Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The Need for Sound Doctrine.
In an age of ‘relativism’ in which there appears to be no absolutes, it IS vital to KNOW that Almight God HAS absolutes. God, His Word, His truth and His laws stand *OUT* as eternal *absolutes*, unchanged, and unchanging, forever reliable. Atheism, agnosticism, relativism, situation ethics, existentialism, and other philosophies of men, have saturated this generation, thus causing a real need for sound doctrine.
This IS a day in which all believers need to KNOW!
1) WHO they believe
2) WHAT they believe
3) WHY they believe it.
All religions, true or false, all cults, “isms” and ideologies are founded on various doctrines and these teachings received, believed, obeyed and continually practiced determine:
1) Character – what we are
2) Behavior – what we do
3) Destiny- where we go
Strong character IS determined by strong beliefs, and clearly defined doctrine makes for clear cut convictions. What a person believes IS either molded by the *vain* philosophies of men, OR, the Inspired Word of God. Hence it IS absolutely necessary to be founded on the doctrine of Christ.
In the realm of the sciences:
Stars *existed* before astronomy; man in his *ignorance* conceives astrology. Flowers *existed* before botany; man in his *ignorance* resorts to pantheism. LIFE *existed* before biology; man in his *ignorance* falls to evolution. Almighty God EXISTED, eternally, before theology; man in his blinded IGNORANCE fall into IDOLATRY!
Truth combats ERROR, LIGHT dispels DARKNESS. False teaching can only be corrected by the Word of God. Thus, whether it be DENIAL of truth, substraction or addition, misunderstanding, misrepresentation, or substitution, ONLY the sum total of the Word can rectify false doctrine .( II Tim. 3: 15,16).
The Scripture list several classes of doctrine. However, it will be seen that all doctrine proceeds from THREE sources; GOD, Satan, or Man. These are also THREE sources of thought, which IS illustrated in Matthew 16: 13-23.
1. The thought of God, concerning Christ IS seen in verses 16-17. There Peter confessed that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the Living God. This WAS indeed revelation from God concerning His blessed Son.
2> The thought of Man, is seen in verses 13-14, where people thought that Jesus might be Elijah, or Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. Nothing sinful, BUT, only human thinking is seen here. It is human thinking APART FROM Divine revelation concerning the Christ of Almighty God.
3> The thought of Satan, IS seen clearly in verses 21-23, where Peter, who a moment before had *received* the mind and thought of God, now, confessed a *thought* he received from Satan, who WAS opposed to the cross and the Christ Jesus of God.
This illustration clearly shows that the *mind* of man, IS open to THREE sources of thought and communication. Therefore ALL must be TESTED in the light of the written Word of God.
The Doctrine of God.
Deuteronomy 32: 2 – “My doctrine shall drop as the rain..”
Proverbs 4:2 – “I GIVE good doctrine…”
Isaiah 29: 24- “They also that ERRED in spirit shall come to *understanding*, and they that murmured shall learn doctrine.”
I Timothy 6:1 – “…that the name of God and His doctrine be NOT blasphemed.”
I Timothy 6:3 – “…the doctrine which IS according to Godliness.”
Titus 2:10 – “…that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in ALL things.”
Doctrine of Christ.
Hebrews 6:1 – “…the first principles of the doctrine nof Christ.”
Matthew 7:28 – “…they were ASTONISHED at His doctrine.” See also Matthew 22: 33; Mark 12: 38; Mark 1:27.
The Doctrine of Men.
Matthew 15:9 speaks of those who were “teaching for doctrines the commandments OF MEN.” Jesus said that the doctrines and tradations of MEN make the Word of God of NONE effect (Mark &; 7-13). Paul WARNS the believers NOT to be “carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the *sleight* of MEN, and *cunning* craftiness, whereaby they lie in wait to DECEIVE” Ephesians 4:14. (Hebrews 13:9) We ARE NOT to be subject to the commandments or doctrines of MEN, nor their vain philosophies (Colossians 2:8).
The Bible also clearly shows that there ARE certain doctrines of which the believer IS to beware and which Christ hates.
1. We are to beware of the Doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees. (Luke 12:1; Acts 23:8; Matthew 16: 12).
2. The Lord condemned certain doctrines held by the churches in Revelation.
The Doctrine of Balaam (Rev. 2:14 with Jude 11 and II Peter 2:15).
The Doctrine of the Nicolaitans (Rev. 2: 6,15).
The Doctrine of Jezebel ( Rev. 2: 20-24).
We must hate that which Christ hates, because of its *corrupting* influence in the church. God IS very concerned about the doctrines His church follows. False *cults* hiding under the cloak of Christianity, ARE founded on *perversions* of the WORD of truth (Read II Timothy 2: 16-18; 4: 3-4; I Timothy 1: 4-6; 3:9; 4: 7; 6: 4-5; and Titus 1:9). Paul exhorted Timothy and Titus, concerning those who would RESIST the TRUTH, men of *corrupt* minds, DESTITUTE of the TRUTH, who had given themselves OVER to fables, VAIN babblings, and endless genealogies. The Scriptures WARN against FALSE prophets, FALSE teachers, and other ministries, who would bring in FALSE DOCTRINE. (II Cor. 11: 19-20; Matthew 7: 15-23; II Peter 2: 1-3).
Doctrines of Devils.
The Scriptures WARN us that in the latter times, there would also arise doctrines of devils. Paul told Timothy that “the Spirit speaketh EXPRESSLY, THAT in the latter times some shall DEPART from the faith, giving HEED to *seducing* spirits and DOCTRINES of DEVILS…” I Timothy 4: 1-3. ( Refer also to I Cor. 10: 20-21.) These doctrines of devils are propagated through *DECEIVED* men. Paul spoke of those who “CORRUPT the Word of God”, that IS, they deal DECEITFULLY, with the Word. (II Cor. 2:17) He also spoke of those who were “walking in CARFTINESS, handling the Word of God DECEITFULLY” II Corinthians 4:2. The serpent stood before the woman, Eve, and PERVERTED the Word of God, thus bringing about the Fall of man. Deception WAS Satan’s first weapon in Eden ( Genesis 3: 1-6), AND, it IS also Satan’s last-day weapon. Note the warnings AGAINST deception in Matthew 24: 4, 11, 24. In Ephesians 4: 14 Paul speaks of winds of doctrine, and the TRICKERY of men, their CUNNING CRAFTINESS, whereby they lay in wait to DECEIVE the simple. This is how heresies originate. They arise out of *DEMONIC* influence,and flow through deceived MEN.
The Apostle Peter also spokef those who are *unlearned* and UNSTABLE wresting the truth of the Scriptures to their own DESTRUCTION (II Peter 3: 14-16). The word “wrest” means “to wrench, or tortue on the rack” thus perverting and distorting the Scriptures they profess to be teaching. ( Exodus 23: 6; Deut 16: 19, Psa. 56: 5). Eternal judgment IS pronounched on ALL of those who *ADD* or *TAKE* away from the Word of God. They suffer eternal wrath. (Deut. 4:2; Prov. 30:6; Rev. 22: 18-19). Paul uttered a curse on angels or men who preached “another Gospel.” (Gal. 1: 6-8) False cults in principle teach “another Jesus’, receive “another spirit” and proclaim “another Gospel.” (II Cor. 11:4).
