What/who is Yahweh?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-08-2012, 06:29 AM
RE: What/who is Yahweh?
(29-08-2012 08:43 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(29-08-2012 08:18 PM)elemts Wrote:  I was taught that no one knows the name of god, and all the names are "human things" so you could say "dude" and as long as people know it's meaning "god" it's the same. All the names are just people picking something new to use (as I was taught).

Why they said this is fairly simple, I was taught that if anyone said the name of god, the entire universe would unravel as his name gives people power of god, but only the power to destroy. So if god's name was "rabzibbit" and I typed that and tried to see if it was a odd sound--it would've ended the universe and no one would have ever seen this or known (and apparently it destroys heaven and hell too). Basically, the name of "god" in the bible is a lie.... but everything else is literal and truthful--as per what I was told.

Exactly. On some level they got that in naming a god, it also gave them power over it, and defines it.

ever read the claim about, 'with the name, man can move mountains'?

with 'the word' man does move mountains.

and to know the process of MET (transition) of the three, would be how important?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2012, 10:51 AM
RE: What/who is Yahweh?
(28-08-2012 06:35 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Yahweh is the "realized" (phonetic) form of the "tetragramaton", (ie 4 letters), (YHWH), ... YaHWeH ... which represented the Hebrew deity, commonly called the Abrahamic god, or in the West, just, .. God.

Some say the shortened form, without the vowels inserted, is/was a mark of respect, and that they did not want to actually pronounce the real name. There is some evidence that may not be the whole story.

Your joking!

Vowel points were not used in Hebrew until the second half of the first millennium C.E. The religious superstition of the Sopherim - the scribes or copyists - developed centuries earlier so the vowel pointing then can give no accurate indication of which vowels would have been present. The scribes substituted the tetragrammaton with the generic adonai, LORD, so when you see LORD in the Bible that is where the name of God, the English Jehovah or the Hebrew favored Yahweh originally appeared.





Higher Criticism

The video begins with a very popular school of thought with atheists. It is the notorously infamous scholarship of Higher Criticism. It was popularized in the 18th and 19th centuries, especially when in the latter portion of the 19th century German Bible critic Julius Wellhausen promoted his theory that the first six books of the Bible were written in the fifth century B.C.E., about a thousand years after the events they described.

Though Wellhausen did say that some of the material had been written down earlier the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica explained: "Genesis is a post-exilic work composed of a post-exilic priestly source (P) and non-priestly earlier sources which differ markedly from P in language, style and religious standpoint."

His theory included the ideas that Jacob and Esau didn't really have enmity between them but that it was symbolic for the enmity between Israel and Edom in much later times, the Aaronic priesthood wasn't fully established until a few years before the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem and Moses never made the ark of the covenant, and the tabernacle never existed. But what sort of "proof" did Wellhausen and the Higher critics have for this? Dividing the Bible into several documents supposedly written by various authors based upon such information as if the Hebrew word Elohim appeared it was one writer (E) and if Jehovah's name appeared it was another (J). They apparently thought it impossible for the same person to have written both. Also if an event was recorded more than once in a book it was proof of more than one writer. It should be noted that ancient Semitic literature often has examples of repetition.

Some critics of the Wellhausen and Higher Criticism have made some important points of consideration.

"The arguments by which Wellhausen has almost entirely captured the whole body of contemporary Biblical critics are based on two assumptions: first, that ritual becomes more elaborate in the development of religion; secondly, that older sources necessarily deal with the earlier stages of ritual development. The former assumption is against the evidence of primitive cultures, and the latter finds no support in the evidence of ritual codes like those of India. Wellhausen's views are based almost exclusively on literal analysis, and will need to be supplemented by an examination from the point of view of institutional archeology." The Jewish Encyclopedia, 1909

"Archaeological criticism has tended to substantiate the reliability of the typical historical details of even the oldest periods [of Bible history] and to discount the theory that the Pentateuchal accounts are merely the reflection of a much later period." The New Encyclopædia Britannica, 1911

"the Wellhausen school started with the pure assumption (which they have hardly bothered to demonstrate) that Israel's religion was of merely human origin like any other, and that it was to be explained as a mere product of evolution." A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, by Gleason L. Archer, Jr., 1974, p. 107.

