JWs: looking for your input

[Skwim]

As a result of your confrontational attitude, I decline to answer any of these rediculous questions.

Sorry, but your excuse isn't selling. We both know the reason you decline to answer.

I will answer one of the questions though, since you are so militarily opposed to civil behavior.
Regarden Eden:
A region in which the Creator planted a gardenlike park as the original home of the first human pair. The statement that the garden was “in Eden, toward the east,” apparently indicates that the garden occupied only a portion of the region called Eden. (Ge 2:8) However, the garden is thereafter called “the garden of Eden” (Ge 2:15) and, in later texts, is spoken of as “Eden, the garden of God” (Eze 28:13), and as “the garden of Jehovah.”—Isa 51:3.
The Septuagint rendered the Hebrew word for “garden” (gan) by the Greek word pa·raʹdei·sos. To this fact we owe our association of the English word “paradise” with the garden of Eden.
Genesis 2:15 states that “God proceeded to take the man and settle him in the garden of Eden.” While this might appear to indicate that man’s creation took place outside the garden, it may simply refer to God’s ‘taking’ man in the sense of his forming and creating him from the earthly elements, or the dust of the ground, then assigning him to reside initially in the garden in which he came to life. The cultivation and care of the garden was man’s work assignment. Eden’s trees and plants included all those providing scenic beauty as well as those providing a wide variety of food. (Ge 2:9, 15) This fact alone would indicate that the garden covered an area of considerable size. There was a great variety of animal life in the garden. God brought before Adam “all the domestic animals and . . . flying creatures of the heavens and . . . every wild beast of the field,” and naming them was one of Adam's tasks. (Ge 2:19, 20) Eden’s soil was watered by the waters of the river “issuing out of Eden.” (Ge 2:10) In view of man’s nakedness it may be assumed that the climate was very mild and very pleasant.—Ge 2:25.
You must realize that one cannot just take one scripture to answer a question. The Bible isn't laid out that way. Careful study of each scripture, and the comparison of each scripture to each other scripture is required to gain the true meaning of them. One more thing is required, and that is for Jehovah God to unveil the meaning of them, as Satan is said to have veiled the meaning to unbelievers in the one true faith.

As nicely as I can.

Question 1. To what question, "I will answer one of the questions though," of mine are you directing your answer here?

 

[sargent fury]

Sorry, but your excuse isn't selling. We both know the reason you decline to answer.



As nicely as I can.

Question 1. To what question, "I will answer one of the questions though," of mine are you directing your answer here?

Are you blind? What kind of a question is that? Read the answer, it's obvious.

I am beginning to get the impression that this forum is a bait for attracting witnesses for God so that you can attack them.

 

[Skwim]

Are you blind? What kind of a question is that? Read the answer, it's obvious.

Okay, so you can't answer that one. Here's one that may be a bit easier. . . . .or maybe not.

Satan was lusting after the worship Jehovah received and wanted it for himself. He used a serpent to mislead Eve.

Chapter and verse please, or are you making up this one as well?

And to repeat: Chapter and verse please

 

[sargent fury]

Okay, so you can't answer that one. Here's one that may be a bit easier. . . . .or maybe not.




And to repeat: Chapter and verse please

How is it that you do not posess a copy of the Bible? How is it that you've never READ the Bible? The answer to your question isn't as simple as "chapter and verse". Not many scriptural questions are. If you'd study the scriptures, you would be aware of that.

The Scriptural account makes it plain that it was Satan who spoke through the medium of a serpent, seducing Eve into disobedience to God’s command. In turn, Eve induced Adam to take the same rebellious course. (Ge 3:1-7; 2Co 11:3) As a consequence of Satan’s use of the serpent, the Bible gives Satan the title “Serpent,” which came to signify “deceiver”; he also became “the Tempter” (Mt 4:3) and a liar, “the father of the lie.”—Joh 8:44; Re 12:9.

