The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

systemsready · 16-10-2012 09:49AM

maguffin wrote: »

I have no need to interpret...it is of no concern to me. I merely presented some quotes for you (and others) in response to your previous reply to another poster.
You may interpret as you will....but it does not mean that your interpretation is superior/more correct than anyone else's.

Well...why would you offer these quotes as evidence that man is allowed only 1 wife. I assume that was the reason you offered them meaning you made an interpretation that they supported the 1 wife only rule which God never said.

systemsready · 16-10-2012 09:51AM

maguffin wrote: »

1 Cor.7:2 Let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

Eph.5:33 Let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband

These 2 sayings have nothing to do with Jesus

maguffin · 16-10-2012 09:57AM

systemsready wrote: »

Well...why would you offer these quotes as evidence that man is allowed only 1 wife. I assume that was the reason you offered them meaning you made an interpretation that they supported the 1 wife only rule which God never said.

This is the problem when you make ill-informed and incorrect assumptions.

If you read it carefully there is a clue in the text!

With regard to whether the quotes had anything to do with jesus.....did I say they did?

systemsready · 16-10-2012 09:58AM

maguffin wrote: »

Mt.19:9 Whosoever shall put away his wife, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Mk.10:11 Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.

Put away in this case is to keep the first wife as a sort of chattel, dishonour her status as wife, and then marry a second. But Jacob married Leah and Rachel and honored both of them. he didnt putteth 1 away.

Strong's Greek #630 Apoluo

* The common word Apoluo translated as: " put away" or "putteth away" is (the same as the Hebrew equivalent of the word shalach) which means" to send, separate, send away or leave," NOT divorce.
* Used 94 times in the New Testament.
* 18 times related to a separation in marriage or intimate relationship (not divorce).
* 76 times used in other ways.
* Apoluo NEVER meant divorce, but a "separation."

maguffin · 16-10-2012 10:06AM

systemsready wrote: »

Put away in this case is to keep the first wife as a sort of chattel, dishonour her status as wife, and then marry a second. But Jacob married Leah and Rachel and honored both of them. he didnt putteth 1 away.

Strong's Greek #630 Apoluo

* The common word Apoluo translated as: " put away" or "putteth away" is (the same as the Hebrew equivalent of the word shalach) which means" to send, separate, send away or leave," NOT divorce.
* Used 94 times in the New Testament.
* 18 times related to a separation in marriage or intimate relationship (not divorce).
* 76 times used in other ways.
* Apoluo NEVER meant divorce, but a "separation."

Wow!! your intelligence knows no bounds!!

systemsready · 16-10-2012 10:08AM

maguffin wrote: »

This is the problem when you make ill-informed and incorrect assumptions.

If you read it carefully there is a clue in the text!

With regard to whether the quotes had anything to do with jesus.....did I say they did?

A clue to what? The texts you provided were in response to my argument that having multiple wives was not forbidden by God. That was the theme of the discussion. I refuted your 'evidence'...and my refutation was based on the fact that you misinterpreted the 'clues' in the texts.

Now you say I missed a 'clue'. Where?

systemsready · 16-10-2012 10:11AM

maguffin wrote: »

Wow!! your intelligence knows no bounds!!

I use Google!

maguffin · 16-10-2012 10:13AM

systemsready wrote: »

A clue to what? The texts you provided were in response to my argument that having multiple wives was not forbidden by God. That was the theme of the discussion. I refuted your 'evidence'...and my refutation was based on the fact that you misinterpreted the 'clues' in the texts.

Now you say I missed a 'clue'. Where?

I take back what I said about your intelligence....it obviously does have boundaries!

Refute my 'evidence' means you refute what is written in the Bible, a book you seem to hold so dear.....oh well, life is full of contradictions!!

systemsready · 16-10-2012 10:24AM

maguffin wrote: »

I take back what I said about your intelligence....it obviously does have boundaries!

Refute my 'evidence' means you refute what is written in the Bible, a book you seem to hold so dear.....oh well, life is full of contradictions!!