If the school of thought promoted by Higher Criticism is so questionable why then is it so popular? Because it supports the prejudices of the evolutionist. "Personally, I welcomed this book of Wellhausen's more than almost any other; for the pressing problem of the history of the Old Testament appeared to me to be at last solved in a manner consonant to the principle of human evolution which I am compelled to apply to the history of all religion." The Inspiration & Accuracy of the Holy Scriptures, pp. 258, 259

Enuma elish - The Babylonian Epic Of Creation

There are many ancient Babylonian creation stories, but the most popular one is the one that is often thought, even by theologians, to be a precursor to the Bible, The Enuma elish. When the Babylonian tablets creation tablets were first discovered, they were expected to be followed by further discovery and research to demonstrate a correspondency between them and the Genesis account. However, further discovery only demonstrated a vast difference between the two. The Babylonian Legends of the Creation and the Fight Between Bel and the Dragon, by the Trustees of the British Museum stated: "the fundamental conceptions of the Babylonian and Hebrew accounts are essentially different."

As P.J. Wiseman added: "It is more than a pity that many theologians, instead of keeping abreast of modern archaeological research, continue to repeat the now disproved theory of Hebrew 'borrowings' from Babylonian sources." - Creation Revealed in Six Days, London, 1949, p. 58.

And Professor George A. Barton observed: "The Babylonian poem is mythological and polytheistic. Its conception of deity is by no means exalted. Its gods love and hate, they scheme and plot, fight and destroy. Marduk, the champion, conquers only after a fierce struggle, which taxes his powers to the utmost. Genesis, on the other hand, reflects the most exalted monotheism. God is so thoroughly the master of all the elements of the universe, that they obey his slightest word. He controls all without effort. He speaks and it is done. Granting, as most scholars do, that there is a connection between the two narratives, there is no better measure of the inspiration of the Biblical account than to put it side by side with the Babylonian. As we read the chapter in Genesis today, it still reveals to us the majesty and power of the one God, and creates in the modern man, as it did in the ancient Hebrew, a worshipful attitude toward the Creator." - Archaeology and the Bible, 1949, pp. 297, 298.

The fact is that "No myth has yet been found which explicitly refers to the creation of the universe, and those concerned with the organization of the universe and its cultural processes, the creation of man and the establishment of civilization are marked by polytheism and the struggles of deities for supremacy in marked contrast to the Heb. monotheism of Gn. 1-2." - New Bible Dictionary, edited by J. Douglas, 1985, p. 247

What really was the story of the Enuma elish? "According to this ancient record, Marduk, city-god of Babylon, vanquished the primeval sea goddess Tiamat and cut her in two. From one half he fashioned the vault of the heavens, from the other the solid earth. That done, he organized the world. . . . Then 'in order that the gods should live in a world to rejoice their hearts' Marduk created humanity." - Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology.

It doesn't sound like the Genesis account I am most familiar with.

The video doesn't point out to the viewer that the tablets coming from the discoveries at Ashurbanipal, who reigned from 668 - 627 B.C.E. actually only first appear at that time. There can be some pretty elaborate and exaggerated estimations regarding dates given by archaeologists where secular history is concerned. (See my post as Historicity in this thread)

Archaeological Evidence Of The Bible And Israel Prior To 950 - 850 B.C.E.

The claim the video makes regarding the absence of any presence of Israel in the archaeological record prior to 950 - 850 B.C.E. is blatantly false. I find it difficult to believe that the producers of the video could have missed references to the Merneptah Stele, which shows that Israel existed in 1212 B.C.E. and that the pharaoh of Egypt acknowledged them. Skepticism regarding the Tower of Babel, the Babylonian king Belshazzar, the Assyrian king Sargon have all been obliterated by archaeological discoveries in the 19th century. Etemenanki, Uruk, Ur, The Nephtoah monument, the remains at Bethel, the Moabite stone, and countless other examples too numerous to mention demonstrate this video to be nothing more than the wishful thinking of either uninformed or desperate atheists.

El Shaddai And El Canaanite Deities

Some may recall my post of [looks at watch]yesterday? in which I explained variations of the Hebrew El, meaning strong, mighty, which is translated as God. Jesus is mentioned prophetically at Isaiah 9:6 as El Gibbohr, meaning mighty God. El Shaddai is Hebrew and means God Almighty. In scripture it is only applied to Jehovah, but the Canaanites spoke Semitic language. Texts found at Ras Shamra (Ugarit) dating back as far as the 114th century B.C.E. indicate this. It is not surprising that the use of the generic term El (god) and its variants appear in Canaanite worship. Their primary god was El, who was a rebellious son that dethroned and castrated his own father. He was a murderer and an adulterer, referred to as the "father bull" in the Ras Samra texts. A pretty lame comparison again out of desperation.