All doctrine ultimately proceeds from one of two main sources. The Spirit of *TRUTH* or Error. Men can teach either, according to the Spirit they receive and are motivated and influenced by. The Last Days ARE upon the church, and SATAN is releasing his mind, which is expressed through doctrines of DEMONS, in order to deceive mankind. This shows the absolute need of being *founded* and established in the sound principles of the doctrine of Christ.
DOCTRINE.
GOD
Spirit of Truth
Light
Doctrine of God
Doctrine of Christ
Doctrine of the Apostles
Believing
Life and Liberty
Contrasted with
SATAN
Spirit of Error
Darkness
Doctrine of Satan
Doctrine of Devils
Doctrine of Man
Deceiving
Death and Bondage.
The Only sure and infallible TEST of ALL docrine, Is the complete body of Scripture, working from the part to the whole, and the whole to the part. The prophet said, “To the law (The Word) and to the testimony (of the Scriptures), IF they (the spirits) speak NOT according to this WORD, it IS because there IS NO LIGHT in them” Isaiah 8: 19-20). (The Foundations of Christian Doctrine, pp. 5-8) emphasis added.
This is just scratching the surface of Sound Doctrine, and its absolute necessity, from God’s Word.
@ Zoe…..
…”Stars *existed* before astronomy; man in his *ignorance* conceives astrology. Flowers *existed* before botany; man in his *ignorance* resorts to pantheism. LIFE *existed* before biology; man in his *ignorance* falls to evolution. Almighty God EXISTED, eternally, before theology; man in his blinded IGNORANCE fall into IDOLATRY!
That does not seem like a fair assessment IMHO.
To follow your logic, man in his ignorance (your words) “fell” to these things. Aren’t these things (astronomy, botany, biology) there now because of the need to know and understand by man? Isn’t this a common characteristic in us all, the need to study ?
Let me replace some of your choice words for a moment …
LIFE *existed* before biology; man in his *ignorance* falls to evolution.
…..Man also fell to the creation theory, was this ignorance as well?
Almighty God EXISTED, eternally, before theology; man in his blinded IGNORANCE fall into IDOLATRY!
…….Man also fell to the “true” Church, was this ignorance as well?
Maybe I am stupid or ignorant (or not to your level of intellect) but some of these statements just sound plain contradictory to me. This is where I truly confused.
Oh how de hipocrites consecrate!
@Dictionary……….No amount of cutting and pasting can change what was before the jew or christian. Isn’t it interesting how most believe that LIFE started in Africa with the Black ones, yet somehow you and your ilk want some of us to believe that anything good and pure and ‘godlike’ came from whitey? Are you truly denying yourself or the GREAT BLACK ONES that preceded this nonsense?
According to your scripture which states that Adam and Eve were the first humans on this planet, from whence cometh Cain’s wife?
@Zoe……..”Flowers *existed* before botany; man in his *ignorance* resorts to pantheism. LIFE *existed* before biology; man in his *ignorance* falls to evolution…..”
Isn’t it thru the Mind that the Creator gave you, that you study yourself and nature and that you get to know yourself and hereby interface with the Creator? Isn’t the Creator present in Us and in Nature? Or do we have to interface thru Jesus, or the Pope or some Vicar to get to the Creator?
Since ‘Jesus’ is a Spanish name, what was his original name?
you bring me Joy In The Morning
maybe we can live in Happy Land
I would never ever Never Give Up
I updated previous link carlton lewis and the shoes
Hopi:
You have the clear verdict of knowledgeable scholarship, from world class references on one side; and what you have from me — thanks to Strongs’ wonderful numerical coding system for both vernacular and original language text [And Robertson’s morphological codes are a close second . . . ] — is not a blind cutting and pasting, it is appropriate citation of multiple known, classic, authoritative references, here Hebrew-English Lexicons up to and including BDB; in every way similar to using a top-class dictionary to authoritatively identify the meaning of a word in English.
(Had I consulted Oxford Concise for the meaning of an English word, would you have sneered like that? I doubt it, so why are you sneering when I have consulted the equivalent of Oxford Concise AND Complete, plus Britannica for Bible original language? Apart from, the world-class, professionally qualified experts — per a longstanding, linguistically based consensus — do not agree with you, that is.)
You have only a superficial resemblance on the other, and a superficial resemblance that — as was discussed earlier — is utterly out of context with the relevant difference in worldview.
Sort of like seeing “Gift” on an item labelled in German and thinking that it is a nice present to drink or put on the body, since GIFT resembles a certain English word.
Skeen-pupalik-vank!
Kaput!
(Talk about being dead wrong!)
It is clear where the weight of the credible evidence is, and it plainly is not on the attempt to make the close of every prayer almost by a Christian into a calling on the name of a long disused idol backed up by demons who seem to want to get back into their old business.
But, the latter is the exact style of the Father of Lies: if a recirculated deception will work, he is quite happy to use it.
This ill-informed deception that is not up to date with the fact that for a free download we can now have a wealth of competent original language tools — now stands officially exposed, onlookers.
(NB: Back in the days when you would have had to make a trip cross town or even to another island to a theological library to find these tools, then ask help in leaning how to use them, it would have been easy to get away with the sort of ill-informed distortion that Hopi and ROK just tried to pass on us; probably having been taken in by it themselves, through irresponsible, ill-informed, untrustworthy writings, maybe Tom Harpur (cf review of this author, as already linked here). But then, in those days, I had an encyclopedia volume sized copy of Strongs in my personal library; still do as a matter of fact. [And, let us note: Wiki’s article is of course actually correct on this one too, which is why I quoted it with approval. I can assure you, Wiki was not my primary source! I cited it only to set the hurdle threshold that has to be surmounted.])
So, finally, let us remember the warning of the Apostle Peter at the end of his Epistle:
2 Peter 3:15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
We have been given fair warning.
G’day.
D
@ Technician
If you accept the Genesis record and the several other scriptures that deal with the creation, then it is NOT unreasonable to conclude that the stars existed before man started to study them. It is logical to think that man would not be studying stars unless they existed to be studied.
Similarly flowers and the rest of the fauna existed before the study of plants called botany began. And there was life โ both flora and fauna before the study of these life forms began- we call it Biology.
Also before men started to study God (Theology) God had to be and man had to believe or think or know that he IS.
I cannot see how in your HO that you cant see that those are not illogical conclusions, except that once it is declared by a member of the โBat Caveโ it must be a moronic mouthing. I do not see you so fervent and fearless and fierce in such forays with respect to the โwisdomโ presented by other posters here on BU. Ah lie?
I notice that you contradict yourself (as indeed you must) when you opine that
โArenโt these things (astronomy, botany, biology) there now because of the need to know and understand by man? Isnโt this a common characteristic in us all, the need to study ?โ
I might add that the need to study IS NOT a common characteristic in us ALL. LOL! Ah lie? Most of us did not study very hard at school ( I certainly did not); and some think that those who study are crazy (especially if the study the Bible). Ah lie?
