Do you have Bible questions today?

[capumetu]

Though you would probably not be lying about your e-mail if they allowed that here sooner or later someone would post an email address that that was not theirs.

I never even thought of that. This does seem to be easy here to make a one on one reply, and they do email you a notification. But I agree it can get congested.

 

[Audie]

It is, however there are alterations in different versions which are not accurate. The original Bible does not exist, but we can be sure that as sure as God exists that we have what we need to please Him.

the last line was not what I asked about.

What do you think of the numbers given,
like enemy soldiers killed in even thousands.

Doe is seem probable that an accurate
count was later rounded to even thousands?

how about the passage in Kings, with the
vessel that is 30 cubits around and ten across.

Does that seem altered later, from a perfect original
text?

While we are at it, does the flood seem like a real story?

 

[Audie]

Great question sir. Many ancient transcripts have been found that indicates His word is quite accurate. Daniel 12:4 pointed out how knowledge would increase in the last days, and we are in the last days.

As sure as God exists sir, He will see to it we have all we need to know. Thanks for the question

"Last days".
People have been saying that for a couple thousand years now.

You are assuming facts not in evidence, which is not a way to
boost credibility. Just sayin'

Was it intentional, btw, that you said "quite accurate"?
We'd sorta expect a god to do better than that.

 

[capumetu]

@Frank Goad

Yo' Frank: Here you go, ... capumetu is a Jehovah's Witness and is offering to answer all of your questions. Just what you've been looking for.
You ought to start a private Conversation with him and post your questions there when you come up with them. I suggest a private Conversation thread because that would keep the riff-raff out and allow you to focus on what capumetu says.

Your Bible translates Isaiah 7:14 as:

Therefore, Jehovah himself will give you a sign: Look! The young woman* will become pregnant and will give birth to a son, ...​

On what grounds do you justify the rendering "will become pregnant"?

Note, for example, both the Jewish Publication Society and the NRSV translate this as:

,,, the young woman is with child and about to give birth to a son. ...​

Even the Anchor Yale Bible Isaiah 1-39 (Blenkinsopp) reads ...

... the young woman is pregnant and about to give birth to a son ...
​

 

[capumetu]

Your Bible translates Isaiah 7:14 as:

Therefore, Jehovah himself will give you a sign: Look! The young woman* will become pregnant and will give birth to a son, ...​

On what grounds do you justify the rendering "will become pregnant"?

Note, for example, both the Jewish Publication Society and the NRSV translate this as:

,,, the young woman is with child and about to give birth to a son. ...​

Even the Anchor Yale Bible Isaiah 1-39 (Blenkinsopp) reads ...

... the young woman is pregnant and about to give birth to a son ...
​

Isa was a prophecy Jay, the Messiah was born several hundred yrs later

 

[james bond]

That is based upon a false dichotomy. What if the Muslims are right? You might be worse off than an atheist. What if the Hindus are right? Or the Buddhists, or the followers of countless other religions. And it pretends that Christians do not give up anything when in reality they give up quite a lot.

It is just another failed argument that assumes a rather dim God that is easily fooled.

First, this is a Q&A forum. Not a forum for you to spew your failed opinions of the Christian God and claim it is a false dichotomy. Are you going to answer my question that I presented? Did you even look at the video? Why do you claim that it's a false dichotomy?

You have no evidence that Christianity is a false dichotomy, so you are wrong.

To answer your question, if the other religions are right, then they would have evidence. First, Christians have the universe, Earth, and everything in it. We are here. How did we get here? For the answers, we have the Bible and how science backs it up. For example, we have evidence of the supernatural (Book of Genesis only) with life spirit. The Bible describes life spirit as God's breath. We have the supernatural and the natural existing side-by-side right in front of your nose. Only life begats life and it was demonstrated by Dr. Louis Pasteur's experiment; that's the scientific method. This is evidence for God.

Now, you asked what if the Muslims, Hindus, or Buddhists are right? Then they should be able to provide the answers to how did we get here and have the evidence for it?

Furthermore, Buddhists do not believe in gods or God and they are considered a religion.

Thus, why don't you list the religion of atheism? It's a belief in no God nor gods without any evidence. To have a belief, then it takes faith. If the truth of atheism cannot reveal itself in a person's lifetime, then it's a sham. It means there is no truth there. What good is it?