The comparisons they make with the elohim is an example of why I stress the importance of accurate knowledge for atheists in making the distinction between generic terms for gods, like elohim which I addressed in my post yesterday. Elohim is a term that is applied to Jehovah (Genesis 1:1) to angels (Psalm 8:5) to idol gods (Exodus 12:12) to Pagan gods and goddesses like Dagon (1 Samuel 5:7) the goddess Ashtoreth (1 Kings 11:5) and Marduk (Daniel 1:2).

The Greek historian Herodotus, who is sometimes referred to as "the father of history" lived in the fifth century before Christ and he wrote that the Egyptians grew no grapes and drank no wine. Critics scoffed at the Biblical account written by Moses of the cup bearer whose duty it was to supply the wine for Pharaoh's table (Genesis 40:9-13) until archaeologist discovered frescoes which decorate the tombs of Egyptian antiquity which picture the Egyptians caring for vines, gathering grapes, pressing out the juice and storing it in stone jars and skin bottles. One of the murals show an Egyptian party and slaves assisting their drunk masters home.

The video is a joke.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2012, 11:11 AM
RE: What/who is Yahweh?
The fact that you even use the term Jehovah shows how ignorant you are of Biblical scholarship and pronunciation of the language.

The fact that you don't really know the significance of the Merneptah Stele also shows your ignorance. The wording of the Stele does not indicate a nation called Israel but it refers to a name within the Land of the Canaanites. The general consensus of modern scholarship shows there was no outside conquest Canaan by Joshua. Rather, there was inward collapse of the city-states of Canaan over several centuries. The archaeology in the region shows refugees from the fallen cities banded together in smaller villages across the country-side. These people began to call themselves Israelites...followers of the god "el". These people then began to identify themselves as an entity separate from the previous scattered Canaanites and began a new mythology to explain why the gods of the land failed to keep the nation together and created a new monotheistic god to rally the people to believing they were different and special from the people that came before them. To their embarrassment, their new god did nothing to keep this nascent nation intact for more than a few centuries.

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Erxomai's post
20-10-2012, 08:38 AM (This post was last modified: 20-10-2012 04:25 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: What/who is Yahweh?
(19-10-2012 10:51 AM)The Theist Wrote:  
(28-08-2012 06:35 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Yahweh is the "realized" (phonetic) form of the "tetragramaton", (ie 4 letters), (YHWH), ... YaHWeH ... which represented the Hebrew deity, commonly called the Abrahamic god, or in the West, just, .. God.

Some say the shortened form, without the vowels inserted, is/was a mark of respect, and that they did not want to actually pronounce the real name. There is some evidence that may not be the whole story.

Your joking!

Vowel points were not used in Hebrew until the second half of the first millennium C.E. The religious superstition of the Sopherim - the scribes or copyists - developed centuries earlier so the vowel pointing then can give no accurate indication of which vowels would have been present. The scribes substituted the tetragrammaton with the generic adonai, LORD, so when you see LORD in the Bible that is where the name of God, the English Jehovah or the Hebrew favored Yahweh originally appeared.





Higher Criticism

The video begins with a very popular school of thought with atheists. It is the notorously infamous scholarship of Higher Criticism. It was popularized in the 18th and 19th centuries, especially when in the latter portion of the 19th century German Bible critic Julius Wellhausen promoted his theory that the first six books of the Bible were written in the fifth century B.C.E., about a thousand years after the events they described.

Though Wellhausen did say that some of the material had been written down earlier the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica explained: "Genesis is a post-exilic work composed of a post-exilic priestly source (P) and non-priestly earlier sources which differ markedly from P in language, style and religious standpoint."

His theory included the ideas that Jacob and Esau didn't really have enmity between them but that it was symbolic for the enmity between Israel and Edom in much later times, the Aaronic priesthood wasn't fully established until a few years before the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem and Moses never made the ark of the covenant, and the tabernacle never existed. But what sort of "proof" did Wellhausen and the Higher critics have for this? Dividing the Bible into several documents supposedly written by various authors based upon such information as if the Hebrew word Elohim appeared it was one writer (E) and if Jehovah's name appeared it was another (J). They apparently thought it impossible for the same person to have written both. Also if an event was recorded more than once in a book it was proof of more than one writer. It should be noted that ancient Semitic literature often has examples of repetition.

Some critics of the Wellhausen and Higher Criticism have made some important points of consideration.