On BU (and probably in Bim) being bright or having studied is the worse sin a man could possibly do— and such a sin is made worse if such study involves the Bible.
That does not seem fair to me IMHO. What you think?
I, however, I enjoy the submissions of both Zoe and Dictionary. Their Theology is as sound as a bell. Any of these boys could easily teach at Dallas Theological Seminary or any of the leading sound Bible schools anywhere in this world man. Ah lie?
I will admit though Techie, that you tend to be honest, and so you admit that sometimes you are โtruly confused.โ
Hopi
I donโt know why you think that the fact that LIFE started in Africa with the Black ones is so important. And why you have this intense hatred for โwhiteyโ? Is whitey not human too?
Cainโs wife was obviously one of his sisters. Where else could he have got a wife. There were no laws with respect to what we now call incest at that time?
Did Jesus precede the Spanish or otherwise?
Did not the Spanish, who are mostly RC adopt the name Jesus?
Georgie Porgie // January 4, 2010 at 9:37 PM
Anyway, having discovered I was black they were happy to change thier mind.
++++++++++++++++++++++
Sometimes things are not necessarily what they appear to be.
You are also a committed Christian, unafraid to proclaim your beliefs.
People get uncomfortable with such people.
Christians have been through all this from day one.
…. then again, maybe God has something else he wants you to do for Him, ….
…. and it isn’t in Aruba.
PS: Mt 1:21, GNT:
Mt 1:21 ฯฮตฬฮพฮตฯฮฑฮน ฮดฮตฬ ฯ ฮนฬฮฟฬฮฝ ฮบฮฑฮนฬ ฮบฮฑฮปฮตฬฯฮตฮนฯ ฯฮฟฬ แฝฮฝฮฟฮผฮฑ ฮฑฯ ฬฯฮฟฯ อ แพฟฮฮทฯฮฟฯ อฮฝฮ ฮฑฯ ฬฯฮฟฬฯ ฮณฮฑฬฯ ฯฯฬฯฮตฮน ฯฮฟฬฮฝ ฮปฮฑฮฟฬฮฝ ฮฑฯ ฬฯฮฟฯ อ ฮฑฬฯฮฟฬ ฯฯอฮฝ ฮฑฬฮผฮฑฯฯฮนฯอฮฝ ฮฑฯ ฬฯฯอฮฝ.
Iesou[s] is of course the Greek form of Yeshua or in another rendering into English, Joshua.
Word Study Dictionary:
G2424
โฮฮทฯฮฟฯ อฯ
Ieฬsoรบs; gen. Ieฬsoรบ, masc. proper noun transliterated from the Hebr. Yeฬshuฬโa (H3091), Jehovah his help. Jesus, Jehoshua, contracted to Joshua (Neh_8:17).
(I) Jesus means Savior (Mat_1:1, Mat_1:16, Mat_1:21). In the gospels, our Savior is designated by the name of Christ alone in nearly 300 passages; by the name of Jesus Christ or Christ Jesus less than 100 times, and by the name of the Lord Jesus Christ less than 50 times. Prior to His resurrection, He was designated as Jesus Christ; after His resurrection, He is often referred to as Christ Jesus (Act_19:4; Rom_8:1-2, Rom_8:39; 1Co_1:2, 1Co_1:30; Gal_3:26, Gal_3:28; Eph_2:6-7, Eph_2:10, Eph_2:13; Phi_3:3, Phi_3:8, Phi_3:12, Phi_3:14; Col_1:4, Col_1:28; 1Ti_1:12, 1Ti_1:14-15; 2Ti_1:1-2, 2Ti_1:13; 1Pe_5:10, 1Pe_5:14).(II) In Act_7:45 and Heb_4:8, Ieฬsoรบs refers to Joshua, the successor of Moses.
(III) In Col_4:11, Jesus, surnamed Justus, was a fellow-laborer with Paul.
Thayer (I think my paper version is in my Dad’s library):
G2424
ฮฬฮทฯฮฟฯ อฯ
IeฬsousThayer Definition:
Jesus = โJehovah is salvationโ
1) Jesus, the Son of God, the Saviour of mankind, God incarnate
2) Jesus Barabbas was the captive robber whom the Jews begged Pilate to release instead of Christ
3) Joshua was the famous captain of the Israelites, Mosesโ successor (Act_7:45, Heb_4:8)
4) Jesus, son of Eliezer, one of the ancestors of Christ (Luk_3:29)5) Jesus, surnamed Justus, a Jewish Christian, an associate with Paul in the preaching of the gospel (Col_4:11)
Part of Speech: noun proper masculine
A Related Word by Thayerโs/Strongโs Number: of Hebrew origin H3091
Citing in TDNT: 3:284, 360
In short, we have the same Heb base name in English by two different routes, one ending up rendered as Joshua, and the other as Jesus. the latter in English has become more or less reserved for the man from Nazareth who managed the “minor” feat of rising from the dead with 500+ witnesses.
John
There is much merit in your response and opinion.
However, these guys are basically racist, and they want to present a particular image to the mainly North Americans whom they want to attract to their school.
What is clear is that 1- last Monday they advertised for a host of vacancies.
2- I wrote and applied to teach those subjects with which I was most comfortable. These were General Chemistry & Organic Chemistry for Pre Medical Students, and Biochemistry, Pharmacology, Histology, Physical Diagnosis & Introduction to Clinical Medicine.
3- On Thursday morning they were in urgent need of a Biochem man and agreed to hire me.
Yes it is true that โSometimes things are not necessarily what they appear to beโ but I have dealt with this sort of thing before.
And yes โPeople get uncomfortable with committed Christian peopleโ , but you donโt go proclaim your beliefs in the classroom. So that usually is not a problem.
And yes โChristians have been through all this from day oneโ but it hurts every time, especially when you see the junk that the preferred chaps put out on line and in class rooms on a particular topic.
And yes โโฆ. then again, maybe God has something else he wants you to do for Him, โฆ.
โฆ. and it isnโt in Aruba.โ I have often wondered over the last eight years what exactlt that it is. May be it is proclaiming my beliefs on BUโฆโฆ.but unfortunately that wont pay my bills. LOL
Wait man!!!
I slow today or wuh?
GP, is that you now called the Anointed One?
I want to know before I post again.
Zoe & Dictionary
Both of your contributions today have been stirling & stirring.
JOLLY GOOD SHOW
Your
@Porgie, Zoe and Dictionary…
A simple question to each of you individually.
I hope you’ll each provide an independent answer, demonstrating that you’re all capable of independent thought.
The question is simply this: in your humble opinion, who (exactly) wrote the language contained within the Bible?
Chris
TRUST THE BOOK
(Great Rocksteady … Amalgamated Records)
I not sure sometimes if I anointed yuh. But 1 John 2:20 & 27 tell me that beievers have an unction.