The Bible says about atheism:

"And have mercy on those who doubt;" Luke 1:22

"To the choirmaster. Of David. The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good." Psalm14:1

What Does the Bible Say About Atheism?

Anyway, this is a Q&A forum. I think I've answered your questions. Can you answer mine above in green?

 

[james bond]

Yeah whatevs.

Que sera, sera.

 

[Audie]

Thus, why don't you list the religion of atheism? It's a belief in no God nor gods without any evidence. To have a belief, then it takes faith. If the truth of atheism cannot reveal itself in a person's lifetime, then it's a sham. It means there is no truth there. What good is it?
?

We are vaguely amused by your not knowing English grammar
well enough to avoid getting it right, by mistake.

I in fact do not believe in anything that is without any evidence.
What kind of fool does?

Though, of course, for a "believer" any "evidence" will do.

 

[james bond]

We are vaguely amused by your not knowing English grammar
well enough to avoid getting it right, by mistake.

I in fact do not believe in anything that is without any evidence.
What kind of fool does?

Though, of course, for a "believer" any "evidence" will do.

Jeez, I thought the evidence would be obvious.

I just presented the biggest evidence -- the life spirit or God's breath. The supernatural alongside the natural. It's right in front of your nose. Look in the mirror. There you are living. Once you die, then that's it. Your life spirit is gone from this physical world. No one can bring you back even though people have tried. They have even tried to create this life spirit. Scientists, both secular and creation, can't even create a blade of grass.

 

[Audie]

Jeez, I thought the evidence would be obvious.

I just presented the biggest evidence -- the life spirit or God's breath. The supernatural alongside the natural. It's right in front of your nose. Look in the mirror. There you are living. Once you die, then that's it. Your life spirit is gone from this physical world. No one can bring you back even though people have tried. They have even tried to create this life spirit. Scientists, both secular and creation, can't even create a blade of grass.

To you that looks like evidence of a god.

I was walking across campus with another girl one time,
and she picked up a nice autumn leaf that had fallen
at our feet. "Look" she says, "God sent it, as a sumbol
of t he Trinity!"

"Then why does it have five parts?" I asked

"Oh God sent it to represent the pentarch".


Evidence? If one so imagines it.


Now, in general, I think of you as being incapable of
carrying on a sensible discussion, preferring snark,
bullying and manly assertions to any examination
of facts or application of logic.

Being the which of why I mostly avoid responding
to your posts, I dont care to engage with such.

But lets try a little something. You appear to be
advocating for the "vital force" concept.

It comes in various forms such as this-

In 1815 , a Swedish Chemist Berzellius presented Vital Force Theory.
According to this theory, every organic compound is produces by nature or some mysterious force. That means there us no way to create organic compounds by humans.

Of course, that particular theory is long long since disproved, but there
lingers the idea that there is some mysterious force, of a supernatural
nature that is what makes something alive.

Is that what you are getting at? That the obvious-to-you existence of
this supernatural force keeping things alive is evidence of god?

If I understand you correctly, then I've a question about it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

First, this is a Q&A forum. Not a forum for you to spew your failed opinions of the Christian God and claim it is a false dichotomy. Are you going to answer my question that I presented? Did you even look at the video? Why do you claim that it's a false dichotomy?

You have no evidence that Christianity is a false dichotomy, so you are wrong.

Before you get bent all out of shape I did not say that Christianity is a false dichotomy. Your argument for it is. Do you understand the difference? You used a failed argument for Christianity. That only means that your argument is wrong, it does not mean that Christianity is wrong. And there is no need to watch the video. It presents a thumbnail. If it is accurate it is a false dichotomy. If not why even use the illustration in the first place?

To answer your question, if the other religions are right, then they would have evidence. First, Christians have the universe, Earth, and everything in it. We are here. How did we get here? For the answers, we have the Bible and how science backs it up. For example, we have evidence of the supernatural (Book of Genesis only) with life spirit. The Bible describes life spirit as God's breath. We have the supernatural and the natural existing side-by-side right in front of your nose. Only life begats life and it was demonstrated by Dr. Louis Pasteur's experiment; that's the scientific method. This is evidence for God.

You clearly do not understand the concept of evidence. We should discuss that. Your religion has no more evidence than other religions. And you do not understand Pasteur's experiment. If anything it refutes your "life spirit". You do not know what he was arguing against.

