Originally posted by BroInChrist:Seems like you too need to be disabused of the word "unicorn". The word is simply means One Horn creature. Why do you suppose it can only refer to a fantasy white horse with a long thin spike on its forehead?
did the word intended to mean a one horn creature? or in a bid to make yourself seem right... u gave a interpretation as one horn creature?
If it means to be interpreted as a one horn creature, why is it named as unicorn then? knowing that it coincides with a mythical creature and wld eventually generate confusion?
No matter how you explains, it just feel super 牵强 leh.
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
did the word intended to mean a one horn creature? or in a bid to make yourself seem right... u gave a interpretation as one horn creature?If it means to be interpreted as a one horn creature, why is it named as unicorn then? knowing that it coincides with a mythical creature and wld eventually generate confusion?
No matter how you explains, it just feel super 牵强 leh.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Uni means one. The word is taken from Latin unicornis and the KJV translators used unicorn for the Hebrew word re'em. Words have a variety of meanings and too bad that you can only think of mythical creatures when you see that term.
BIC
Seems like everytime we raise a strange word or verse in it, you have to explain for god.
Why god's book need so much explanation??
Very unclear lei.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Uni means one. The word is taken from Latin unicornis and the KJV translators used unicorn for the Hebrew word re'em. Words have a variety of meanings and too bad that you can only think of mythical creatures when you see that term.
oh... variety of meanings... :)
Originally posted by Tcmc:BIC
Seems like everytime we raise a strange word or verse in it, you have to explain for god.
Why god's book need so much explanation??
Very unclear lei.
Answer is very simple and clear, God's Word was revealed in history through the writings of men who lived thousands of years ago at different times in different places under different circumstances in different languages in different cultures, so much so that we today who read these writings are so far removed in time that we would need to understand the different times in different places under different circumstances in different languages in different cultures in order to correctly interpret the Bible. This is the same for ALL documents of antiquity, not just the Bible.
Not only that, each person that comes to the Bible have different knowledge base. You may need a lot of explanation but someone else more diligent to find out more about historical contexts and word meanings may not need as much explanation.
Bottom line: God's Word is written to us and meant to be understood. Much of the mystery has already been taken out of the original languages by those faithful men who laboured hard to give us the Bible in modern English. So be thankful that you can even get to read it for yourself.
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:oh... variety of meanings... :)
Think of one-horned creatures, how many come to mind, real animals only please.
Here's what a 27 year old has to say on this, remarkable! http://www.creationtoday.org/why-does-the-bible-mention-unicorns/
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Answer is very simple and clear, God's Word was revealed in history through the writings of men who lived thousands of years ago at different times in different places under different circumstances in different languages in different cultures, so much so that we today who read these writings are so far removed in time that we would need to understand the different times in different places under different circumstances in different languages in different cultures in order to correctly interpret the Bible. This is the same for ALL documents of antiquity, not just the Bible.
Not only that, each person that comes to the Bible have different knowledge base. You may need a lot of explanation but someone else more diligent to find out more about historical contexts and word meanings may not need as much explanation.
Bottom line: God's Word is written to us and meant to be understood. Much of the mystery has already been taken out of the original languages by those faithful men who laboured hard to give us the Bible in modern English. So be thankful that you can even get to read it for yourself.
BIC,
Eh if words like dragons, unicorns need to be explained by you to say that they are real and mean other things, then there's something wrong with the book right?
I dont understand man. That an allknowing, allpowerful deity can create such a book that needs so much editing, translation etc? In the end after so many edits, still got mistakes and still need SOO much explanation?
And i find it ridiculous that you can weave your way through to explain that unicorns and dragons are real. Even kids know they are not.
Originally posted by Tcmc:BIC,
Eh if words like dragons, unicorns need to be explained by you to say that they are real and mean other things, then there's something wrong with the book right?
I dont understand man. That an allknowing, allpowerful deity can create such a book that needs so much editing, translation etc? In the end after so many edits, still got mistakes and still need SOO much explanation?
And i find it ridiculous that you can weave your way through to explain that unicorns and dragons are real. Even kids know they are not.
No, there's nothing wrong with the book. But there's something wrong with your knowledge of these things.
Who told you the Bible has much editing and got mistakes?
Did I have to weave my way through? Not at all. I have spoken to kids that dragons was the label used on dinosaurs before the word "dinosaur" was invented in 1841. Their eyes lit up and they understood. You just need to renew their thinking on this. Many people's minds simply are filled with caricatures and trash ideas about the Bible. I just need to correct the false ideas.
