The Bible ~ spiritually inspired? | Religion Spirituality | Forum

A A A
Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —






— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
The Bible ~ spiritually inspired?
July 28, 2010
7:12 pm
Avatar
rath
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 4297
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

The Book Of Leviticus:

1 Yahweh spoke to Moses and said:

2 'Say to the Israelites: "Anyone, be he Israelite or alien resident in Israel, who gives any of his children to Molech, will be put to death. The people of the country must stone him,

3 and I shall set my face against that man and outlaw him from his people; for by giving a child of his to Molech he has defiled my sanctuary and profaned my holy name.

4 If the people of the country choose to close their eyes to the man's action when he gives a child of his to Molech, and do not put him to death,

5 I myself shall turn my face against that man and his clan. I shall outlaw them from their people, both him and all those after him who prostitute themselves by following Molech.

6 "If anyone has recourse to the spirits of the dead or to magicians, to prostitute himself by following them, I shall set my face against him and outlaw him from his people.

7 "Sanctify yourselves and be holy, for I am Yahweh your God.

8 "You will keep my laws and put them into practice, for it is I, Yahweh, who make you holy.

9 Hence: "Anyone who curses father or mother will be put to death. Having cursed father or mother, the blood will be on that person's own head.

10 "The man who commits adultery with his neighbour's wife will be put to death, he and the woman.

11 "The man who has intercourse with his father's wife has infringed his father's sexual prerogative. Both of them will be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

12 "The man who has intercourse with his daughter-in-law: both of them will be put to death; they have violated nature, their blood will be on their own heads.

13 "The man who has intercourse with a man in the same way as with a woman: they have done a hateful thing together; they will be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

14 "The man who marries a woman and her mother: this is incest. They will be burnt alive, he and they; you will not tolerate incest.

15 "The man who has intercourse with an animal will be put to death; you will kill the animal too.

16 "The woman who approaches any animal to have intercourse with it: you will kill the woman and the animal. They will be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

17 "The man who marries his father's or his mother's daughter: if they have intercourse together, this is an outrage. They will be executed in public, for the man has had intercourse with his sister; he will bear the consequences of his guilt.

18 "The man who has intercourse with a woman during her monthly periods and exposes her nakedness: he has laid bare the source of her blood, and she has exposed the source of her blood, and both of them will be outlawed from their people.

19 "You will not have intercourse with your mother's sister or your father's sister. Whoever does so, has had intercourse with a close relation; they will bear the consequences of their guilt.

20 "The man who has intercourse with the wife of his paternal uncle has infringed his uncle's sexual prerogative; they will bear the consequences of their guilt and die childless.

21 "The man who marries his brother's wife: this is pollution; he has infringed his brother's sexual prerogative; they will die childless.

22 "You will keep all my laws, all my decisions, and put them into practice, so that the country where I am taking you to live will not vomit you out.

23 You will not follow the laws of the nations whom I am driving out before you; they practised all these things, which is why I detested them.

24 As I have already told you, you will take possession of their soil, I myself shall give you possession of it, a country flowing with milk and honey. "Since I, Yahweh your God, have set you apart from these peoples,

25 you for your part will make a distinction between clean animals and unclean ones and between unclean birds and clean ones, and will not make yourselves detestable with any animal or bird or reptile, which I have set apart from you as unclean.

26 "Be consecrated to me, for I, Yahweh, am holy, and I shall set you apart from all these peoples, for you to be mine.

27 "Any man or woman of yours who is a necromancer or magician will be put to death; they will be stoned to death; their blood will be on their own heads." '

King James Bible has changed the Gospel & thus changed the word of god. http://www.bible-history.com/k.....iticus/20/

March 16, 2013
9:28 pm
Avatar
AMBASSADOR_OF_KOLOB
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 76
Member Since:
February 11, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
183sp_Permalink sp_Print

"humphreys" wrote: [quote="shadowcass"]Spoken in true CSICOP style. If you can't attack the data attack the man. Yet the late John Mack is not the only psychiatrist or psychologist who considers the Abduction Phenomenon to have a basis in reality.

So?

For every one who believes it, I'll find you ten who don't.

"shadowcass" wrote: The real problem for those who wish to debunk all those who recount these experiences from the late Philip Klass to Joe Nickell and Susan Clancy is that they know nothing about the subject.

Spoken in true believer style. If anyone disagrees, they must not know anything about it, seeing as it so obviously true that we're being molested by aliens in our sleep.

I have a different take on it.

You have a strong desire to believe, as did Mack, and he let that need, as well as the strong belief of his clients, cloud his judgement.