I like to think that if I was an anointed one that Id have a big job somewhere in a med school in the islands getting some good tax free US dollars, but John tell me not.
Your Ace From Space
(*)
Version Galore
(*)
(*)=Daddy U-Roy
hallal
In short THE HOLY SPIRIT (2 Tim 3:16 & 2 Peter 1:21).
Is that good enough for you, Sir?
Can you understand the answer Sir?
@Dictionary……………my sources don’t come from ‘cut and paste’ nor ‘wiki’. They come from sources that preceded wiki et al.
AMEN!
@GP……….Got a taste of your own medicine? Doesn’t that taste like hogwash? Ya running and ya running and ya running away but ya can’t run away from yourself!
@Anointed One……..Why is it that when I show BLACK people in a positive light it comes across as ‘intense hatred’ for whitey? Why does that offend you? Whitey loves himself and looks out for himself, even if it means eliminating anyone and anything that gets in his way.Why can’t we as BLACKS do the same for each other, but without hurting others? Or is that a SIN as well according to the Anointed One? Maybe you should question whitey on whether or not he is human?
Did the Spanish really adopt the name “Jesus” from the RC? And where did the RC adopt it from?
Now if you trace the name it will lead you right back to the original source and prove to you that the originality of this christianity is a farce.
“Cainโs wife was obviously one of his sisters. Where else could he have got a wife. There were no laws with respect to what we now call incest.”
This whole story about Cain and his wife seems to have been well rehearsed by ALL christians. That’s laughable!
“The further these christian monkies climb the more they expose their tails.”
Onlookers:
It is pretty clear that there is no serious intention on the part of the many scoffing objectors, to take up the really significant issue put up this morning, on what a solid comparative difficulties analysis across worldviews would have to do.
That is telling.
Instead we have seen a jumping on comparative trivia, including an attempt — in the teeth of the weight of qualified scholarship as already seen above — to twist the HEBREW word Amen into the name of an Egyptian pagan god.
As to the latest attempted diversion on where did the name Jesus come form, the person asking his again as if it has not already been answered in specific details several hours ago, needs to look again here above. And, specifically, Jesus is an anglicisation of Iesous, from Greek; in turn a rendering into Greek of teh Hebrew name Yeshua, meaning God is Salvation. On a more direct rendering to English from Hebrew, the same name is rendered Joshua. (And the neo-pagan attempt to transmute this name in turn into yet another Egyptian root, is just as flawed as the twisting of the roots of Amen, above. the critical review of Harpur’s fringe speculation writings, here, suffices to show just why.)
But you, dear onlooker present and future, need not follow that example.
And so, let us all learn from a sobering Dominical remark, in Jn 3:
Jn 3:19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.“
G’day
D
PS: BTW, someone needs to learn that the Bible’s three main original languages are: OT — Hebrew and (a small part) Aramaic; NT — Koine Greek. Hebrew was — and again is — the language of the Jewish people, and reflects their Semitic — as opposed to Hamitic — roots, being e.g. close to Elamite and even fairly close to modern Arabic. Aramaic became the basic language of the Jewish nation after the Babylonian exile, and is again fairly close to Hebrew.
Greek started in Greece but thanks to traders and conquerors, became the common language of the ME in what we call the Hellenistic era, in which for instance Greek dynasties deriving from Alexander’s generals ruled both Syria and Egypt. Between rather roughly about 300 and 200 BC, the OT was translated into Gk, the Septuagint. Later Hebrew literature was often composed in Greek, and the NT was naturally circulated in Greek, though there is an important statement by Papias that the first version of Matthew’s work was in the Hebrew tongue — most likely Aramaic, but possibly Hebrew.
As to specific authorship, the human authors of the Biblical documents were in the main Hebrew men across 1500 or so years; some 40 of them. Luke, the physician-historian, is the probable exception [i.e. he seems to have been a Greek, from either Antioch or possibly Phillipi], and he would most likely have been a proselyte to Judaism or at least a God-fearer who did not go all the way to taking up the covenant initiation rites, before becoming a Christian.
But, on vital evidence such as the power of prophecy — Is 53, 700 years before the events of the NT gospels in 30 AD being chief — and the power to make supernatural promises that are delivered upon miraculously — starting with the miracle of the New birth — the principal Author of the Scriptures is God, who by His Spirit carried along the human writers, giving them an anointing to write the Word of God, even as it did not violate their very human characteristics. (And, note, making mistakes is not an inevitability of human beings: we are indeed prone to err, but can do things right. Otherwise, our rationality would be fatally compromised into self-referential incoherence.)
PPS: Mr Halshall, you need to learn some basic respect. (If you cannot see that Zoe, GP and I are very different personalities with views that agree on fundamentals but differ on many subsidiary points that we have politely handled over the past several weeks here — just look on the exchange on authorship of Hebrews above — you are being utterly jaundiced. Worse, your remarks that suggest some sort of robotic singing off the same hymn sheet mentality on our part — in a context where I beg to remind onlookers Mr Halshall was unable to cogently address matters of origins science raised and addressed by GP and I from quite different scientific knowledge bases — are personally offensive and simply outright rude and disrespectful. Cho man, do betta dan dat!)
@Porgie…
Thank you for your above answer to my question. It answers a lot of questions.
@Zoe and Dictionaryโฆ
What says you to my direct question?
Kingston 12 Toughie (*)
(*)=The Morwells
Heavy Heavy Load (**)
(**)=Larry Marshall
its a heavy heavy load jah jah children a carry
heavy heavy load jah jah children a carry
its a heavy heavy load very heavy load
through this rocky rocky rocky mountain
heavy heavy load jah jah children a carry
through this bushy bushy bushy valley
heavy heavy load jah jah children a carry
and the wicked men walking behind us
@Dictionary……Even the very phrase ‘The Word of God’ is plagurised from the Ancients…you see what the same Greeks referred to as hieroglyphics is called the Metu Neter …which means ‘The Word of God.’ So you see where you got it from? The original to your copy-cat made-up stories are all etched in stone on the Temple Walls of the Ancients. Alexander the great, illiterate barbarian tried to destroy all the evidence, but it is still standing.
But Alexander, like the hyksos and all the other barbaric invaders has been outlived by that same TRUTH which, when pressed to the ground WILL RISE AGAIN!
Everyone fears time, but what does time fear?
Anyone who starts their history/truths with the jew or the gentile is IRRELEVANT to me, just like I’m irrelevant to those Blacks ones amongst us who think that everything ‘good’ or ‘great’ started with whitey.
So continue to preach to your choir!
@ Hopi
Lucky for BT that I agreed with your general stance and apologized to you for apparently misrepresenting your position…. one wonders at BT’s possible fate had I been ‘anti -Hopi’
LOL / ROTFL.
Well, at least you did not see the need to hide behind ‘appointed names’ to hurl abuse and insults. Bush Tea is frighten enough for those educated persons who claim to know the truth – and are willing to defend it to the death (the death of any who dare to challenge them)
…I recall that this is exactly how the messenger who came talking about ‘loving those who oppose you’ met his untimely death on a cross…
The bushman is still lost on your failure to appreciate a basic logical position:
A genuine searcher (not you or anyone who already knows the truth, LOL) walks into a room and is presented with 1000 different versions of what is proposed to be truth.