When Satan approached Eve (through the speech of the serpent), he actually challenged the rightfulness and righteousness of Jehovah’s sovereignty. He intimated that God was unrightfully withholding something from the woman; he also declared that God was a liar in saying that she would die if she ate the forbidden fruit. Additionally, Satan made her believe she would be free and independent of God, becoming like God. By this means this wicked spirit creature raised himself higher than God in Eve’s eyes, and Satan became her god, even though Eve, at the time, apparently did not know the identity of the one misleading her. By his action he brought man and woman under his leadership and control, standing up as a rival god in opposition to Jehovah.—Ge 3:1-7.

The Bible, in lifting the veil to give a glimpse into heavenly affairs, reveals that Satan later as a rival god appeared before Jehovah in heaven, challenging Jehovah to His face, saying that he could turn God’s servant Job, and by implication any servant of God, away from Him. He charged God, in effect, with unrighteously giving Job everything, along with full protection, so that he, Satan, could not test Job and show what was really in his heart, which, Satan intimated, was bad. He implied that Job served God primarily for selfish reasons. Satan made this point of his argument clear when he said: “Skin in behalf of skin, and everything that a man has he will give in behalf of his soul. For a change, thrust out your hand, please, and touch as far as his bone and his flesh and see whether he will not curse you to your very face.”—Job 1:6-12; 2:1-7;

In this special case, Jehovah allowed Satan to bring calamity upon Job by not interfering when Satan brought about a raid from Sabean marauders as well as destruction of his flocks and shepherds by what Job’s messenger called “the very fire of God” from the heavens; whether this was lightning or other fire isn't stated. Satan also brought a raid by three bands of Chaldeans, as well as a windstorm. These things caused the death of all of Job’s children and destroyed his property. Finally, Satan inflicted a loathsome disease upon Job himself.—Job 1:13-19; 2:7, 8

These things reveal the might and power of the spirit creature Satan, as well as his vicious, murderous attitude.
It is important to note that Satan recognized his impotence in the face of God’s express command, for he did not challenge God’s power and authority when God restricted him from taking Job’s life.—Job 2:6.
By challenging God and his charging God’s servants with lack of integrity, Satan lived up to his title “Devil,” which means “Slanderer." A title he deserved for having slandered Jehovah God in the garden of Eden.

Beginning with his first overt act in turning Adam and Eve away from God, he was a manslayer, for he thereby brought about the death of Adam and Eve, which, in turn, brought sin and death to their offspring. (Ro 5:12)
The issue is not yet resolved, but will be in the "Great Day of God the Almighty", when Satan is abyssed for one thousand years (one day to Jehovah) and is released for a short time, then destroyed permanently. We are still in the middle of the evidence being presented regarding Satan's claims.

 

[Skwim]

How is it that you do not posess a copy of the Bible?

Oh I do, but the onus to prove you're right isn't on me, but you. You do understand how debate works don't you?

YOU make a claim.
I challenge it.
YOU (not me) substantiate your claim.​

The Scriptural account makes it plain that it was Satan who spoke through the medium of a serpent, seducing Eve into disobedience to God’s command. In turn, Eve induced Adam to take the same rebellious course. (Ge 3:1-7; 2Co 11:3)

First of all, let's be clear when you say "Satan who spoke through the medium of a serpent." This means that Satan was not identical with the serpent, just as speaking through a microphone doesn't make one the microphone. So let's see what you've got. . . . . .

Genesis 3:1-7King James Version (KJV)
3 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:​

No mention of Satan speaking thru the serpent. Sorry, but this gets nothing better than a

(Irrelevancy)

2 Corinthians 11:3King James Version (KJV)
3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.​

No mention of Satan speaking thru the serpent. Sorry, but this gets nothing better than a

(Irrelevancy)

As a consequence of Satan’s use of the serpent, the Bible gives Satan the title “Serpent,” which came to signify “deceiver”; he also became “the Tempter” (Mt 4:3) and a liar, “the father of the lie.”—Joh 8:44; Re 12:9.