Now, you asked what if the Muslims, Hindus, or Buddhists are right? Then they should be able to provide the answers to how did we get here and have the evidence for it?

Furthermore, Buddhists do not believe in gods or God and they are considered a religion.

Thus, why don't you list the religion of atheism? It's a belief in no God nor gods without any evidence. To have a belief, then it takes faith. If the truth of atheism cannot reveal itself in a person's lifetime, then it's a sham. It means there is no truth there. What good is it?

The Bible says about atheism:

"And have mercy on those who doubt;" Luke 1:22

"To the choirmaster. Of David. The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good." Psalm14:1

What Does the Bible Say About Atheism?

Anyway, this is a Q&A forum. I think I've answered your questions. Can you answer mine above in green?

Sorry, but you do not know what atheism is either. Why not ask an atheist? And Psalm 14 1 does not help you. Atheists for the most part do not make the mistake of believing in their heart. It would also be just as accurate if it said "The fool believes in his heart that there is a God".

i answered your questions for, do you have any more? Would you like to discuss the nature of evidence?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Isa was a prophecy Jay, the Messiah was born several hundred yrs later

No, Isaiah does not appear to be about Jesus. As the Christians use it it is a failed prophecy. Why do different Christian groups have different arguments about the timeline? None of them seem to be able to justify their claims. If it were a real prophecy there would be one clear result.

 

[osgart]

How do you know when you are following Allmighty God and not just your own interpretation of who and what God is?

And How, In the Bible, do you come to know God's attributes and what that entails?

Bible as allegory, or literal fact?

 

[sooda]

No, Isaiah does not appear to be about Jesus. As the Christians use it it is a failed prophecy. Why do different Christian groups have different arguments about the timeline? None of them seem to be able to justify their claims. If it were a real prophecy there would be one clear result.

In Isaiah Israel is the suffering servant.. When Christians hijack Jewish scripture and change its meaning they contribute to confusion and misunderstanding.

The near-future fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy (Isaiah 8) confirmed to his contemporaries that he was a true prophet of God. The foremost concern of Isaiah and his contemporaries was the protection of Judah against her enemies.

Judah was “shaken” as two powerful kingdoms sought to destroy her. (see Isaiah 7:1–2).

So God promised King Ahaz that the birth of Isaiah’s son Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz would be a sign that Judah would be spared.

In the words of Isaiah, “Before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste” (Isaiah 7:16; cf. Isaiah 8:4).

Notice that while Isaiah’s wife (unlike Mary) was not a virgin when she gave birth to Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz, she was nonetheless the fore-future fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy.

Virgin (almah) was simply a term used to refer to the prophetess prior to her union with Isaiah — not that she would give birth to a child as a virgin.

“Immanuel” in Isaiah is a sign for God’s people that they will see victory over their enemies. Despite the doom and devastation, God will be with them, and they will be victorious.

So, either Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz is also Immanuel (God is with us) or one of Isaiah's other sons is.

Isaiah was used to giving his children names with messages. In Isaiah 7:3, God told Isaiah to take his (older) son Shear-jashub with him to speak to Ahaz. This name means “a remnant shall return.”

 

[Deeje]

I mean where did he lived after the resurrection, but before he ascended to heaven.

Was he just a regular man that every once in a while we went to see his disciples to eat fish and talk, and then went back to his home..... Or did he lived in heaven and descended every once in a while to talk with his disciples?

Great question!
The fact is, Jesus was not resurrected in the flesh, but as a spirit. (1Peter 3:18)
It is obvious that he did not physically dwell anywhere during the 40 days he remained after his resurrection. As a spirit being, he did not require a residence, but as the scriptures say, he “appeared” to his apostles and disciples during that period. On one occasion, he actually disappeared right before their eyes and he entered a room even though the door was locked.

Spirit beings have the ability to materialise in order to become visible to humans. All of God’s angelic messengers appeared in human form. We believe that Jesus did this so as to guide and direct his followers after his death.

 

[BilliardsBall]

If you have not received an answer to your Bible questions, feel free to ask, I will do my best to help.

Are you familiar with how the Bible describes the type of skeptic trolls who haunt RF?