Oh dear, you have offered these quotes as evidence that they say something that suits your whim. But they don't, they speak of richer concepts that you seem to have missed.

maguffin · 16-10-2012 10:37AM

systemsready wrote: »

I use Google!

Seems to me you now have freely admitted that the basis for all your argument here is based on dubious information on the Internet...copy and paste to suit your whim, grab a piece here and there, whatever suits a quick responce.....no thinking required!!

When I think of all the rich concepts that you are missing by being shallow in your arguments on this thread, it saddens me (well, it doesn't really..it just sounded good!)

systemsready · 16-10-2012 10:39AM

maguffin wrote: »

Seems to me you now have freely admitted that the basis for all your argument here is based on dubious information on the Internet...copy and paste to suit your whim, grab a piece here and there, whatever suits a quick responce.....no thinking required!!

When I think of all the rich concepts that you are missing by being shallow in your arguments on this thread, it saddens me (well, it doesn't really..it just sounded good!)

The sadness is that you believe there are people out there who derive their knowledge from within. You will always be at the mercy of men.

J C · 16-10-2012 09:32PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Some of us will just stick to stuff that can be proved. There are too many gods out there to believe in them all.

I agree ... so believe in the God of the Bible ... who is the one and only true God.:)

J C · 16-10-2012 10:28PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

But they seem to be living a primitive lifestyle, shunning pigs and music and cutting off bits of their willies and keeping men apart from women - all very biblical stuff. You would fit right in.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Yes, the ultra-orthodox do. Isn't this what you say you are aiming for?

Kosher food and circumcision are standard practices for most Jews ... and not just the ultra-orthodox.

So a little more respect for these amazing (and historically maltreated) people would be in order.

BTW Systemsready ... Jewish Ritual Law doesn't apply to Christians who are under God's Grace ... and not His Law.

J C · 16-10-2012 10:41PM

I go abroad for the weekend ... and it will take me a week to catch up with this thread again!!!:eek:

... it's gone 'mega' again!!!!:):D

... great to see such an interest in the things of God ... keep up the good work ... everybody.

Lelantos · 16-10-2012 11:35PM

J C wrote: »

I go abroad for the weekend ... and it will take me a week to catch up with this thread again!!!:eek:

... it's gone 'mega' again!!!!:):D

... great to see such an interest in the things of God ... keep up the good work ... everybody.

More of an interest in folklore & fairytales, once someone starts an Enid Blyton thread we'll move onto better & more realistic stories

systemsready · 17-10-2012 07:06AM

J C wrote: »

BTW Systemsready ... Jewish Ritual Law doesn't apply to Christians who are under God's Grace ... and not His Law.

LOL...God sends a warning to his chosen people...dont eat disease..(pork, blood)
You say we gentiles are allowed to eat disease...ok. Hmmm..
God thinks its ok for gentiles to eat and get diseases from the food they eat? Does he not care about gentiles? Does he only care about jews and muslims

Monty Burnz · 17-10-2012 08:21AM

systemsready wrote: »

LOL...God sends a warning to his chosen people...dont eat disease..(pork, blood)
You say we gentiles are allowed to eat disease...ok. Hmmm..
God thinks its ok for gentiles to eat and get diseases from the food they eat? Does he not care about gentiles? Does he only care about jews and muslims

What about all the other dietary laws? Why do you ignore them?

systemsready · 17-10-2012 09:25AM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

What about all the other dietary laws? Why do you ignore them?

So what you are implying is that its ok to eat pork and blood, because there are other things that were forbidden but were abrogated at some time and therefore that means we cant rely on the a non-static law?

Monty Burnz · 17-10-2012 09:40AM

systemsready wrote: »

So what you are implying is that its ok to eat pork and blood, because there are other things that were forbidden but were abrogated at some time and therefore that means we cant rely on the a non-static law?

What I am implying is that you are obsessed by the Jewish dietary law with regard to not eating pork, but don't seem bothered that the rest of your food is kosher.

Bizarre.

systemsready · 17-10-2012 09:58AM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

What about all the other dietary laws? Why do you ignore them?