Matthew 4:3King James Version (KJV)
3 And when the tempter came to [Jesus], he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.​

No mention of Satan speaking thru the serpent. Sorry, but this gets nothing better than a

(Irrelevancy)

John 8:44King James Version (KJV)
44 Ye [the Jews who believed in him] are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.​

No mention of Satan speaking thru the serpent. Sorry, but it gets nothing better than a

(Irrelevancy)

Revelation 12:9King James Version (KJV)
9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.​

No mention of Satan speaking thru the serpent. , but implies he was the serpent (the microphone). Sorry, but this gets nothing better than a

(Irrelevancy)

When Satan approached Eve (through the speech of the serpent), he actually challenged the rightfulness and righteousness of Jehovah’s sovereignty.

The "rightfulness and righteousness of Jehovah’s sovereignty"? Sounds profound, but it's no more than bombastic speculation presented as fact. Sorry but this gets nothing better than a

(speculation)

He intimated that God was unrightfully withholding something from the woman; he also declared that God was a liar in saying that she would die if she ate the forbidden fruit.

Genesis 3 King James Version (KJV)
3 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.​

No declaration that God was a liar at all. All he did was contradict god. God said X would happen and Satan said X would not happen. Simple as that. Sorry, but this gets nothing better than a

(speculation)

Additionally, Satan made her believe she would be free and independent of God, becoming like God.

Only if you select the appropriate translation. Some say "god," others say "gods."
Moreover, the passage says nothing about Satan making Eve believe she would be free and independent of God.
More unwarranted speculation laid out as fact. Sorry, but this gets nothing better than a

(speculation)

The Bible, in lifting the veil to give a glimpse into heavenly affairs, reveals that Satan later as a rival god appeared before Jehovah in heaven, challenging Jehovah to His face, saying that he could turn God’s servant Job, and by implication any servant of God, away from Him. He charged God, in effect, with unrighteously giving Job everything, along with full protection, so that he, Satan, could not test Job and show what was really in his heart, which, Satan intimated, was bad. He implied that Job served God primarily for selfish reasons. Satan made this point of his argument clear when he said: “Skin in behalf of skin, and everything that a man has he will give in behalf of his soul. For a change, thrust out your hand, please, and touch as far as his bone and his flesh and see whether he will not curse you to your very face.”—Job 1:6-12; 2:1-7;

In this special case, Jehovah allowed Satan to bring calamity upon Job by not interfering when Satan brought about a raid from Sabean marauders as well as destruction of his flocks and shepherds by what Job’s messenger called “the very fire of God” from the heavens; whether this was lightning or other fire isn't stated. Satan also brought a raid by three bands of Chaldeans, as well as a windstorm. These things caused the death of all of Job’s children and destroyed his property. Finally, Satan inflicted a loathsome disease upon Job himself.—Job 1:13-19; 2:7, 8

These things reveal the might and power of the spirit creature Satan, as well as his vicious, murderous attitude.
It is important to note that Satan recognized his impotence in the face of God’s express command, for he did not challenge God’s power and authority when God restricted him from taking Job’s life.—Job 2:6.
By challenging God and his charging God’s servants with lack of integrity, Satan lived up to his title “Devil,” which means “Slanderer." A title he deserved for having slandered Jehovah God in the garden of Eden.

Beginning with his first overt act in turning Adam and Eve away from God, he was a manslayer, for he thereby brought about the death of Adam and Eve, which, in turn, brought sin and death to their offspring. (Ro 5:12)
The issue is not yet resolved, but will be in the "Great Day of God the Almighty", when Satan is abyssed for one thousand years (one day to Jehovah) and is released for a short time, then destroyed permanently. We are still in the middle of the evidence being presented regarding Satan's claims.