All that I read Anonymous to say (and support myself) is that it is a much safer bet to presume ALL 1000 to be questionable – as a starting point -and then investigate and question ALL aspects in search of the ONE truth among the many options presented.
Such an approach is more likely to be unbiased, open-minded, and even-handed….. and certainly much BETTER than starting from the position of defending the beliefs into which you happen to have been born or inducted before exposure to the other 999.
Of course this would not apply to anyone who knows all the answers, since they will not be searching for anything – only defending their turf.
Despite BT’s personal confidence in where I now stand, the bushman will always be open to other views; other positions; and will continually QUESTION even those of my positions that I have accepted for years.
Heck, I even find ROK’s space ship theories fascinating and interesting (ROTFL) I wish that he would stop arguing with ‘himself’ and get back to those expositions….LOL
Just to compliment what Dictionary has so ably posted re ‘Amen’ the following is taken from ‘Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament Vol I. pp. 51,52, emphasis added.
116. (aman) to confirm, support, uphold (qal); to be established, to be faithful (Niphal); to be certain, i.e., to believe (Hiphil). (ASV, RSV usually the same. One notable exception in Gen. 15:6 where RSV has “believed” while ASV has “believed in.”)
Derivatives
116a (omen) faithfulness.
116b (amen) verily, truly, amen.
116c (omman) steady-handed one,
artist.
116d (emun) faithful, trusting
116e ( emun) firmness, fidelity
116f (omna) I, bringing up,
nourishment.
116g (omna) II, verily, truly
116h (amana) faith, support, sure,
certain.
116i (umnam) verily, indeed.
116j (omnam) verily, truly.
116k (emet) firmness, truth.
116l (amon) II, artificer, architect.
This very important concept in biblical doctrine gives clear evidence of the biblical meaning of *FAITH* in contradistinction to the many popular concepts of the term. At the heart of the meaning of the root is the idea of *CERTAINTY*. And this is born out by the NT definition of FAITH found in Heb 11:1.
The basic root idea is FIRMNESS or CERTAINTY. In the Qal it expresses the basic concept of support and is used in the sense of the strong arms of the parent supporting the helpless infant. The constancy involved in the verbal idea is further seen that it occurs in the Qal only as a participle (expressing continuance). The idea of support is also seen in II Kings 18: 16, where it refers to pillars of support.
In the Hiphil (causative), it basically means “to cause to be certain, sure” or “to be certain about,” “to be assured.” In this sense the word in the Hiphil conjugation is the biblical word for “to believe” and shows that biblical FAITH is an ASSURANCE, a CERTAINTY, in contrast with modern concepts of faith as something possible, hopefully true, but not certain.
Following from this we find the word in the passive Qal participle used with a passive meaning “one who is established” or “one who is confirmed.” i.e., “faithful one” (II Sam 20:19; Ps 12:1 (H 2]; 31: 23 [H 24]).
In the Niphal conjugation the meaning is “to be established” (II Sam 7:16; I Chr 17: 23; II Chr 6:17, Isa. 7:9). The Niphal participle means “to be faithful, sure, dependable” and describes believers (Num 12:7; I Sam 2:35; Neh 9:8). This form is also used to describe that upon which ALL CERTAINTY rests: God Himself (Deut 7:9), and His covenant (Ps 89: 28 [H 29]).
One interesting illustration of the relationship between “BELIEF” and “BEING ESTABLISHED” is seen in Isa 7:9, Ahaz is told that unless he *BELIEVES* (Hiphil) he will NOT be established (Niphal), i.e., without FAITH he has no stability.
The various derivatives reflect the same concept of *CERTAINTY* and dependability. The derivative *amen* “verily* is carried over into the New Testament in the word ‘amen’ which is our English word “amen.” Jesus used the word frequently (Mt 5:18, 26, etc.) to stress the CERTAINTY of a matter. The Hebrew and Greek forms come at the end of prayers and hymns of praise (Ps 41: 13 [H 14]); 106:48; II Tim 4:18; Rev 22: 20, etc. ). This indicates that the term used in our prayers ought to express CERTAINTY and ASSURANCE in the LORD to whom we pray. AMEN and AMEN!!!
@ GP…
Man, I ask you a simple question and you come ’round me playing wid words?!?
I am serious, a simple yes or no would do.
Was that you posting as Anointed One that asked me those questions?
I need to know who to reply to?
@ ?
Techie I am GP ok.
The Anointed One is the Anointed One
I have said this before on other threads to HOPI, that there IS NO such thing as BLACK *SIN* or WHITE *SIN* or for that matter any other colour, as SIN permeates the ENTIRE human race, from the FALL of Adam, where SIN entered mankind, as IS replete througout history, where the WHITE man HAS made the WHITE man GRUNT; and the BLACK man HAS made the BLACK man GRUNT, too! as *COLOUR* has absolutely NOTHING to do with HATRED, MURDER, RAPE, LYING, etc, etc., it IS all to do with SIN!
Now, regarding all the various inscriptions to be SEEN in Egypt, Yes, they are ALL there to be seen!
BUT….BUT…what DO they essentially reveal about Egyptian culture and religion?
Unmistakably, resolutely, etched in STONE, for ALL to see and witness, THAT, the religion of ancient Egypt, WAS…WAS…CRASS, IDOLATRY, worship of a MULTIPLICITY of, brazen, paganistic, DEMONIZED *FALSE* gods, who NEVER existed in the first place…BUT…SATAN deluded them, as he did with ALL of the other ancient civilizations, with these from the PIT-OF-HELL concepts, PERIOD!!!
This WAS why Almighty GOD, forbid the Israelites FROM worshiping any other god but HIM. Because there IS no OTHER God, but HIM, confirmed over and over again, througout the history of Nation, that HE will *DESTROY* your idolatrous images, and bring to ruination, your exhalted FALSE gods, regardless of your COLOUR! PERIOD!!!
@ All
When are you guys going to realise that none of you are even trying to listen to the other!
Each of you have taken up your respective positions with none yielding.
So, it seems to me that battle lines are well formed! When do the lashes start?
Am I entitled to have a seat at ringside?
@ GP…
Thank you, kind sir.
….but check it though, this AO has you imitated to a T!! ah lie?
@Bush tea……..How is it that that messenger met ‘an untimely death’ when your scriptures say that it was all in ‘God’s’ had and he had it all planned from the beginning? This biblical god don’t know his own mind?
A word to the Wise, Logical, Enlightened, founder of this illusive Truth……GET OVER YASELF MAN, ITS BIGGER THAN YOU!
So in this new year, I’m looking forward to some enlightening, logical stimulating discussions/TRUTH or even some ‘LOL’ fights over there on Bush-Tea-at-LARGE! Since that seems to be the only venue for such.
Ta Ta!
Technician // January 5, 2010 at 8:37 PM
@ GPโฆ
Thank you, kind sir.