"shadowcass" wrote: During abduction events, abductees are missing from their normal environments. Police have been called, search parties have been sent out, parents have frantically searched for their children, etc. When people remember abductions, they sometimes return with marks on their bodies – not just any marks, but with seemingly impossible fully formed scars. They sometimes return with broken bones and they have no idea how they happened. Sometimes people return with unusual stains on their clothes that were not there before the abduction. Attempts to discover the nature of these stains have been unsuccessful. They return with their clothes on backwards, and/or inside out. They return wearing someone else’s clothes. When people are abducted, they are often abducted with others who can confirm the details of their abduction, as with Barney and Betty Hill.

The problem here is, you cannot use the vast number of cases and their individual factors to make a general case about the reality of alien abductions, otherwise your judgement will be skewed.

Most of those things you mention are rare. The average case is someone claiming to be abducted in his sleep. There are no witnesses, and no marks that could not have already been there, or caused by trauma during sleep.

There are more exceptional cases, but they must each be investigated individually to assess the reality and reliablity of each particular piece of evidence. When you take a case individually and investigate it, you will often find that each special factor, like witnesses, or a person reported missing, can be explained. Many of the implants are not implants at all, there are, of course, going to be frauds, that's undeniable, some of these people will actually be crazy, some will have been drugged and abused, for instance, the list goes on, but we cannot make blanket statements about the whole field in general like you have and expect it to be convincing.

In my experience, the people at CSICOP et al are very, very knowledgable on the subject, as they would have to be, and they are coming to different conclusions to you.

"shadowcass" wrote: Often it is family members, but there are instances when friends or bystanders witness the abduction as well. People are abducted while fully awake, driving a car, gardening, and so forth.

And there are cases on record where more than one person claims to have seen a Mermaid, and a vast number of similar accounts of leprechauns and fairies.

Do you believe in all those too?

"shadowcass" wrote: None of the debunkers have yet to manage satisfactory explanations for these things. Mostly they ignore them because these facts do not fit their pat little explanations.

Well, it's extremely difficult to perfectly piece together even the simplest events after the fact when you were not present, but the debunkers do a good job, for the most part.

"shadowcass" wrote: The thing is---if your explanation doesn't explain the facts ALL of the facts---you have the wrong explanation.

Nonsense.

"shadowcass" wrote: And, with that, I'd like to get back to a discussion of the Bible if we could. Since that was what this forum was supposed to be about.

I don't believe I mentioned alien abductions first.

I will answer not about the bible but the abduction experience I firmly believe that John E. Mack is right about one thing, which is that we have "stretched the boundaries" of our "mastership" of planet earth and we have RAPED THE PLANET now this is "reflected in these space myths" if you will, for the MASTER OF THE UNIVERSE is now being "raped" by ALIENS who like the master is "completely oblivious" to the suffering they create by their "scientific mindset"!

Now I do grant MR JOHN E. MACK a great compliment, he has "opened the pandora's box", he wants to "goad the president" into admitting that he is "incapable of doing anything about these phenomena", but I am not incapable, for I have "connections" that go all the way into the CENTER OF THE COSMOS!

Ask me please what I intend to do about "space abductions" and I will tell you flat out!

March 19, 2013
3:30 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests
184sp_Permalink sp_Print

Is not John E. Mack the fellow who went about speaking on the Abduction experiences and had communications with this other fellow Alan Hayek??

I am thinking this Mack fellow was killed in a car accident some time back.

I have heard othes speak of this fellow..but it has been awhile.

If this is the fellow of whom I am thinking..He believes that these abduction people are doing this for a reason which is not in our best interests. So too with this other fellow Hayek.

I dont believe in the outer space aliens..I think this is something fed to us misdirected as to what is going on. I do believe government is in on the cover up of this stuff.

Orangetom

July 28, 2010
7:19 pm
Avatar
rath
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 4297
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Chapter 21.

Yahweh said to Moses: 'Speak to the priests descended from Aaron and say: "None of them must make himself unclean by touching the corpse of one of his people,

2 unless it be of one of his closest relations-father, mother, son, daughter, brother,

3 or virgin sister, since she being unmarried is still his close relation: he can make himself unclean for her;

4 but for a close female relation who is married he will not make himself unclean; he would profane himself.

5 "They will not make tonsures on their heads, shave the edges of their beards, or gash their bodies.

6 They will be consecrated to their God and will not profane the name of their God. For their function is to offer the food burnt for Yahweh, the food of their God, and so they must be holy.

7 "They will not marry a woman profaned by prostitution, or one divorced by her husband, for the priest is consecrated to his God.

8 "You will treat him as holy, for he offers the food of your God. For you, he will be a holy person, for I, Yahweh, who sanctify you, am holy.