Sorry, but this gets nothing better than a

(Irrelevancy)

 

[sargent fury]

Sorry, but your excuse isn't selling. We both know the reason you decline to answer.



As nicely as I can.

Question 1. To what question, "I will answer one of the questions though," of mine are you directing your answer here?

My refusing to answer your less than amicable post isn't an "excuse", it's refusing to succumb to being attacked, and refusing to allow you to behave poorly toward me. If you need to say it's an "excuse" to make your conscience feel better, then so be it. But you know it's not an excuse, and you know you are in the wrong here, but refuse to admit it even to yourself. Is there a reason for that behavior? Do you despise Jehovah that much?

 

[sargent fury]

Oh I do, but the onus to prove you're right isn't on me, but you. You do understand how debate works don't you?

YOU make a claim.
I challenge it.
YOU (not me) substantiate your claim.​

First of all, let's be clear when you say "Satan who spoke through the medium of a serpent." This means that Satan was not identical with the serpent, just as speaking through a microphone doesn't make one the microphone. So let's see what you've got. . . . . .

Genesis 3:1-7King James Version (KJV)
3 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:​

No mention of Satan speaking thru the serpent. Sorry, but this gets nothing better than a

(Irrelevancy)

2 Corinthians 11:3King James Version (KJV)
3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.​

No mention of Satan speaking thru the serpent. Sorry, but this gets nothing better than a

(Irrelevancy)

Matthew 4:3King James Version (KJV)
3 And when the tempter came to [Jesus], he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.​

No mention of Satan speaking thru the serpent. Sorry, but this gets nothing better than a

(Irrelevancy)

John 8:44King James Version (KJV)
44 Ye [the Jews who believed in him] are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.​

No mention of Satan speaking thru the serpent. Sorry, but it gets nothing better than a

(Irrelevancy)

Revelation 12:9King James Version (KJV)
9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.​

No mention of Satan speaking thru the serpent. , but implies he was the serpent (the microphone). Sorry, but this gets nothing better than a

(Irrelevancy)

The "rightfulness and righteousness of Jehovah’s sovereignty"? Sounds profound, but it's no more than bombastic speculation presented as fact. Sorry but this gets nothing better than a

(speculation)

Genesis 3 King James Version (KJV)
3 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.​

No declaration that God was a liar at all. All he did was contradict god. God said X would happen and Satan said X would not happen. Simple as that. Sorry, but this gets nothing better than a

(speculation)

Only if you select the appropriate translation. Some say "god," others say "gods."
Moreover, the passage says nothing about Satan making Eve believe she would be free and independent of God.
More unwarranted speculation laid out as fact. Sorry, but this gets nothing better than a

(speculation)




Sorry, but this gets nothing better than a

(Irrelevancy)

The problem here is that you're NOT debating. You're not challenging what I post, you're simply attacking. You pose no opposing viewpoint, you say "I don't believe it", or something worse. Learn how to debate, or stop trying. There is no "onus" on me either. I post an answer to your question and told you how to see it for yourself, yet you refuse to look. You essentially demand that I provide "chapter and verse" when answering that way isn't possible. It requires more than that. The scriptures are not composed in that fashion. Most answers require showing, through extensive texts, what Jehovah's viewpoint is, and showing how He deals with a specific issue, then explaining His viewpoint. It's not a categorized reference work like a dictionary or an encyclopedia, even though religionists seem to think it is. Are you a religionist?

And if you want answers to questions, I won't respond if you use a false translation such as King James, DR, ASV, NIV, and the like. None of the translations from which you quote are accurate translations of the word of God.

 

[Skwim]

My refusing to answer your less than amicable post isn't an "excuse", it's refusing to succumb to being attacked, and refusing to allow you to behave poorly toward me. If you need to say it's an "excuse" to make your conscience feel better, then so be it. But you know it's not an excuse, and you know you are in the wrong here, but refuse to admit it even to yourself. Is there a reason for that behavior? Do you despise Jehovah that much?