โฆ.but check it though, this AO has you imitated to a T!! ah lie?
What is clear to me Techie is that folk on BU respond to WHO POSTS i.e the poster rather than to WHAT IS POSTED i.e the post!
@GP….
What is clear to me Techie is that folk on BU respond to WHO POSTS i.e the poster rather than to WHAT IS POSTED i.e the post!
True…..but sometimes WHO POSTS i.e the poster determines the quality of WHAT IS POSTED i.e the post……ah lie?
LOL!!
A few footnotes:
1] First, Zoe, thanks for the Hebrew survey on the wider context.
2] Second, RH, I have already laid out the framework for open, publicly accountable, objective comparative difficulties analysis; above.
(Onlookers, in my experience of having to deal with people caught up in cultic groups and agenda-driven ideologies, a key tactic of such groups is the inner circle “we have the secret” elitist esotericism game, which then manipulates the novice into a Plato’s Cave shadow-show mentality, i.e enmeshes him/her in chains of subtle mental endarkenme4nt in the false guise of “enlightenment.” And when the apparatus of manipulation begins to be exposed through objective analysis and challenges to address objective evidence, the leading denizens often get angry, as their key to their elite status and power (and perhaps sense of identity) is being taken away. You will observe — and here I anticipate the usual resort to the turnabout accusation rhetoric — that I have advocated instead an open, objective process of comparative difficulties, and have even begun the programme inviting participants to look. Not surprisingly, those whose system depends on shadows and shadow shows are unwilling to climb up into the light of open day.)
Are you willing to walk that road with me, especially in light of the significant factor of long-term predictive prophecy as a key test?
3] Next, Mr Halshall — sadly, as usual — is refusing to acknowledge that his question has been answered, and that that answer has been put in its historical, general linguistic and theological contexts.
4] As to Ms Hopi’s onward responses, let us just say that the notion that the phrase “the Word of God” is plagiarised from the pagans is gross error.
For, the Hebraic concept STARTS from the point that there is but one true Creator God, Lord and Saviour, who speaks with power and truth, and whose Word accomplishes whereunto he sent it. So, the idea that the diverse words of the conflicting pagan gods (not to mention their underlying demons) is an anticipation or a root, is simply wrong.
Indeed, the point is that the true God now speaks, and overturns the deceptions and dominations of these imposters. So, to back up “Let my people go!” the Eternal I AM judges Egypt’s pantheon and their backing demons with ten successive plagues of judgement, breaking their power.
Further to all this, she needs to know that her “illiterate” Alexander had been — at lavish expense — personally tutored by no less and educator than Aristotle, by the insistence of Alex’s father, Philip of Macedon. That is why scientists and scholars accompanied the Macedonian- Greek armies that went out against the Persians, and it is why the city they founded in Egypt — Alexandria — had a library that tried to bring together the then known corpus of learning across the then known world.
G’day
D
T:
No poster, no arguer, and no rhetor is better than his facts, reasoning and associated assumptions. That is why I have invited you and others to the proper level of dialectic: comparative difficulties on the merits, instead of the — abundantly evident above — rhetoric of distraction, distortion and demonisation on the personalities.
Are you willing to step up to the plate?
Why not start here . . . ?
G’day
D
PS: On the Library of Alex, and on its credible fate. (And it is NOT according to the various polemical legends!)
@Dictionary Jan 6 @12:43AM
To “T”:
“No poster, no arguer, and no rhetor is BETTER than his FACTS, REASONING and ASSUMED assumptions. ( That IS ALL Rok, Hopi et al HAVE DONE! NO FACTS!!! NO REASONING!!! All assumed ASSUMPTION…that IS all they GOT!) That is why I have invited you and others (Rok, Hopi,Halsall) to the proper level of dialectic: comparative difficulties on the merits, (They DO NOT even understand what this MEANS!) Instead of abundantly, evident above rhetoric of DISTRACTION, DISTORTION and demonisation on the personalities” emphasis added. (That IS ALL they know how to DO!!!
“Are you willing to step up to the plate”
NO, Dictionary, they CAN’T, they would NOT KNOW how to even START!!!
They ARE immense contributors to the saying:
That IGNORANCE has something to be said FOR IT; it gives RISE to about 9/10 of the conversational OUTPUT of the World!
The Purpose of Sound Doctrine.
The Purpose Defined.
The beginning of Luke’s gospel intimates the purpose of *DOCTRINE* and theology, Luke 1: 1-4 “…to SET FORTH in ORDER a DECLARATION of those things which are most surely *believed* among us…That thou MIGHTEST *KNOW* the *CERTAINTY* of these things wherein thou hast been instructed.” emphasis added.
1. “To set forth” is to draw up a narrative;
2. “In order” means consecutively;
3. “A declaration” means a FULL declaration, a leading and following through;
4. “Those things which are most surely believed among us”. I.e., the things pertaining to the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.
The purpose of doctrinal and theological studies IS to set forth in a systematic order the things which are MOST SURELY believed among true believers. It is to instruct the believer that he may KNOW the *CERTAINTY* of these TRUTHS. It is to encourage the believer to contend for “the FAITH (body of doctrinal TRUTH) ONCE delivered to the saints” Jude 3 emphasis added.
Good sound Doctrine IS necessary, because there IS so much FALSE doctrine!
Good Philosophy IS necessary, because there IS so much bad philosophy.
Sound Logic IS necessary for proper reasoning of facts and evidence, as there IS so much fallacious, illogical, invalid, mad, MISLEADING, deceiving, deluding NONSENSE out there!
Dictionary
Further to all this, she needs to know that her โilliterateโ Alexander had been โ at lavish expense โ personally tutored by no less and educator than Aristotle, by the insistence of Alexโs father, Philip of Macedon. That is why scientists and scholars accompanied the Macedonian- Greek armies that went out against the Persians, and it is why the city they founded in Egypt โ Alexandria โ had a library that tried to bring together the then known corpus of learning across the then known world.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
I always knew that the Greeks conquered Egypt.
http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/History/HistoryGreekRomanEgypt.html
What I never did was to put the timeline of the Library at Alexandria together with that conquest.
I learnt something new this morning.
The more I look at ROK’s position the more it seems to relate to an atttempt to glorify ancient Egypt at all costs, even denying the Bible and its message.
I am not saying Egypt did not make some amazing contributions world science and knowledge but it just seems the whole attempt by ROK has been based on flawed facts and understanding and taken him down a dangerous path.
That is why I asked him earlier:
“Is your position based on fear that acceptance of the Bible will lead to the conclusion that all Africans after the Flood (today) are descendants of Noah and that we are in fact all human beings, not a collection of distinct races?
Are you afraid of investigating the possibility that if the Ark came to rest on Mount Ararat in Turkey, part of modern day Europe, that Africans after the flood came out of Europe and the Egyptian civilisation after the flood likewise?
Isnโt it rash to totally reject the Bible and its message, God and Jesus Christ based on this one aspect of the Bible because it conflicts with your beliefs?