I dont ignore them...none of these things are available at Dunne's, and even if they were I wouldn't eat them. You probably would.
If I eat meat I eat a bit of lamb or beef. (grass eating animals, not carrion eating animals)
So the ball is in your court now.

Explicit list
These are the animals considered to be impure according to Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14:
Bat
Camel
Chameleon
Coney (Hyrax)
Cormorant
Cuckow
Eagle
Ferret
Gier Eagle[4]
Glede
Great Owl[5]
Hare
Hawk
Heron
Kite
Lapwing
Little Owl
Lizard
Mole
Mouse
Night Hawk
Osprey
Ossifrage
Owl
Pelican
Pig
Raven
Snail
Stork
Swine
Tortoise
Vulture
Weasel

Source : wikipedia

Monty Burnz · 17-10-2012 10:01AM

systemsready wrote: »

I dont ignore them...none of these things are available at Dunne's, and even if they were I wouldn't eat them. You probably would.

This just demonstrates your ignorance once again. The dietary laws are not just a list of animals you can't eat, as even someone with the slightest knowledge of the subject should know. :rolleyes:

systemsready · 17-10-2012 10:01AM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

What I am implying is that you are obsessed by the Jewish dietary law with regard to not eating pork, but don't seem bothered that the rest of your food is kosher.

Bizarre.

Its bizarre to avoid eating a scavenging animal, an animal that maybe eats human excrement whenever it finds it? You think its bizarre to avoid that?

systemsready · 17-10-2012 10:03AM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

This just demonstrates your ignorance once again. The dietary laws are not just a list of animals you can't eat, as even someone with the slightest knowledge of the subject should know. :rolleyes:

I thought diet is about what you eat...maybe you think diet involves other things?

Monty Burnz · 17-10-2012 10:05AM

systemsready wrote: »

Its bizarre to avoid eating a scavenging animal, an animal that maybe eats human excrement whenever it finds it? You think its bizarre to avoid that?

Actually I do, but that's beside the point. What do you think your grains and vegetables are fertilised with? What do you think the grass that cows produce milk from is fertilised with? Very often, it's sh!t.

HTH.

Monty Burnz · 17-10-2012 10:06AM

systemsready wrote: »

I thought diet is about what you eat...maybe you think diet involves other things?

Just how ignorant are you? Go and read up on it for god's sake if you are going to try to discuss it.

systemsready · 17-10-2012 10:10AM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Just how ignorant are you? Go and read up on it for god's sake if you are going to try to discuss it.

I sense distress in that statement.

Monty Burnz · 17-10-2012 10:13AM

systemsready wrote: »

I sense distress in that statement.

Your sheer ignorance is distressing, but it should be more distressing to you than it is to me. The fact that you still do not seem (or are pretending not to) get it is somewhere between hilarious and astonishing.

systemsready · 17-10-2012 10:23AM

The object of this debate is for each party to convince the other of the validity of their opinion.
Therefore if I were to convince you that my opinion was valid..then you would cease to eat sh*t. Which you agree would be a benefit to you.
If you were to convince me of your opinion..I would then begin to think sh*t is acceptable as a food. Which would be harmful to me.
You see the difference. In other words the objective of your argument is to convince others that sh*t is ok to eat and your support for this viewpoint is that ' a billion horseflies cant be wrong!'

PopePalpatine · 17-10-2012 10:37AM

systemsready wrote: »

The object of this debate is for each party to convince the other of the validity of their opinion.
Therefore if I were to convince you that my opinion was valid..then you would cease to eat sh*t. Which you agree would be a benefit to you.
If you were to convince me of your opinion..I would then begin to think sh*t is acceptable as a food. Which would be harmful to me.
You see the difference. In other words the objective of your argument is to convince others that sh*t is ok to eat and your support for this viewpoint is that ' a billion horseflies cant be wrong!'

There's a metaphor in here somewhere...

systemsready · 17-10-2012 10:41AM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

There's a metaphor in here somewhere...

Jesus spoke in parables for a reason. Its a good way of getting the message across.

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Comments