I don't despise fictional characters.

The problem here is that you're NOT debating. You're not challenging what I post, you're simply attacking.

Sure I'm challenging what you post. In the following I'm not bothering to present what you posted, only my challenges to what you've said.

My challenges in post 17

1) That you may want to characterize Eden, with its crafty serpent waiting to pounce on the unsuspecting, as paradise is your choice of course, but it's hardly supported by any text in Genesis or by common sense. Would paradise really have a bad guy in it lurking in the wings?

2) So, exactly what is the truth about god that all regions have gotten wrong?

3) But as a point of interest, just what did Adam believe about god?​

Then in post 19 I presented the following challenges

4) Show us the evidence that Eden was, in fact, paradise.

5) Chapter and verse please, that Satan was lusting after the worship Jehovah received and wanted it for himself.

6) And just where in the Bible does Jehovah present this non-lie: how it was? And what is it?

7) Exactly what is the truth about god that all regions have gotten wrong?

8) The true definition of what? What word are you referring to?

9) Just what falsehoods are these?

10) I assumed that as a proselyte of his new religion Adam would be carrying out (practicing) aspects of his new belief. Or didn't his new religion require anything of him?

11)Okay, then tell us where it says that "What Adam believed about God is what God told him."​

Almost all of which you declined to answer or even acknowledge.

You pose no opposing viewpoint, you say "I don't believe it", or something worse. Learn how to debate, or stop trying.

But the debate is about your claims, NOT my viewpoint or anything else. As far as posting something in reply to your answers (debate you), where it has been possible I have---I'm not going to bother replying to your irrelevant discourses. Want to debate my viewpoints? Fine, but not until we're done here. And yes, I am on to your ploy to switch the subject under the guise that a debate must entail both views of an issue. Sorry, but this gets nothing better than a

(bogus attempt to wiggle out)

There is no "onus" on me either. I post an answer to your question and told you how to see it for yourself, yet you refuse to look.

I did look, but, my good man, your answer was irrelevant to my questions. Just because your answer to 2 + 2 = ? is "apples" doesn't qualify it as a forthright answer. Proper debating form here is to address each individual challenge i n d i v i d u a l l y. Not post some irrelevant discourse only tangentially related to the subject.

You essentially demand that I provide "chapter and verse" when answering that way isn't possible. It requires more than that. The scriptures are not composed in that fashion. Most answers require showing, through extensive texts, what Jehovah's viewpoint is, and showing how He deals with a specific issue, then explaining His viewpoint. It's not a categorized reference work like a dictionary or an encyclopedia, even though religionists seem to think it is.

But the subject was very specific. In fact, you limited its scope when you said. "Are you not familiar with the Edenic garden story in the scriptures?" So this is where I drew my challenges from, and expected you to do the same with your explanations. We're talking about what the story tells us. NOT what its elements may have to say elsewhere. That you make very specific statements about "the Edenic garden story" and then must go elsewhere to support them just reinforces the fact that the story in of itself lacks the character you claim for it.

Are you a religionist?

Agnosticism isn't a religion.

And if you want answers to questions, I won't respond if you use a false translation such as King James, DR, ASV, NIV, and the like. None of the translations from which you quote are accurate translations of the word of God.

So what 's the nonpareil of Bible translations? What sits on your nightstand?

 

[sargent fury]

I don't despise fictional characters.

Sure I'm challenging what you post. In the following I'm not bothering to present what you posted, only my challenges to what you've said.

My challenges in post 17

1) That you may want to characterize Eden, with its crafty serpent waiting to pounce on the unsuspecting, as paradise is your choice of course, but it's hardly supported by any text in Genesis or by common sense. Would paradise really have a bad guy in it lurking in the wings?

2) So, exactly what is the truth about god that all regions have gotten wrong?