I know what you believe is just a belief system confined to one factor. However, It might an idea to try if you use kechara healing chakras. Nothing to lose my friend.
"Just tell us what the article said about the serpent lah."
And you were really expecting me to present what the link to argue for you... Possession or influence?
"In Rev 20, what comes to your mind when you see the word "dragon" which was referring to Satan? You picturing a Chinese dragon? Duh..."
You brought up the dragon in Rev20. You paint the picture.
"I know what the Masoretic text is, but again this is completely IRRELEVANT to the issue about how long the time period between Abraham to Jesus. As mentioned more than once, Abraham lived about 2000 BC. From Adam to Abraham is also about 2000 years. So how old is the earth? Do your math and stop throwing red herrings."
If you knew what its is and the implications that the dead sea scrolls brings, you wouldn't deemed it to be irrevelant with caps.
"And I am telling you that to harp about time being a human concept is a red herring. That's not even the issue. So what if 24hrs is a human concept? Does that change the argument or invalidate my point? Not at all. The issue is that the Bible defined the each day of creation as bounded by an evening and a morning with an ordinal number, and this always means an ordinary day as we know it. And how have I been deceived by the idea of a 24 hr day?"
God defined "evening and morning makes a day". You dropped the red herring(24hr/day) here, not me. Unless you can show me where in the bible states there are 24hrs/day.
"Yes, I will continue to point out your misuse and misquoting of Scripture, and your misquoting of Augustine. How does that Augustine quote invalidate or refute the young earth view? See http://creation.com/augustine-young-earth-creationist"
I never meant it did.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/augustine/
http://www.logoslibrary.org/augustine/trinity/0101.html
Debate me please, BIC. On a separate thread perhaps.
Do you have any interesting topics in mind?
On one condition though - our discussion must not be deleted by FireIce. I like to keep these in my harddrive for referral after every discussion.
LOL at Hardcore Atheist's username.
Originally posted by White Dust:Debate me please, BIC. On a separate thread perhaps.
Do you have any interesting topics in mind?
On one condition though - our discussion must not be deleted by FireIce. I like to keep these in my harddrive for referral after every discussion.
LOL at Hardcore Atheist's username.
Hi there, it's been a while.
Between an atheist and a theist, the most important thing to debate over is the issue of God's existence. The rest are peripheral to this. As such I would love to continue our debate that was terminated. I am sorry that I am unable to acede to your condition. Migration of topic to another forum to lock it down is not something I would do or can do. I have no idea why the issue of God's existence cannot be debated or discussed on Sgforums. It's a topic that is always included in any book on philosophy.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:No, there's nothing wrong with the book. But there's something wrong with your knowledge of these things.
Who told you the Bible has much editing and got mistakes?
Did I have to weave my way through? Not at all. I have spoken to kids that dragons was the label used on dinosaurs before the word "dinosaur" was invented in 1841. Their eyes lit up and they understood. You just need to renew their thinking on this. Many people's minds simply are filled with caricatures and trash ideas about the Bible. I just need to correct the false ideas.
BIC
Seems like even many christians (who are called by your god) dont even know there are so many explanations to the terms that I mentioned.
So are many christians also "misguided" like me?
Why would the christian God create a book that will misguide so many unbelievers and believers alike?
Oh are you going to say it's our POOR understanding?
Surely, a book that is clear (like a sec 1 composition or a fact book) will not have so many people misguided and raising questions. I mean, come on, a simple word like "unicorn" means just that in most children's books. But why the explanation in the bible, a book SUPPOSEDLY inspired by the most intelligent being.
Originally posted by Aneslayer:"Just tell us what the article said about the serpent lah."
And you were really expecting me to present what the link to argue for you... Possession or influence?
"In Rev 20, what comes to your mind when you see the word "dragon" which was referring to Satan? You picturing a Chinese dragon? Duh..."
You brought up the dragon in Rev20. You paint the picture.
"I know what the Masoretic text is, but again this is completely IRRELEVANT to the issue about how long the time period between Abraham to Jesus. As mentioned more than once, Abraham lived about 2000 BC. From Adam to Abraham is also about 2000 years. So how old is the earth? Do your math and stop throwing red herrings."
If you knew what its is and the implications that the dead sea scrolls brings, you wouldn't deemed it to be irrevelant with caps.