Have you actually studied the Bible and is there anything at all true in it? ”
The more I have got into this discussion the more I find that science in no way contradicts the Bible Story of Creation.
In fact, it strengthens my belief in the truth and accuracy of the Bible.
Science certainly seems to confirm that we all come from one source and we are in fact not a part of distinct races.
We just followed different paths to get where we are today …… and even this is not at variance with the Bible.
Thus the logic of ROK’s statement:
“You know, it would seem to me that racism started with christianity. I cannot find another source older that the Jews, where a race of people identified themselves as some special people and all other people are the scum of the earth. Certainly, racism started with the idea that if you are not a Jew, you are a gentile.”
is fatally flawed.
Jews are not a race of people and Christians are not Jews.
Both however are human beings, part of mankind …. and the Bible speaks to mankind.
Zoe:
I add that the relevant degree of certainty is moral: that point and level of warrant where we have good grounds for confidence or responsible action on serious matters.
Or excerpting that good old evo-mat leaning generic source as just linked:
Moral certainty is a concept of intuitive probability. It means a very high degree of probability, sufficient for action, but short of absolute or mathematical certainty.
The concept stems from a statement in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics that one must be content with the kind of certainty appropriate to different subject matters, so that in practical decisions one cannot expect the certainty of mathematics. The Latin phrase moralis certitudo was used in this sense by the French philosopher Jean Gerson about 1400. The Oxford English Dictionary mentions occurrences in English from 1637. In law, it has been associated with verdicts based on certainty beyond a reasonable doubt.
And what is well-warranted to moral certainty as credibly true is what we often mean when we say “knowledge.”
(In fact, this is a stronger sense of “knowledge” than is used in science, which has the explicit proviso of provisionality. That which is actionable per significant empirical support and competition on factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory power can be based on best current explanation, i.e. abduction. And to refuse to act in such circumstances can be grossly negligent or irresponsible. All of which is closely connected to theologically sound understandings of the Biblical concept of faith based on “that light which lighteth every man which cometh into the world.”)
So, duly prophesied — per 2 Peter 3 — mocking skeptics, are you now willing and able to step up to the plate of comparative difficulties as was put on the field for us all to try, in light of WCT’s 1 – 7?
Let’s see, onlookers . . .
D
โAre you willing to step up to the plateโ
NO, Dictionary, they CANโT, they would NOT KNOW how to even START!!!
Well, having said this, why then persist in an exercise of futility?
If ever you in a revival clash, and you a lose de battle, fling on dis. kill dem wid it!
Red Gold & Green In My Garden (*)
(*)=Delroy Williams
John:
You have several serious points that ROK et al would do well to heed.
And, given the long and bitterly bloody history of anti-Jewish, ethnically motivated hatred, the above turnabout attempt to blame Judaism for the origin of racfism, on its understanding of its own particular covenant with YHWH, is sickening and utterly inexcusable.
Indeed, we need to look a little closer at the historical backdrop to the Exodus [a bit of history that is in texts that have a lot of subtle archaeological support that gives them credibility never mind what the prophesied latterdays mocking objectors will rant on over] to see what is going on on the part of our Afrocentrists. And remember the underlying demonic spiritual component, as the Pharaohs pretended to be living gods:
Exod 1:6 . . . in time10 Joseph11 and his brothers and all that generation [of refugees settled in Goshen by an evidently Hyksos Pharaoh of Lower Egypt] died. 1:7 The Israelites,12 however,13 were fruitful, increased greatly, multiplied, and became extremely strong,14 so that the land was filled with them.
1:8 Then a new king [apparently of one of the post Hyksos, nativist dynasties] ,15 who did not know about16 Joseph, came to power17 over Egypt. 1:9 He said18 to his people, โLook at19 the Israelite people, more numerous and stronger than we are! [a telling appeal to unjust fear, based on forgetting an inconvenient history of who had helped Egypt when it faced a great threat . . . ] 1:10 Come, letโs deal wisely20 with them. Otherwise21 they will continue to multiply,22 and if23 a war breaks out, they will ally themselves with24 our enemies and fight against us and leave25 the country.โ [So they wanted them as a permanent, racially defined slave underclass . . . ]
1:11 So they put foremen26 over the Israelites27 to oppress28 them with hard labor. As a result29 they built Pithom and Rameses30 as store cities for Pharaoh. 1:12 But the more the Egyptians31 oppressed them, the more they multiplied and spread.32 As a result the Egyptians loathed33 the Israelites, 1:13 and they34 made the Israelites serve rigorously.35 1:14 They made their lives bitter36 by37 hard service with mortar and bricks and by all kinds of service38 in the fields. Every kind of service the Israelites were required to give was rigorous.39
1:15 The king of Egypt said40 to the Hebrew midwives,41 one of whom was named Shiphrah and the other Puah,42 1:1643 โWhen you assist44 the Hebrew women in childbirth, observe at the delivery:45 If it is a son, kill him,46 but if it is a daughter, she may live.โ47 1:17 But48 the midwives feared God and did not do what the king of Egypt had told them; they let the boys live.
And, let us contrast this with the covenantal law, from Deuteronomy:
Dt 7:7 It is not because you were more numerous than all the other peoples that the Lord favored and chose you โ for in fact you were the least numerous of all peoples. 7:8 Rather it is because of his17 love18 for you and his faithfulness to the promise19 he solemnly vowed20 to your ancestors21 that the Lord brought you out with great power,22 redeeming23 you from the place of slavery, from the power24 of Pharaoh king of Egypt. 7:9 So realize that the Lord your God is the true God,25 the faithful God who keeps covenant faithfully26 with those who love him and keep his commandments, to a thousand generations, 7:10 but who pays back those who hate27 him as they deserve and destroys them. He will not ignore28 those who hate him but will repay them as they deserve! 7:11 So keep the commandments, statutes, and ordinances that I today am commanding you to do.
. . . .
8:17 Be careful22 not to say, โMy own ability and skill23 have gotten me this wealth.โ 8:18 You must remember the Lord your God, for he is the one who gives ability to get wealth; if you do this he will confirm his covenant that he made by oath to your ancestors,24 even as he has to this day. 8:19 Now if you forget the Lord your God at all25 and follow other gods, worshiping and prostrating yourselves before them, I testify to you today that you will surely be annihilated. 8:20 Just like the nations the Lord is about to destroy from your sight, so he will do to you26 because you would not obey him [Cf how there were ten plagues of Egypt, and 10 tests of that generation of Israel . . . ]
. . . .
Dt 24:17 You must not pervert justice due a resident foreigner or an orphan, or take a widowโs garment as security for a loan. 24:18 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the Lord your God redeemed you from there; therefore I am commanding you to do all this.
And, note how such promises now extend, in Christ to all nations:
Gal 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming26 a curse for us (because it is written, โCursed is everyone who hangs on a treeโ)27 3:14 in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham would come to the Gentiles,28 so that we could receive the promise of the Spirit by faith . . . .
3:26 For in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God through faith.56 3:27 For all of you who57 were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave58 nor free, there is neither male nor female59 โ for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. 3:29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abrahamโs descendants,60 heirs according to the promise.
