Search results

Not really much of a stretch considering verse 4... For he spake in a certain place of the seventh [day] on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works. Anyway, don't lump me in with the Sabbatarians. My position is that Moses gave us one weekend day, and Jesus gave us a...

No disrespect, but if you haven't even read one of them... how are you qualified to compare the two? Really? It's a major theme in several of his epistles. For instance... 1Corinthians 15:39-50 All flesh [is] not the same flesh: but [there is] one [kind of] flesh of men, another flesh of...

It sounds like we agree on at least some things, then. God is unchanging. Mankind... nah, we change all the time. Sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. Aristotle wrote a 1000-page tome (De Anima) that is an exploration of the ideas of soul and spirit, the higher and lower nature...

If you were to open Genesis 4 and put it next to Genesis 5... you know what? I can just do it like this: Gen 4: And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch... And unto Enoch was born Irad: and Irad begat Mehujael: and Mehujael begat Methusael: and Methusael begat Lamech. Gen 5...

What if I told you that Jesus was coming... in His UFO... to beam us up? Wouldn't you would rule that out based on recency... becaues the Biblical authors had no concept of UFO's or teleportation? Forgive me if this is a bad assumption, but I'm guessing you haven't actually read Aristotle? De...

Both. I like my 2-day weekend. :cool:

This isn't related to what I said. The previous conversation was about ruling out ideas based on their recency. Maybe you're saying this for someone else? Paul uses Aristotle quite a bit in his New Testament epistles. Using Greek language or ideas isn't necessarily an arbiter of truth...

Hebrews 4 extends Sabbath rest to the New Testament. Now, rest isn't observance. The original commandment was about rest, too. It was the Pharisees that turned a rest day into a day of labors.

I think that if we can show that a certain idea didn't exist until, say, the 20th century... that would rule it out as a proper interpretation of the Bible. Don't you think so?

Uh, no. You might want to look up circular reasoning. If only you'd read the book, you would know.

That's fine. I think we've discussed this several times over the years. I will just add... most of the Biblical authors use the word "soul" in a simplistic way. They're just saying "myself."

Uh... yeah I did. Reply #7, directly above this one?

Well, if you're reading through Isaiah or Ezekiel, there are prophecies about each one... and they aren't the same. So then if you take the prophecies about "Israel" there, and try to apply them to the modern Jews, it doesn't work. They aren't the people the prophets were talking about.

Sure, you're using the common usage instead of the Biblical one. As long as you're not talking about the Bible, that works. But it you take that definition and try to use it to understand the Bible, then you will misunderstand the Bible.

It depends on what meanings you assign to the words. In the first post of this thread, Tony called both words polysemantic (having multiple meanings), and he was right about that. But in general... no. The soul is not a separate thing in the way many people (mis)understand it.

Our nature isn't meant to be rehabilitated. It's meant to be discarded.

Solomon is SUS, as the kids say. He wrote Proverbs while he was still an apostate king worshiping foreign gods. If/when you put Ecclesiastes in context... a lot of the "wisdom" statements there are set up like bowling pins - so he can knock them down and call them worthless. And I think...

This is the correct statement. The Latin word for soul is anima. The root of our word animal.

It does, but, um... they're basically the same names as the ones in the genealogy of Cain in the prior chapter: Cain -> Cainan Enoch -> Enoch Irad -> Jared Mehujael -> Mahalaleel Methsael -> Methuselah Lamech -> Lamech If that's literal, it's one heckuva coincidence. Then again, Jesus...

Genesis is a compilation of books. Some pious person millennia ago tried to put them in chronological order, and that was a mistake because they don't all run together chronologically. That's because they have (at least) two sources. This section, The Book of the Generations of Adam (Genesis...