"And I am telling you that to harp about time being a human concept is a red herring. That's not even the issue. So what if 24hrs is a human concept? Does that change the argument or invalidate my point? Not at all. The issue is that the Bible defined the each day of creation as bounded by an evening and a morning with an ordinal number, and this always means an ordinary day as we know it. And how have I been deceived by the idea of a 24 hr day?"
God defined "evening and morning makes a day". You dropped the red herring(24hr/day) here, not me. Unless you can show me where in the bible states there are 24hrs/day.
"Yes, I will continue to point out your misuse and misquoting of Scripture, and your misquoting of Augustine. How does that Augustine quote invalidate or refute the young earth view? See http://creation.com/augustine-young-earth-creationist"
I never meant it did.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/augustine/
http://www.logoslibrary.org/augustine/trinity/0101.html
For the nth time, tell me what the article says concerning WHO the serpent in Genesis 3 was?
Wow, must really lay it out for you. OK lah, since you are so reluctant to say I am right (ego issue perhaps?) I will cut and paste the answer from the article, say ahhhhhhhhhh:
The work of the serpent is thus the enactment of everything that Jesus ascribed to ‘the devil ’ in John 8:44. Furthermore, there is no other event in recorded history that better fulfils this description of the devil than does the account of the temptation by the serpent in Genesis 3.
A further tie-up between the serpent of Genesis 3 and Satan, or the devil, is given in Revelation 12:9 and 20:2:
Likewise demons can, under certain conditions, indwell either human bodies or animal bodies—for example, the time when Jesus cast out a legion of devils from a man, and they then entered a herd of pigs which ran down a steep place into the sea (Mark 5:1–13). It is therefore proper for us to conclude that Satan appropriated and used the body of a specific serpent on this occasion to carry out his subtle purpose of tempting Eve to sin.
Your quip about the Masoretic text is indeed IRRELEVANT. Why do I need to know that when the issue is about the time period between Abraham and Jesus which anyone with the initiative can easily find out? http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_years_between_Abraham_and_Jesus
Pray tell why would saying that 24hrs make up the evening and a morning be a red herring? Just because the Bible does not say "an evening and a morning, 24 hours" means we cannot conclude it is a literal ordinary day then as we know it today? The Bible calls it "evening and morning" while we today calls it a 24 hour duration. Both refer to the same thing n question, the meaning of a day. Or are you saying we cannot conclude because you have alread sold out to the evolution story?
So your point about Augustine was just you showing off but really has no relevance to what is being discussed. *face/palm*
Originally posted by Tcmc:BIC
Seems like even many christians (who are called by your god) dont even know there are so many explanations to the terms that I mentioned.
So are many christians also "misguided" like me?
Why would the christian God create a book that will misguide so many unbelievers and believers alike?
Oh are you going to say it's our POOR understanding?
Surely, a book that is clear (like a sec 1 composition or a fact book) will not have so many people misguided and raising questions. I mean, come on, a simple word like "unicorn" means just that in most children's books. But why the explanation in the bible, a book SUPPOSEDLY inspired by the most intelligent being.
Indeed, the truth is that there are many Christians who are ignorant of such things, which is why organisations like AiG or CMI or ICR etc are around to communicate the information.
God said a day is defined as "an evening and a morning" no less than SIX times. Is that unclear? Misguiding? Misleading? Not at all. People who take God's Word seriously can even work out a Biblical chronology of about 6000 years. You feel misguided because you chose to BELIEVE man's fallible opinions over God's infallible Word, simple as that.
Don't you know that the meaning of words change over time? It's not just the word "unicorn" but many other words as well. God's Word did not change. The Hebrew text remains the same, it is the English translation and choice of words used that may cause some confusion. But then again, do you just read the KJV when there are other translations that do not have the word unicorn in them? You never read the NLT before? Try it! Your complaint is with English, not the Bible! http://carm.org/bible-unicorn
Originally posted by BroInChrist:For the nth time, tell me what the article says concerning WHO the serpent in Genesis 3 was?
Wow, must really lay it out for you. OK lah, since you are so reluctant to say I am right (ego issue perhaps?) I will cut and paste the answer from the article, say ahhhhhhhhhh:
The work of the serpent is thus the enactment of everything that Jesus ascribed to ‘the devil ’ in John 8:44. Furthermore, there is no other event in recorded history that better fulfils this description of the devil than does the account of the temptation by the serpent in Genesis 3.
