How in the world can ANYBODY think the Jews and Christians have the same god, that Jesus is messiah?

[rosends]

No, it is you who have shown nothing. You keep saying this, and that, but you show nothing.
I have only listed page one of my notes. You are only repeating what you have learned from your religion. You have shown no facts of anything you have rejected. How do you know the tombstone was that of a real, or fake Jew? Can you prove anything?

So you have notes. I do too. They say the opposite of you. You are only repeating what you have invented and written in your notes. You asked what the proof was that the star predates what you said and when shown the source, you decide that the person might not have been "real." So you dismiss anything which disagrees with the conclusion you need to get to.

 

[Kolibri]

The scroll do not say, the serpent enticed the women...it says he beguiled her. The word beguiled means sexual intercourse.
Akivah, this is not about who is right. It is about proving which scriptures are true, and which are not.If you see error in what I post, please point to it.

beguiled means sex? you can't fool me: beguile - Yahoo Dictionary Search Results

"deceived" I can believe. If the Hebrew Scriptures are not accurate enough for you. How did the Christians consider this event?

"But I am afraid that somehow, as the serpent seduced Eve by its cunning, your minds might be corrupted away from the sincerity and the chastity that are due the Christ." - 2 Cor 11:3

"Also, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was thoroughly deceived and became a transgressor." - 1 Tim 2:14

I do not see how either the Jews nor the early Christians believed that the serpent had sex with Eve. Adultery before eating the fruit? Or are you saying sex with the serpent was the 'eating of the fruit'? How then could Even bring the 'fruit' to her husband? Did she bring the serpent for him to have sex with it?

Preposterous!

Or perhaps you need to clarify, please.

 

[Harmonious]

That's an interesting theory: If it was a snake it would have already been on its belly. Why did God condemn it to spend the rest of its days on its belly? The scriptures do not say it was a snake.

Of course it does. The word referring to the creature is Nachash. That is a snake. What more are you looking for?

 

[Harmonious]

That's an interesting theory: If it was a snake it would have already been on its belly. Why did God condemn it to spend the rest of its days on its belly? The scriptures do not say it was a snake.

Wow... I just realized you are quibbling over the translation of the word "snake" or "serpent."

The creature is the same. Are you really being this obtuse on purpose?

 

[rosends]

The scroll do not say, the serpent enticed the women...it says he beguiled her. The word beguiled means sexual intercourse.
Akivah, this is not about who is right. It is about proving which scriptures are true, and which are not.If you see error in what I post, please point to it.

Are you referring to Corinthians? That may be your problem. So if you want to say that you have "scrolls" that are older than gospel texts then have fun with that. But neither the word "beguile" nor "entice" is in the Hebrew in Gen 3.

 

[Harmonious]

The scroll do not say, the serpent enticed the women...it says he beguiled her. The word beguiled means sexual intercourse.
Akivah, this is not about who is right. It is about proving which scriptures are true, and which are not.If you see error in what I post, please point to it.

I've figured out what you are doing, and now it is making me angry. The Hebrew is as it always is. Translations of functional synonyms may vary, and you are quibbling with Jewish interpretation of scripture over a translation that may or may NOT be accurate.

Is it "entice" or "beguile"? No, the word "Hishi'ani" is in Hebrew, and the answer is "close enough."

It is "snake" or serpent"? No, the word "Nachash" is in Hebrew, and the answer is "close enough."

And you expect to make logic points of any sort? Domenic, you are intellectually dishonest, and are trying to make a mockery out of people who have answered you honestly.

 

[Harmonious]

The scroll do not say, the serpent enticed the women...it says he beguiled her. The word beguiled means sexual intercourse.

No, it doesn't say that. It does in your own translation, and really, that is low.

 

[BilliardsBall]

So why did Abraham serve God milk with meat?

 

[rosends]

So why did Abraham serve God milk with meat?

He didn't. He served the men milk and then meat. He served people who weren't the same religion as his some food. He served food before the meat/milk laws had been given.
Pick an answer, any answer.

 

[Harmonious]

So why did Abraham serve God milk with meat?

Perhaps the milk was part of the appetizer.

In any event, keeping Kosher beyond making sure it was dead first and drained of blood (and maybe avoiding "impure" animals, but only maybe) was not yet commanded to Abraham.

 

[Domenic]

No, it doesn't say that. It does in your own translation, and really, that is low.