3) But as a point of interest, just what did Adam believe about god?​

Then in post 19 I presented the following challenges

4) Show us the evidence that Eden was, in fact, paradise.

5) Chapter and verse please, that Satan was lusting after the worship Jehovah received and wanted it for himself.

6) And just where in the Bible does Jehovah present this non-lie: how it was? And what is it?

7) Exactly what is the truth about god that all regions have gotten wrong?

8) The true definition of what? What word are you referring to?

9) Just what falsehoods are these?

10) I assumed that as a proselyte of his new religion Adam would be carrying out (practicing) aspects of his new belief. Or didn't his new religion require anything of him?

11)Okay, then tell us where it says that "What Adam believed about God is what God told him."​

Almost all of which you declined to answer or even acknowledge.

But the debate is about your claims, NOT my viewpoint or anything else. As far as posting something in reply to your answers (debate you), where it has been possible I have---I'm not going to bother replying to your irrelevant discourses. Want to debate my viewpoints? Fine, but not until we're done here. And yes, I am on to your ploy to switch the subject under the guise that a debate must entail both sides of an issue. Sorry, but this gets nothing better than a

(bogus attempt to wiggle out)

I did look, but, my good man, your answer was irrelevant to my questions. Just because your answer to 2 + 2 = ? is "apples" doesn't qualify it as a forthright answer. Proper debating form here is to address each individual challenge i n d i v i d u a l l y. Not post some irrelevant discourse only tangentially related to the subject.

But the subject was very specific. In fact, you limited its scope when you said. "Are you not familiar with the Edenic garden story in the scriptures?" So this is where I drew my challenges from, and expected you to do the same with your explanations. That you make very specific statements about "the Edenic garden story" and then must go elsewhere to support them just reinforces the fact that the story in of itself lacks the character you claim for it.

Agnosticism isn't a religion.

So what 's the nonpareil of Bible translations? What sits on your nightstand?

And what fictional characters are you referring to? I certainly have never referred to any fictional anything or anyone at any time.

 

[Skwim]

And what fictional characters are you referring to? I certainly have never referred to any fictional anything or anyone at any time.

Your Jehovah.

 

[sargent fury]

Your Jehovah.

If He were fictional, you and I would not exist.

 

[Skwim]

If He were fictional, you and I would not exist.

So you say. Which is fine. Mox nix.

 

[sargent fury]

So you say. Which is fine. Mox nix.

I am not the only one. Jehovah also says He is not fictional. He also proves it constantly, unfortunatly, not to folks who believe as you do. One day soon, you will KNOW that He exists. It will be the very last thing you ever know, which is very sad.

 

[Skwim]

I am not the only one. Jehovah also says He is not fictional. He also proves it constantly, unfortunatly, not to folks who believe as you do. One day soon, you will KNOW that He exists. It will be the very last thing you ever know, which is very sad.

So, among other things (I assume the rest of post 28 is just too much to tackle) what ya got sitting on your night stand?

 

[sargent fury]

So, among other things (I assume the rest of post 28 is just too much to tackle) what ya got sitting on your night stand?

No, just inappropriate. You seem to like attacking the beliefs of Jehovah's chosen named people and I won't entertain that idea. Your participation in this blog's question is not apparently for educational purposes, but it seems that you simply want to tell anyone who doesn't believe as you do that they are idiots. That's the feeling you give forth with the way you engage. What is on my night stand is of no concern to you.

 

[starlite]

The three terms (Hebrew par·desʹ, Persian pairidaeza, and Greek pa·raʹdei·sos), all convey the basic idea of a beautiful park or park-like garden. The first such park was that made by man’s Creator, Jehovah God, in Eden. (Ge 2:8, 9, 15) It is called a gan, or “garden,” in Hebrew but was obviously park-like in size and nature. The Greek Septuagint appropriately uses the term pa·raʹdei·sos with reference to that garden.