A further tie-up between the serpent of Genesis 3 and Satan, or the devil, is given in Revelation 12:9 and 20:2:
Likewise demons can, under certain conditions, indwell either human bodies or animal bodies—for example, the time when Jesus cast out a legion of devils from a man, and they then entered a herd of pigs which ran down a steep place into the sea (Mark 5:1–13). It is therefore proper for us to conclude that Satan appropriated and used the body of a specific serpent on this occasion to carry out his subtle purpose of tempting Eve to sin.
Your quip about the Masoretic text is indeed IRRELEVANT. Why do I need to know that when the issue is about the time period between Abraham and Jesus which anyone with the initiative can easily find out? http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_years_between_Abraham_and_Jesus
Pray tell why would saying that 24hrs make up the evening and a morning be a red herring? Just because the Bible does not say "an evening and a morning, 24 hours" means we cannot conclude it is a literal ordinary day then as we know it today? The Bible calls it "evening and morning" while we today calls it a 24 hour duration. Both refer to the same thing n question, the meaning of a day. Or are you saying we cannot conclude because you have alread sold out to the evolution story?
So your point about Augustine was just you showing off but really has no relevance to what is being discussed. *face/palm*
Gen 3:1-The serpent was the shrewdest of all the wild animals the Lord God had made.
The bible says the serpent was a wild animal, not some angel/demon that would be fallen like your article liked to protray. I wouldn't wanna hurt your delicate ego but my bible says no. Sorry.
And wiki answers are undisputed to you. Ok noted.
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/implications-dss_bruce.pdf
http://www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/wsrp/educational_site/dead_sea_scrolls/books.shtml
http://www.missionislam.com/comprel/scrolls.htm
I post what I posted just because I believe in the word of God more than inventions of men. I do not believe in the evolution that you would believe me to be sold out to.
What do I have to show off as I am just another ignorant fool.
Do you wish to rise? Begin by descending. You plan a tower that will pierce the clouds? Lay first the foundation of humility.
Saint Augustine
Originally posted by Aneslayer:Gen 3:1-The serpent was the shrewdest of all the wild animals the Lord God had made.
The bible says the serpent was a wild animal, not some angel/demon that would be fallen like your article liked to protray. I wouldn't wanna hurt your delicate ego but my bible says no. Sorry.And wiki answers are undisputed to you. Ok noted.
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/implications-dss_bruce.pdf
http://www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/wsrp/educational_site/dead_sea_scrolls/books.shtml
http://www.missionislam.com/comprel/scrolls.htmI post what I posted just because I believe in the word of God more than inventions of men. I do not believe in the evolution that you would believe me to be sold out to.
What do I have to show off as I am just another ignorant fool.
Do you wish to rise? Begin by descending. You plan a tower that will pierce the clouds? Lay first the foundation of humility.
Saint Augustine
Augustine, in his commentary on chapter 3 in "The Literal Meaning of Genesis", states "This serpent, however, could be called the wisest of of the beasts not by reason of its irrational soul but rather because of another spirit - that of the Devil - dwelling in it."Â
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Augustine used "could"... meaning no compulsion. Also, God made the serpent without the devil's dwelling in it. Told you why I ruled out possession as it would imply that the serpent was innocent. It was not.
Originally posted by Hardcore Atheist:
Some theists would like to refute this point by saying that we have sinned and misused the free will God had given us, thus evil happens, or something of that kind.
The fallacy in the above sentence, however, is apparent when you think about it. God is he all-knowing and all-powerful being right? Now if he knows what you think, and he knows the future, do we have free will actually? So did Adam have free will, or did God already know that Satan would tempt Adam to eat the fruit?
Some theists might call this God's test of faith. However, if God already knows what you want, or what you will do, then is the test of faith not necessary at all? If so, then why did God went to the extent of blaming Adam for something that He knew Adam would do? Why would he create Satan?
Food for thought.
Now if this has offended any of you, I would like to say I am sorry. I know science cannot necessarily disprove or prove God, but it shows that many wonders of nature can be done naturally, and without the aid of a creator. Hence I have decided to use the philosophical problem of evil.
The theistic approach assumes that God is the sole determinant of all events. Ergo, man has no free-will - this dogma is a given. While the atheists/agnostics, or anyone else for that matter may argue from the perspective of a hard determinist, compatibilist or libertarian.
What's your point?
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
Augustine used "could"... meaning no compulsion. Also, God made the serpent without the devil's dwelling in it. Told you why I ruled out possession as it would imply that the serpent was innocent. It was not.
Augustine's use of "could" was referring to the label "wisest of the beasts" applied on the serpent. So what "no compulsion" are you talking about?