I have not said what translation I am using. But when I'm ready, I will post those notes, and tell you. At this point I don't understand why you are getting angry? I will say this...there are two Hebrew languages, as there are two different sets of scrolls.

 

[Harmonious]

I have not said what translation I am using. But when I'm ready, I will post those notes, and tell you. At this point I don't understand why you are getting angry? I will say this...there are two Hebrew languages, as there are two different sets of scrolls.

Nachash is a reptile that slithers on the ground. Whether the English translation you are using says "snake" or "serpent," it doesn't ultimately matter. The idea is that it is the general animal. The precise species isn't relevant. But you made it a case of BEING relevant when arguing with Akiva.

This whole "beguiling" thing being about sexual congress is an interpretation of your own brand of belief. The Hebrew word "Hishi'ani" translates to "deceived", in what way or connotations are left to the exegesis of your belief system.

But to make a case over it because YOUR English translation doesn't match the one that the Jews are using and trying to prove a point with it is intellectually dishonest.

I thought you were better than that, and that makes me angry.

 

[Domenic]

Nachash is a reptile that slithers on the ground. Whether the English translation you are using says "snake" or "serpent," it doesn't ultimately matter. The idea is that it is the general animal. The precise species isn't relevant. But you made it a case of BEING relevant when arguing with Akiva.

This whole "beguiling" thing being about sexual congress is an interpretation of your own brand of belief. The Hebrew word "Hishi'ani" translates to "deceived", in what way or connotations are left to the exegesis of your belief system.

But to make a case over it because YOUR English translation doesn't match the one that the Jews are using and trying to prove a point with it is intellectually dishonest.

I thought you were better than that, and that makes me angry.

I'm sorry you are angry, but if that is your nature, I leave your anger between you, and yourself. As to the translation. I do not use the present day Hebrew, which is not the same Hebrew in the oldest Hebrew scrolls. The two are very different.
I am sure you understand as I do, man can not hide Gods word. They can change it, but God always makes sure what he says comes out load, and clear. Do you agree with that, or does that also make you angry?

 

[rosends]

I'm sorry you are angry, but if that is your nature, I leave your anger between you, and yourself. As to the translation. I do not use the present day Hebrew, which is not the same Hebrew in the oldest Hebrew scrolls. The two are very different.
I am sure you understand as I do, man can not hide Gods word. They can change it, but God always makes sure what he says comes out load, and clear. Do you agree with that, or does that also make you angry?

Again, you claim scrolls but there are no scrolls.

 

[Eliab ben Benjamin]

There are twelve tribes...only one is the tribe of Judah. The word Jew comes from the tribe of Judah. The other eleven are not Jews. There are two types of Jews. One real, the other false. As my notes go deeper into history, this will be very clear.


Twelve tribes


Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Joseph and Benjamin.

Or:

Reuven, Shimon, Yehudah, Yissachar, Zevulun, Dan, Naftali, Gad, Asher, Menashe, Efraim, Binyamin.

Ah, perhaps i should be less sensitive, my own is always last ...... Gigglez

 

[Domenic]

Again, you claim scrolls but there are no scrolls.

Your book was taken from a set of scrolls. Do you know the history of those scrolls? if not, some of my notes will show their history.

 

[rosends]

Your book was taken from a set of scrolls. Do you know the history of those scrolls? if not, some of my notes will show their history.

You want the history of the Masoretic texts? It is readily available online. And the history of your texts? How about an actual reference to your texts? Maybe a page with the words from your texts transcribed?

 

[Domenic]

You want the history of the Masoretic texts? It is readily available online. And the history of your texts? How about an actual reference to your texts? Maybe a page with the words from your texts transcribed?

That is also on line. I will post mine when my notes are posted in the order I want them. Why do you never post your facts?

 

[rosends]

That is also on line. I will post mine when my notes are posted in the order I want them. Why do you never post your facts?

I posted all sorts of facts. You simply say that they are wrong. I showed about the star. I showed about the menorah. I showed the textual language. You simply deny that any of this is a fact.

 

[Domenic]

I posted all sorts of facts. You simply say that they are wrong. I showed about the star. I showed about the menorah. I showed the textual language. You simply deny that any of this is a fact.

I am not saying you have not posted these things. What you have not posted is,,,what were they taken from? I plan to show who made the copies, what they changed, and why. None of my post are an attack on you, or what you believe. I will only post history from my notes.