The Bible portrays the Garden of Eden as a real place, giving specifics about its location. Two of the rivers mentioned in the account flow today. No doubt the evil doer was familiar with the accounts of the Garden of Eden and the Hebrew meaning of the word for garden.

 

[Skwim]

No, just inappropriate. You seem to like attacking the beliefs of Jehovah's chosen named people and I won't entertain that idea.

Sorry that asking you to explain your assertions comes off as an attack on a whole contingent of people, but I didn't think you were speaking for such a group.

Your participation in this blog's question is not apparently for educational purposes, but it seems that you simply want to tell anyone who doesn't believe as you do that they are idiots. That's the feeling you give forth with the way you engage.

Sorry again that you misconstrue my effort to get an explanation from you as a personal assault. How else do you feel I should get an explanation from you without asking? As for making you or anyone else feel like an idiot, you'll have to be more specific.

What is on my night stand is of no concern to you.

Hey, in post 27 you told me "I won't respond if you use a false translation such as King James, DR, ASV, NIV, and the like. None of the translations from which you quote are accurate translations of the word of God," implying there is a version of the bible you would respond to. So all I'm asking is, what is it? Just what translation will you accept?

 

[sargent fury]

Sorry that asking you to explain your assertions comes off as an attack on a whole contingent of people, but I didn't think you were speaking for such a group.

Sorry again that you misconstrue my effort to get an explanation from you as a personal assault. How else do you feel I should get an explanation from you without asking? As for making you or anyone else feel like an idiot, you'll have to be more specific.


Hey, in post 27 you told me "I won't respond if you use a false translation such as King James, DR, ASV, NIV, and the like. None of the translations from which you quote are accurate translations of the word of God," implying there is a version of the bible you would respond to. So all I'm asking is, what is it? Just what translation will you accept?

I only know of three widely available translations that even come close to accurate. They are the Young's Literal translation, the Jewish Orthodox translation, and the NWT versions. All the rest are essentially straight from the half pagan half Christian Bible that Constantine created in 325 c.e. at Nice when he assembled a council for the creation of his "state" religion called the Roman Church, which 70 years later was called the Roman Catholic Church. Completely pagan and completely in opposition to Jehovah God. All sects of Christianity stem from this pagan religion. It's for that reason that they are termed "works of the flesh", called false religion, and are said to be destroyed in Revelation to John in the final battle of Armageddon, along with ALL of their participants, and the governments with which they commit fornication.

 

[Skwim]

I only know of three widely available translations that even come close to accurate. They are the Young's Literal translation, the Jewish Orthodox translation, and the NWT versions. All the rest are essentially straight from the half pagan half Christian Bible that Constantine created in 325 c.e. at Nice when he assembled a council for the creation of his "state" religion called the Roman Church, which 70 years later was called the Roman Catholic Church. Completely pagan and completely in opposition to Jehovah God. All sects of Christianity stem from this pagan religion. It's for that reason that they are termed "works of the flesh", called false religion, and are said to be destroyed in Revelation to John in the final battle of Armageddon, along with ALL of their participants, and the governments with which they commit fornication.

Curious as to how you know these three come close to being accurate. Care to share?

 

[sargent fury]

Curious as to how you know these three come close to being accurate. Care to share?

Because I compared them to what original texts exist. Plus, we know hell is common grave of mankind, and the originals used hades and sheol for common grave. It wasn't until paganism was injected into Christendom that they thought hell was a place of torment. The original texts use stauros, a Greek word that meant at the time pole, or stake, not cross as it's sometimes translated today. Jesus was killed on a torture stake, not a cross. The idea of an immortal soul wasn't thought of in Christendom until paganism entered the picture in 325 c.e. either. Then, the name of God, Jehovah, having been removed from the 7,000 appearances it makes in the original texts is another clue as to a faulty translation. They've replaced the tetragrammaton with lord or God. Some translations have removed it all together. There are many many more mistranslated words. The few I've mentioned are a pretty good clue though.