 

[sooda]

Isa was a prophecy Jay, the Messiah was born several hundred yrs later

Isaiah 7:14 is about Isaiah's son Maher-shalal-hash-baz AKA Immanuel. He would save Judah.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Isa was a prophecy Jay, the Messiah was born several hundred yrs later

Clearly that's what you want it to mean, but that isn't the question and you seem incapable of and/or unwilling to answer the question asked. That's fine with me, but it really does suggest that your opening post was not entirely honest.

 

[james bond]

To you that looks like evidence of a god.

I was walking across campus with another girl one time,
and she picked up a nice autumn leaf that had fallen
at our feet. "Look" she says, "God sent it, as a sumbol
of t he Trinity!"

"Then why does it have five parts?" I asked

"Oh God sent it to represent the pentarch".


Evidence? If one so imagines it.


Now, in general, I think of you as being incapable of
carrying on a sensible discussion, preferring snark,
bullying and manly assertions to any examination
of facts or application of logic.

Being the which of why I mostly avoid responding
to your posts, I dont care to engage with such.

But lets try a little something. You appear to be
advocating for the "vital force" concept.

It comes in various forms such as this-

In 1815 , a Swedish Chemist Berzellius presented Vital Force Theory.
According to this theory, every organic compound is produces by nature or some mysterious force. That means there us no way to create organic compounds by humans.

Of course, that particular theory is long long since disproved, but there
lingers the idea that there is some mysterious force, of a supernatural
nature that is what makes something alive.

Is that what you are getting at? That the obvious-to-you existence of
this supernatural force keeping things alive is evidence of god?

If I understand you correctly, then I've a question about it.

First, straw man. What does a leaf have to do with life spirit and your life? No one can create it, not even a blade of grass. Like duh?

Where's your link to disprove the life spirit? We have nothing for abiogenesis as it's another version of spontaneous generation or an update of Miller-Urey. OTOH, we've discovered water in an universal solvent for amino acids. Thus, life does not just pop up out of primordial soup.

No, the evidence is God's breath or that which Bible states is our life. Only God has been able to create life. Humans have only been able to keep it going via sexual reproduction or in vitro. It's like when Darwin was given a cell to start with. Both abiongenesis and Darwinism are fake science.

 

[james bond]

Before you get bent all out of shape I did not say that Christianity is a false dichotomy. Your argument for it is. Do you understand the difference? You used a failed argument for Christianity. That only means that your argument is wrong, it does not mean that Christianity is wrong. And there is no need to watch the video. It presents a thumbnail. If it is accurate it is a false dichotomy. If not why even use the illustration in the first place?

You clearly do not understand the concept of evidence. We should discuss that. Your religion has no more evidence than other religions. And you do not understand Pasteur's experiment. If anything it refutes your "life spirit". You do not know what he was arguing against.

Sorry, but you do not know what atheism is either. Why not ask an atheist? And Psalm 14 1 does not help you. Atheists for the most part do not make the mistake of believing in their heart. It would also be just as accurate if it said "The fool believes in his heart that there is a God".

i answered your questions for, do you have any more? Would you like to discuss the nature of evidence?

First, you lied once again as you do not answer my questions I highlighted in green -- Are you going to answer my question that I presented? Did you even look at the video? Why do you claim that it's a false dichotomy?. Instead, you ask me more questions and I've already pointed out that I'm not going to do the work to change your mind. You need to do some work, so you learn something. You are too ignorant to discuss complex subjects. I am leaving RF as soon as soon as I can since the mods are on me, so you can have the last word. Besides, this is not a good forum for Christians to discuss their religion. Even my question did not get answered by the OP .

Anyway, I think Jesus is the narrow gate. Following him and repenting for our sins is the way. It's not always easy to repent for our sins as we may not be aware of them. Thus, we have to look to see what warnings God sends us and pray we find and understand our weaknesses. Then, we can automatically go through the narrow gate and be able to endure the hardships life sends us through faith in Jesus Christ. The majority will end up going through the wide gate after death. IOW, life does not always go as we think or have planned. The truth is life isn't easy even if you received all the creature comforts many people want.

Stick to the subject. I thought you were saying the narrow gate vs. the wide gate was the false dichotomy.

As for the rest, it is ad hominem attacks as that's all you got. Thus, you lost again as you always do and just bored the fark out of me. Learn some things and try to provide some links to back up whatever weak arse arguments you have. Basically, you have none, so that's why you presented no links.

Good bye.