9 "If a priest's daughter profanes herself by prostitution, she profanes her father and will be burnt alive.

10 "The priest who is pre-eminent over his brothers, on whose head the anointing oil has been poured, and who, robed in the sacred vestments, has received investiture, will not disorder his hair or tear his clothes;

11 he will not go near any corpse or make himself unclean even for his father or mother.

12 He will not leave the holy place in such a way as to profane the sanctuary of his God; for he bears the consecration of the anointing oil of his God. I am Yahweh.

13 "He will marry a woman who is still a virgin.

14 He will not marry a woman who has been widowed or divorced or profaned by prostitution, but will marry a virgin from his own people:

15 he must not make his own children profane, for I, Yahweh, have sanctified him." '

16 Yahweh spoke to Moses and said:

17 'Speak to Aaron and say: "None of your descendants, for all time, may come forward to offer the food of his God if he has any infirmity,

18 for none may come forward if he has an infirmity, be he blind or lame, disfigured or deformed,

19 or with an injured foot or arm,

20 a hunchback, someone with rickets or ophthalmia or the scab or running sores, or a eunuch.

21 No descendant of the priest Aaron may come forward to offer the food burnt for Yahweh if he has any infirmity; if he has an infirmity, he will not come forward to offer the food of his God.

22 "He may eat the food of his God, things especially holy and things holy,

23 but he will not go near the curtain or approach the altar, since he has an infirmity and must not profane my holy things; for I, Yahweh, have sanctified them." '

24 And Moses promulgated this to Aaron, to his sons, and to all the Israelites.

July 28, 2010
10:33 pm
Avatar
at1with0
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 9243
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Leviticus is most of the reason why I stopped being a Christian years ago.

There are people here who say that God does talk back when we pray to it and that in order to discern whether or not the message is authentically of God, we must gauge its authenticity by comparing it to Biblical stricture (oops, I meant scripture Embarassed )

My question is what gauge did the authors of the Bible have to test the authenticity of what they received?

"it is easy to grow crazy"

July 29, 2010
5:06 pm
Avatar
sandra
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 3858
Member Since:
December 4, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

"at1with0" wrote: Leviticus is most of the reason why I stopped being a Christian years ago.

There are people here who say that God does talk back when we pray to it and that in order to discern whether or not the message is authentically of God, we must gauge its authenticity by comparing it to Biblical stricture (oops, I meant scripture Embarassed )

My question is what gauge did the authors of the Bible have to test the authenticity of what they received?

You are not going to know that if you sit idle at maximum capacity.

“Living backwards!” Alice repeated in great
astonishment. “I never heard of such a thing!”
“—but there’s one great advantage in it, that one’s
memory works both ways.”
— Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass

July 29, 2010
5:52 pm
Avatar
at1with0
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 9243
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

"sandra" wrote: [quote="at1with0"]My question is what gauge did the authors of the Bible have to test the authenticity of what they received?

You are not going to know that if you sit idle at maximum capacity.

What do you mean? If I wasn't idle (in whatever sense you might have meant), I would then know the answer to my question? I already might know: the answer is that they had no such gauge, had no assurance that they were properly translating what they were receiving. That in itself doesn't mean mistranslation but it does make the whole thing tenuous.

I'm waiting for someone who believes differently to explain why they think that and, moreover, how they know differently.

"it is easy to grow crazy"

July 29, 2010
8:03 pm
Avatar
shadowcass
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 239
Member Since:
July 26, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

The King James Bible did not change the word of God, you know. But there is a confusion out there that I have been trying to clear up for people for many years.
Christianity is NOT a "continuation" of Judaism. It does not follow on FROM Judaism.
God made a covenant with Abraham and his descendents. That covenant is not with any other people of any other nation.
Jesus made a new covenant with the world.
Even the “Ten Commandments” so beloved of Christians, consider how it begins: (Exodus Chapter 20 first verse): “Then God spoke all these words:
2 I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; 3you shall have no other gods before me. ”
He is talking to THOSE PEOPLE ALONE…the People He brought out of Egypt (and their descendents).