"The arguments by which Wellhausen has almost entirely captured the whole body of contemporary Biblical critics are based on two assumptions: first, that ritual becomes more elaborate in the development of religion; secondly, that older sources necessarily deal with the earlier stages of ritual development. The former assumption is against the evidence of primitive cultures, and the latter finds no support in the evidence of ritual codes like those of India. Wellhausen's views are based almost exclusively on literal analysis, and will need to be supplemented by an examination from the point of view of institutional archeology." The Jewish Encyclopedia, 1909

"Archaeological criticism has tended to substantiate the reliability of the typical historical details of even the oldest periods [of Bible history] and to discount the theory that the Pentateuchal accounts are merely the reflection of a much later period." The New Encyclopædia Britannica, 1911

"the Wellhausen school started with the pure assumption (which they have hardly bothered to demonstrate) that Israel's religion was of merely human origin like any other, and that it was to be explained as a mere product of evolution." A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, by Gleason L. Archer, Jr., 1974, p. 107.

If the school of thought promoted by Higher Criticism is so questionable why then is it so popular? Because it supports the prejudices of the evolutionist. "Personally, I welcomed this book of Wellhausen's more than almost any other; for the pressing problem of the history of the Old Testament appeared to me to be at last solved in a manner consonant to the principle of human evolution which I am compelled to apply to the history of all religion." The Inspiration & Accuracy of the Holy Scriptures, pp. 258, 259

Enuma elish - The Babylonian Epic Of Creation

There are many ancient Babylonian creation stories, but the most popular one is the one that is often thought, even by theologians, to be a precursor to the Bible, The Enuma elish. When the Babylonian tablets creation tablets were first discovered, they were expected to be followed by further discovery and research to demonstrate a correspondency between them and the Genesis account. However, further discovery only demonstrated a vast difference between the two. The Babylonian Legends of the Creation and the Fight Between Bel and the Dragon, by the Trustees of the British Museum stated: "the fundamental conceptions of the Babylonian and Hebrew accounts are essentially different."

As P.J. Wiseman added: "It is more than a pity that many theologians, instead of keeping abreast of modern archaeological research, continue to repeat the now disproved theory of Hebrew 'borrowings' from Babylonian sources." - Creation Revealed in Six Days, London, 1949, p. 58.

And Professor George A. Barton observed: "The Babylonian poem is mythological and polytheistic. Its conception of deity is by no means exalted. Its gods love and hate, they scheme and plot, fight and destroy. Marduk, the champion, conquers only after a fierce struggle, which taxes his powers to the utmost. Genesis, on the other hand, reflects the most exalted monotheism. God is so thoroughly the master of all the elements of the universe, that they obey his slightest word. He controls all without effort. He speaks and it is done. Granting, as most scholars do, that there is a connection between the two narratives, there is no better measure of the inspiration of the Biblical account than to put it side by side with the Babylonian. As we read the chapter in Genesis today, it still reveals to us the majesty and power of the one God, and creates in the modern man, as it did in the ancient Hebrew, a worshipful attitude toward the Creator." - Archaeology and the Bible, 1949, pp. 297, 298.

The fact is that "No myth has yet been found which explicitly refers to the creation of the universe, and those concerned with the organization of the universe and its cultural processes, the creation of man and the establishment of civilization are marked by polytheism and the struggles of deities for supremacy in marked contrast to the Heb. monotheism of Gn. 1-2." - New Bible Dictionary, edited by J. Douglas, 1985, p. 247

What really was the story of the Enuma elish? "According to this ancient record, Marduk, city-god of Babylon, vanquished the primeval sea goddess Tiamat and cut her in two. From one half he fashioned the vault of the heavens, from the other the solid earth. That done, he organized the world. . . . Then 'in order that the gods should live in a world to rejoice their hearts' Marduk created humanity." - Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology.

It doesn't sound like the Genesis account I am most familiar with.

The video doesn't point out to the viewer that the tablets coming from the discoveries at Ashurbanipal, who reigned from 668 - 627 B.C.E. actually only first appear at that time. There can be some pretty elaborate and exaggerated estimations regarding dates given by archaeologists where secular history is concerned. (See my post as Historicity in this thread)

Archaeological Evidence Of The Bible And Israel Prior To 950 - 850 B.C.E.

