelology" in ancient Hebrew. So what. It has nothing to do with that fact that there was no word for "historical", (speaking of changing the subject), and this fact is irrelevant, to your argument, and completely relevant to mine. Thank you for supporting my point that your business is non-historical, and has no archaeological evidence.
I guess for some of us it takes a little more before we buy into something. Are you really going to stick with "no evidence" proves something is not true? Think about that before you answer, if you do answer.
Quote:The bells have now just rung for the last time. You total ignorance of your own (supposed) subject, (not even knowing what "textual criticism" is all about, or why it might be important) has made this a useless enterprise. I don't waste my time with First Graders. You ARE an ignoramus. YOU have provided the proof, over and over here. You are not up to this task. The reason you don't answer the links, is because you can't, and as you have proven here, your only argument is "they fell into idolatry". As I have stated, I have respect for people of faith who can back up their positions with some knowledge. You spout verses from texts you know nothing about, and have no knowledge of their historical context.
oH yEah...im tellin!
Contend for your faith, my friend, rely on the evidences man has presented, and then change your mind as they uncover more of the story hidden in the earth. Perhaps it is a waste of time, and I encourage you...don't respond!
Don't waste your time on an ignoramus!
But, I will also you to look at this conversation again, and see if you cannot recognize at least one point in which you have betrayed yourself. I am sorry if I have offended you, that is not my intent, but, that you might for yourself look at scripture apart from the literature that better suits your beliefs.
Have to going, and I hope to get to a few quick ones before I go.
31-05-2012, 10:24 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(30-05-2012 10:42 AM)kingschosen Wrote: ST, what I see going on here is that you aren't trying to argue from a spiritual point of view;
Seeing that you have failed to actually understand a very clear statement that as a student I do not stop at a translation...I have to ask you why it is that I would consider your statements as actually having some spiritual authority.
I am really disappointed, KC.
Would you care to look at what you have said so far in this conversation, and discern spiritually not only the veracity of your statements, but the motivations behind them.
Perhaps you are an "undercover agent," working for the advancement of atheism? Perhaps the sin of seeking recognition and glory from men has perhaps swayed your judgment?
(30-05-2012 10:42 AM)kingschosen Wrote: moreover, you're trying to engage Bucky on a historical, empirical level.
You, with the exception of one person, have failed to discern something that has been stated repeatedly, even had an analogy presented so that it would not be missed: I have sought to examine what scripture says.
No-one has to believe it, including you, my friend, but simply examine it...not what men have said about it.
(30-05-2012 10:42 AM)kingschosen Wrote: The issue that I see is that you don't seem to be as knowledgeable as your opponent.
This is perhaps because you have been offended, maybe? lol
So you are in agreement with what has been said? Then, my friend, I cannot call you brother.
(30-05-2012 10:42 AM)kingschosen Wrote: Also, as seen with the KVJ thing, you refuse to use the most reputable and accurate sources because you prefer something else.
The KJV thing?
Usually those that specify a certain translation reveal they do not rely on the most reputable and accurate source.
Can you see the contradiction between these two statements:
Quote:It is theologically accepted that scriptural interpretation should be done from the original languages,
Quote:then the YLT and DBY, then the NASB.
This is like saying "It is generally accepted that Star Wars should be discussed from the books, then...Star Wars Lego storyline.
Okay, for the last time: I do not study from the KJV, but it is my preferred translation when preaching, teaching, or for the purpose of illustration.
Translational issues, when there are issues, are usually dealt with in the discussion.
Unless of course I am trying to make a point. Thanks again for "helping me out" with your commentary that new is not in the greek (which is in error in itself) and that it "simply means covenant."
You never did really answer my question.
(30-05-2012 10:42 AM)kingschosen Wrote: You cannot expect a peer of equal or greater intelligence than you on the subject to ignore the fact that you are using improper documents to try and argue your points.
I am not using the KJV to document or argue anything. Heads up, my friend: no-one has actually looked at scripture.
I am not unwilling to admit that probably everyone on here is smarter than I am, this is not an issue for me.
But let me ask you this: if I am in error in the discussion I have been having, can you say that I am in error concerning translations when you simply say the same thing I said...twice?
(30-05-2012 10:42 AM)kingschosen Wrote: It is theologically accepted that scriptural interpretation should be done from the original languages, then the YLT and DBY, then the NASB.
Are you saying that the YLT, the DBY, and the NASB...are the original languages? What you are saying is, "We have to interpret through the examination of the original languages," which I have said twice now, then go on to say we are to be in these translations.
So far, I am unconvinced of your ability to critique what I have said.
(30-05-2012 10:42 AM)kingschosen Wrote: I'm just saying... if you want to be taken seriously in the realm of biblical debate (against a theist or atheist) then you must use the correct sources.
Well, dismiss me then. I am okay with that. Frankly, it seems to me that perhaps man's admiration means more to you than taking the time to assess a situation.
While those here may pat you on the back for being acceptable to them, expect no such consideration from me. I have a much harder time having patience with someone that claims to be a spokesman for the Lord than I do with atheists...at least they are generally honest concerning their motivations. I wonder how your buddies would feel if they took the time to consider that false teachers and those that seek for vainglory, the epitomy of what they hate...could very well dwell in their midst, and at the least, they have befriended their enemy?
Now you have a chance to correct me, as you have tried to do so three times now. My patience with you is gone.