This is part of the confusion that persists to this day (and was not helped by well-meaning Gospel writers like Matthew and Luke who wrote out Genealogies trying to prove that Jesus was the looked for Messiah. He WASN’T).
“Huh?” I hear you say.
No. Jesus was NOT the Messiah. The Messiah foretold to the Nation of Israel is still to come. Christian Theologians have been trying to twist this ever since but Jesus does not fulfill the prophecies concerning the Messiah. FIRST of all, the Messiah must be a descendent of David the King. Jesus wasn’t.
JOSEPH was (although the two genealogies differ slightly on the line of descent), but Joseph was not His father.
Jesus was something very different. Something unlooked for. He came to make a NEW covenant with all the peoples of the world. A Covenant different from the First. A Covenant that does not require keeping a bunch of rules and regulations but which is based on Grace (unmerited favor FROM God) and Faith (perfect trust IN God…the kind of trust a little child has in its parents).
Hence the confusion. Preachers quote all kinds of passages where Jesus appears to be confirming the LAW but what He is doing is AFFIRMING that the Original Covenant is still in force for God’s Chosen People. It still works and always will—it is eternal just as God is eternal. BUT there is also this New Covenant (the teaching of which He will eventually entrust to Paul—His Chosen Emissary to the non-Jew—mistakenly translated as “Gentiles” in the New Testament. The Latin word “gentilis” merely means a relative bearing the same name as you. Someone of the same clan.).
Can a Jew take advantage of the New Covenant? Most certainly (after all, the first Christians had bEEN Jewish). But they are not required to.

July 29, 2010
9:17 pm
Avatar
qmark
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 1110
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

"at1with0" wrote:
the answer is that they had no such gauge, had no assurance that they were properly translating what they were receiving. That in itself doesn't mean mistranslation but it does make the whole thing tenuous.

In my opinion (I want to stress the word...opinion), God communicated with His chosen people differently in the Old Testament as He did in the New Testament as He does today. Back then, he communicated visually and audibly. There really was no guesswork, mistranslation was not an issue. In fact, when He audibly spoke to all the children of Israel they were scared to death. They told Moses to speak to God for them and just relay the message.

July 29, 2010
9:25 pm
Avatar
qmark
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 1110
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

"shadowcass" wrote: The King James Bible did not change the word of God, you know. But there is a confusion out there that I have been trying to clear up for people for many years.
Christianity is NOT a "continuation" of Judaism. It does not follow on FROM Judaism.
God made a covenant with Abraham and his descendents. That covenant is not with any other people of any other nation.
Jesus made a new covenant with the world.
Even the “Ten Commandments” so beloved of Christians, consider how it begins: (Exodus Chapter 20 first verse): “Then God spoke all these words:
2 I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; 3you shall have no other gods before me. ”
He is talking to THOSE PEOPLE ALONE…the People He brought out of Egypt (and their descendents).

This is part of the confusion that persists to this day (and was not helped by well-meaning Gospel writers like Matthew and Luke who wrote out Genealogies trying to prove that Jesus was the looked for Messiah. He WASN’T).
“Huh?” I hear you say.
No. Jesus was NOT the Messiah. The Messiah foretold to the Nation of Israel is still to come. Christian Theologians have been trying to twist this ever since but Jesus does not fulfill the prophecies concerning the Messiah. FIRST of all, the Messiah must be a descendent of David the King. Jesus wasn’t.
JOSEPH was (although the two genealogies differ slightly on the line of descent), but Joseph was not His father.
Jesus was something very different. Something unlooked for. He came to make a NEW covenant with all the peoples of the world. A Covenant different from the First. A Covenant that does not require keeping a bunch of rules and regulations but which is based on Grace (unmerited favor FROM God) and Faith (perfect trust IN God…the kind of trust a little child has in its parents).
Hence the confusion. Preachers quote all kinds of passages where Jesus appears to be confirming the LAW but what He is doing is AFFIRMING that the Original Covenant is still in force for God’s Chosen People. It still works and always will—it is eternal just as God is eternal. BUT there is also this New Covenant (the teaching of which He will eventually entrust to Paul—His Chosen Emissary to the non-Jew—mistakenly translated as “Gentiles” in the New Testament. The Latin word “gentilis” merely means a relative bearing the same name as you. Someone of the same clan.).
Can a Jew take advantage of the New Covenant? Most certainly (after all, the first Christians had bEEN Jewish). But they are not required to.

Sounds like duel covenant theology to me.

Forum Timezone: America/Los_Angeles

Most Users Ever Online: 288

Currently Online:
35 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
2 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

greeney2: 10227

bionic: 9870

at1with0: 9243

Lashmar: 5289

tigger: 4576

rath: 4297

DIss0n80r: 4161

sandra: 3858

frrostedman: 3815

Wing-Zero: 3278

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 2

Members: 23916

Moderators: 0

Admins: 2

Forum Stats:

Groups: 8

Forums: 31

Topics: 8652

Posts: 123261

Newest Members:

Brooke, ieltstips22, Vicente Vargas, Goldingsboy, Bauer Palmer, Spacemonkey, hondahonda, laundryroom, kesan, Paul Thomas

Administrators: John Greenewald: 558, blackvault: 1776