The claim the video makes regarding the absence of any presence of Israel in the archaeological record prior to 950 - 850 B.C.E. is blatantly false. I find it difficult to believe that the producers of the video could have missed references to the Merneptah Stele, which shows that Israel existed in 1212 B.C.E. and that the pharaoh of Egypt acknowledged them. Skepticism regarding the Tower of Babel, the Babylonian king Belshazzar, the Assyrian king Sargon have all been obliterated by archaeological discoveries in the 19th century. Etemenanki, Uruk, Ur, The Nephtoah monument, the remains at Bethel, the Moabite stone, and countless other examples too numerous to mention demonstrate this video to be nothing more than the wishful thinking of either uninformed or desperate atheists.

El Shaddai And El Canaanite Deities

Some may recall my post of [looks at watch]yesterday? in which I explained variations of the Hebrew El, meaning strong, mighty, which is translated as God. Jesus is mentioned prophetically at Isaiah 9:6 as El Gibbohr, meaning mighty God. El Shaddai is Hebrew and means God Almighty. In scripture it is only applied to Jehovah, but the Canaanites spoke Semitic language. Texts found at Ras Shamra (Ugarit) dating back as far as the 114th century B.C.E. indicate this. It is not surprising that the use of the generic term El (god) and its variants appear in Canaanite worship. Their primary god was El, who was a rebellious son that dethroned and castrated his own father. He was a murderer and an adulterer, referred to as the "father bull" in the Ras Samra texts. A pretty lame comparison again out of desperation.

The comparisons they make with the elohim is an example of why I stress the importance of accurate knowledge for atheists in making the distinction between generic terms for gods, like elohim which I addressed in my post yesterday. Elohim is a term that is applied to Jehovah (Genesis 1:1) to angels (Psalm 8:5) to idol gods (Exodus 12:12) to Pagan gods and goddesses like Dagon (1 Samuel 5:7) the goddess Ashtoreth (1 Kings 11:5) and Marduk (Daniel 1:2).

The Greek historian Herodotus, who is sometimes referred to as "the father of history" lived in the fifth century before Christ and he wrote that the Egyptians grew no grapes and drank no wine. Critics scoffed at the Biblical account written by Moses of the cup bearer whose duty it was to supply the wine for Pharaoh's table (Genesis 40:9-13) until archaeologist discovered frescoes which decorate the tombs of Egyptian antiquity which picture the Egyptians caring for vines, gathering grapes, pressing out the juice and storing it in stone jars and skin bottles. One of the murals show an Egyptian party and slaves assisting their drunk masters home.

The video is a joke.

I'm not defending the video. There are errors, and I have said that many times. It's an introduction for those who have no exposure to these ideas.

(BTW, Mr "self taught", The Conflicted Gay Theist, it's "You're joking". "your" in place of "you're, is "a common mistake" made by the uneducated.

As I have stated elsewhere, and as Erxomai has reminded you, yet again, your origins of "Jehovah" is false. Also Javeh was the Edomite mountain god, conflated with the Egyptian volcano god.

Your proposition that the Documentary Hypothesis is somehow discredited because it is "popular with atheists" is 100 % BULLSHIT, and yet another example of your mountains of fallacies. "Popular with" is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is it's truth, It's the "Argumentum ad Populum" Fallacy, (used in reverse), and it's wrong.

Just like Evolution deniers criticizing Evolution by, in 2012, criticizing Darwin, The Documentary Hypothesis, is no longer dependent on Wellhausen. There are mountains of other evidence for it, from other scholars, and (Mr Self Taught David The Conflicted Gay Theist...where is YOUR PhD from BTW), other places, and other study. The Documentary Hypothesis is NOT dependent on Wellhausen, any longer.

The points you made about Jacob and Esau are essentially irrelevant, You have provided NO dates, no proof, and no references. Only your, (non-authoritative, uneducated) statements. The enmity among the priests, as demonstrated by Dr. Richard Elliott Friedman, do not rest on that argument. It originated in Solomonic times, and we know why, and when, and where it came from. You presume that there ever was a "Moses", and the fact there is no extra-Biblical proof for that is well known. "Repetition" is ludicrous. The argument, (Documentary Hypothesis) in NO WAY rests on "repetition" (Yet another proof of your ignorance of this subject, sir.) It rests on syntax, vocabulary, subject themes, and emphasis and geographical references, etc etc).

I repeat, NONE of today's scholarship rests TODAY, on Wellhausen. He originated, (well he actually was not THE sole originator), some of the ideas. Actually he is more credited, with "assembly" (of already extant ideas). Multitudes of others have worked on the subject, and verified the source theories. Your attempt to relegate it to a "small corner" of irrelevant scholarship, is obviously ignorant, and an attempt, in bad faith, to mislead non-scholars.