Yet another nasty demonically whispered duping, polarising slander bites the dust.
Hallleluiah!*
Amen
D
PS: * Hallelujah: Halel-u-Jah, or Praise YHWH:
H1984
ืืื
haฬlal
BDB Definition:
1) to shine
1a) (Qal) to shine (figuratively of Godโs favour)
1b) (Hiphil) to flash forth light
2) to praise, boast, be boastful
2a) (Qal)
2a1) to be boastful
2a2) boastful ones, boasters (participle)
2b) (Piel)
2b1) to praise
2b2) to boast, make a boast
2c) (Pual)
2c1) to be praised, be made praiseworthy, be commended, be worthy of praise
2d) (Hithpael) to boast, glory, make oneโs boast
2e) (Poel) to make a fool of, make into a fool
2f) (Hithpoel) to act madly, act like a madman
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by BDB/Strongโs Number: a primitive root
Same Word by TWOT Number: 499, 500
PPS: Let’s see if Hebrew experts ROK and Hopi can translate the Ps 106:1 for us:
WLC:
Ps 106:1 ืึทึฝืึฐืืึผืึธืึผ ื ืึนืืืึผ ืึทืืืึธื ืึผึดืึพืึนืื ืึผึดื ืึฐืขึนืืึธื ืึทืกึฐืึผึนึฝืื
T:
Why not stop dancing around rhetorically and take up the dialectic challenge? [Toolbox and tips here. If mere ignorant, stupid insane or wicked knuckle-dragging beetle-browed “fundy” seminary students [it is your side that introduced this term here as a taunt] could address this approach successfully, surely so can our friendly local Dawkinsian “Brights.” Maybe Ma’at can help you out, too?]
Start here, and note my focus on the issue of self-evident truths and on specific WCT’s 1 – 7, and how they are used in summary outline on comparative difficulties.
Remember, this is a level playing field exercise.
D
Live Up Roots Children (*)
(*)=Leroy Smart
Okay Okay we surrender
we will be real good
practiced christians
now will you shut up
and go away
thank you god
Amazing Grace (*)
(*)=Sanchez/Ras Michael
sorry G
bad link
Amazing Grace (*)
(*)=Ras Michael
@John
I am afraid of nothing and I have no agenda for proving that Africans were anything but what they are. I am not afraid of what could be found by investigating the ark. I did.
On the other hand, you, Dictionary, Zoe and GP have a definite agenda to prove that christianity is the truth. In this respect you accept what you want to accept and discard anything against it.
Let us take the African issue as an example. For all these years christianity denigrated Egypt and Africans, obviously following lies and deceit to lessen the contribution of Africa and Egypt to the knowledge that exist today.
I (and others) found some facts to counter this and all of a sudden we are against the bible. Personally I am not against the bible as I have stated earlier. For me if it exist or not is irrelevant because I have decided that I am not following any belief, especially one like christianity (and muslim for that matter) that leads to injustices being perpetrated on people.
So this thing about god-haters and bible haters is a convenient figment of your imagination because you are bent on saying that anything that does not agree with your bible and your religion is the enemy.
That in itself is a dangerous thing. My going on to research Africa has nothing to do with belief or accepting a religion. It is about truth, which you are not about.
How can I be afraid of what I did not do? If the Africans lived, ate and shat all their lives, then that is what they did. Why should I go about lessening the importance of anything they did in order to make christianity look good? That would be hypocrisy; is that what you are practicing?
I am not bothered at all. This earth was here for hundreds of millions of years and even after 500,000 years of man living and evolving somebody got up and decided to accredit the creation of this world to some god. Give me a break. Talk about world view?
If you want to continue believing in christianity, that is your choice, but in all fairness, it should not be to the discredit of anybody.
Until you fellows come to grips with the fact that what you have is a belief, you will always find yourselves in this immoral blunder of putting down others to raise up christianity.
Finally, if I say that the bible is a plagiarism of Ancient Religion, how then can I be against its principles and even the stories. The importance of the stories is to keep the history alive and if it is buried in the bible it is safe. Just like the importance of the song, “Ring of roses, pocket full of poses.”
So all you people with these ulterior motives who do your best to drown out facts are perpetrating a most unjust evil. You continue to attribute everything your god. You feel that it matters? When nature (the Creator) gets ready, it has no respect for you, your god or your religion. It will rain on the godly as it will on all others.
Let not your heart be troubled. Peace be unto you.
Kiki
That goes for you too.
Try taking up the toolkit and working on WCTs 1 – 7.
D
@Dictionary
“PPS: Letโs see if Hebrew experts ROK and Hopi can translate the Ps 106:1 for us:”
You know the story of the temptation? Most applicable to what you are doing now.
You remember what you master said? “Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto god what is god’s.” He never said to take away from Caesar to give god. Why then are you and your cohorts bent on doing the latter?
I have nothing to prove as you can see. I have been just throwing out information and you have been mopping it up, changing it and ascribing things to your god and your religion.
So carry your intellectual dishonesty somewhere else.
Re ROK:
>>I (and others) found some facts [Skeptical speculations of no academic weight] to counter this . . . >>
You need to WARRANT your claims ROK, and that you most decidedly have not done to any reasonable academic or common-sensical standard.
And as tot he bland decalration “I have no agenda for proving that Africans were anything but what they are” the issue is that on the evidence we can see, and the principles of reasonable warrant, you precisely do have an agenda, and the assumed status of Africans you and your ilk put up is not properly warranted.
D
Technician at // January 6, 2010 at 12:32 AM
@GPโฆ.
What is clear to me Techie is that folk on BU respond to WHO POSTS i.e the poster rather than to WHAT IS POSTED i.e the post!
Trueโฆ..but sometimes WHO POSTS i.e the poster determines the quality of WHAT IS POSTED i.e the postโฆโฆah lie?
LOL!!
You are indeed correct ! WHO POSTS i.e the poster determines the quality of WHAT IS POSTED i.e the post! So reads and heed the posts of John Zoe Dictionary and GP. They make the most sense on this thread to me. โฆโฆah lie?
@ Technician again at // January 6, 2010 at 9:03 AM
โAre you willing to step up to the plateโ
NO, Dictionary, they CANโT, they would NOT KNOW how to even START!!!
Well, having said this, why then persist in an exercise of futility?
Techie did not your momma persist with you? Did not your teachers persist with you? Did not the development of us all at one time seem to be an exercise of futility?
The last comment written on my report in HC in June 70 by A G Williams (aks Tank) was โ NO PURPOSE IS SERVED BY HIM REMAINING IN THIS SCHOOL!โ
I was an exercise of futility.
Zoe has correctly opined that IGNORANCE it gives RISE to about 9/10 of the conversational OUTPUT of the World! It certainly does on BU!
Another example is seen in this opinion by the last poster โฆโฆโฆ
Just like the importance of the song, โRing of roses, pocket full of poses.โ
Doe he truly know the importance of the song, โRing of roses, pocket full of poses.โ
The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.