I never said anything about God making the serpent with the devil inside. (wave off irrelevant point)
Whether you want to deny possession or influence or what not, in my view the mechanics of how it happened is secondary and peripheral. I will not be dragged into haggling over this point with you. The fact remains that Augustine held a view not different from mine, that the serpent which tempted Eve was for all intents and purposes the the devil. And for this point you have not rebutted or refuted. See http://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/stewart.cfm?id=705
Your links on the DSS are again irrelevant to what is being discussed.
You do not believe in the Bible's six-day creation. You also do not believe in evolution. Thank you for the ambiguous answer again. So what do you actually BELIEVE? Which part of Gen 1-11 is REAL history to you as in it really happened as stated?
He meant no compulsion to interpret it as literally.
How many times do I have to repeat why I rejected possession... If the devil had taken over the serpent's body, the serpent would have been innocent, but it was not. I'm not into popular belief that does not relate to the words of God.
Be my guest if all you want is to be trendy, rational and mainstream. For me, the bible says so. No more, no less.
I have stated clearly that I believe in 6 days creation, but you deliberately ignore. I have stated clearly that I don't believe in the evolution that you thought I believe, but you can't accept that. If you still don't see your problem, good luck. I'm not one to be stereotyped comfortably by bigots.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Augustine's use of "could" was referring to the label "wisest of the beasts" applied on the serpent. So what "no compulsion" are you talking about?
I never said anything about God making the serpent with the devil inside. (wave off irrelevant point)
Whether you want to deny possession or influence or what not, in my view the mechanics of how it happened is secondary and peripheral. I will not be dragged into haggling over this point with you. The fact remains that Augustine held a view not different from mine, that the serpent which tempted Eve was for all intents and purposes the the devil. And for this point you have not rebutted or refuted. See http://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/stewart.cfm?id=705
Your links on the DSS are again irrelevant to what is being discussed.
You do not believe in the Bible's six-day creation. You also do not believe in evolution. Thank you for the ambiguous answer again. So what do you actually BELIEVE? Which part of Gen 1-11 is REAL history to you as in it really happened as stated?
BIC
Possessed?
Like those kind Tiao Tang ah?
Originally posted by Aneslayer:He meant no compulsion to interpret it as literally.
How many times do I have to repeat why I rejected possession... If the devil had taken over the serpent's body, the serpent would have been innocent, but it was not. I'm not into popular belief that does not relate to the words of God.
Be my guest if all you want is to be trendy, rational and mainstream. For me, the bible says so. No more, no less.
I have stated clearly that I believe in 6 days creation, but you deliberately ignore. I have stated clearly that I don't believe in the evolution that you thought I believe, but you can't accept that. If you still don't see your problem, good luck. I'm not one to be stereotyped comfortably by bigots.
No compulsion to interpret what literally? If you even had the initiative to check out what Augustine wrote, that entire chapter was about the usage of the word "wise" in referring to the serpent. Later in that chapter Augustine wrote,
"If the Devil, therefore, entered the serpent and possessed it, communicating his spirit to it in the manner in which the prophets of demons are usually possessed, it would be no wonder if he made it wiser than all beasts, which have a living but irrational soul."
In short, epic failed on your part to read.
Again the issue of the mechanics as to how the Devil used the snake is IRRELEVANT to the point that a real snake was the form in which the Devil presented himself to tempt Eve. Do you agree or not? Or are you saying that the serpent was actually the devil in bodily form, as in the devil materialised himself as a serpent?
It seems that when the evidence is on my side you cavalierly dismissed it as being trendy, rational and mainstream. That is so lame a response.
OK, so you say you believe in 6 days creation. By what do you mean by six days? Ordinary days? Non-ordinary days? Literal days? Figurative days? Any bloke can say he believe in 6 days creation. Even progressive creationist Hugh Ross says that, while clearly adopting a nonliteral meaning of that word. So can you CLEARLY and UNAMBIGUOUSLY tell us what you mean by 6 days and how long each day is in clear language without any vagueness and ambiguity?
You said you don't believe in evolution, so you telling me you reject ALL of evolution, from cosmic to chemical to biological goo-to-you evolution? And how come you use pro-evolution websites like talkorigins to argue against my views? Do you really believe those pro-evolution websites? It's YOUR problem that you don't see.
Originally posted by Tcmc:BIC
Possessed?
Like those kind Tiao Tang ah?
Not necessarily so.
you cant see your problems! He sees that he has no problems! Pro-evolution websites cannot be trusted... but pro christ websites can be!