Name 10 of the "many other Babylonian creation stories". Well try 2.

The Trustees of the British Museum are not Bible scholars, or scholars of Ancient Semitic Languages and Culture, and as I pointed out elsewhere, the vast majority, (in the 13 volume book), edited by Albright in the 1950's of RELIGIOUS conservative scholars opposes your view. THEY believed the Documentary Hypothesis.

There are countless examples in the Bible that refute Barton. I'm not going to waste my time. His argument ignores the First Commandment, and mountains of other examples, (You shall have no other gods before me). The Hebrews WERE polytheistic, and there are many examples to prove it, IN the Bible, and in Archaeology. Barton fails, and you get another "F".
You're too ridiculous for words, David, The Uneducated Conflicted Gay Theist. Your references to OLD scholarship is pathetic. I used the 1950 example to demonstrate the context of the Documentary Hypothesis. A couple nut cases cited, proves nothing. I gave 124+ , and they all agreed.

You are a charlatan, attempting to mislead, and appear knowledgeable about a subject which you have no education in, David The Uneducated Conflicted Gay Theist.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Bucky Ball's post
20-10-2012, 07:06 PM
RE: What/who is Yahweh?
(19-10-2012 10:51 AM)The Theist Wrote:  Jesus is mentioned prophetically at Isaiah 9:6 as El Gibbohr, meaning mighty God.
The video is a joke.

Speaking of jokes, here we have two, (well 2 + a joker).
1. That text, actually says nothing about Jeebus. It's 100 % "interpretation". It could literately be any other person, on the face of the earth, and there has been NO "peaceful kingdom", (and NO change whatsoever in human behavior,so it's obviously NOT Jeebus.)
2. And first and foremost ... I hope your sitting down, Conflicted Gay Theist, but except for fundamentalist peeps, every real scholar knows that a "prophet" is someone who is "called",) from the Hebrew "nabi", or in English understanding a "mouthpiece", (of god). The role of a prophet in Hebrew society was NOT to tell the future. The role of a "prophet" was to be a "mouthpiece" who spoke for god TO THE PEOPLE OF THAT TIME. To "tell truth to power". The "Madame Zelza and her crystal ball" idea of "prophesy" as "fortune teller" is one of the most puzzling inventions of fundamentalism, (and also betrays again your lack of education). Your prophesy was invented by Hollywood.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2012, 04:13 AM
RE: What/who is Yahweh?
Double bump.
Waiting to be "put into my place".
Still waiting .

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
31-10-2012, 05:43 AM (This post was last modified: 31-10-2012 05:47 AM by houseofcantor.)
RE: What/who is Yahweh?
Pretty fucking ironic, Bucky correcting someone else's grammar. And give the fucking gayness a rest. Tongue Big Grin

As for this other stuff, YHWH is the number four. And unlike other neck, it can be shown graphically that the number four created the physical universe. So there! Big Grin

It is well nigh impossible to delve truth from these ancient writings and compare it to modern methods of scholarship and archaeology due to the agendas involved, but it is most likely that the OT was composed by the Jews in exile in Babylon. The Document Hypothesis is most likely correct. There is no Jesus in the OT, and Jehovah is a mistranslation.

[Image: ZF1ZJ4M.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2012, 05:54 AM
RE: What/who is Yahweh?
(31-10-2012 05:43 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  And give the fucking gayness a rest.

This guy doesn't know if he's a theist or an atheist.
HE introduced the matter, so obviously it's an important subject to HIM.
"I'm homosexual, was born that way and practiced until I discovered the truth of the Bible. Though I have had periods of time when I was unable to resist the natural urges since then for the most part I have abstained from homosexual activity, especially in the last few years. Though I have come to think of it as a disgusting practice I have nothing against homosexuals, nor a self loathing as such."

He said "Don't worry, surely your grandfather can pay one of them to fuck even your snooty little pram ass. Better hurry, though, you sound like you need to get laid. Pansy."

So, nah. I'll pass on that advice for now.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
31-10-2012, 06:08 AM
RE: What/who is Yahweh?
Petulant much? Big Grin

But I can understand your reasoning. David needs to come to terms with his own sexuality, and denial for the sake of delusion ain't cutting it.

[Image: ZF1ZJ4M.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2012, 06:46 AM
RE: What/who is Yahweh?
(31-10-2012 06:08 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  But I can understand your reasoning. David needs to come to terms with his own sexuality, and denial for the sake of delusion ain't cutting it.
Hear, hear! Bowing

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: