What is "god?"

[bbyrd009]

I obviously do not follow your line of thinking or the point you are trying to make or it's importance.

it isnt a puzzle sis; many, many diff Names in the orig are xlated to us as merely "Yah," or what you would call "God." A very generic term iow

I am not confused as to WHO Lord God Almighty is

lol, so by implication--or actually directly saying--you have Yah defined down to a T right. Iow making you the most confused person in the room, see

 

[bbyrd009]

I dunno, I'd have to say that this author maybe has it back-to-front

Genesis in Reverse
iow totally ok imo anyway if you see it back to front

 

[Taken]

it isnt a puzzle sis; many, many diff Names in the orig are xlated to us as merely "Yah," or what you would call "God." A very generic term iow

lol, so by implication--or actually directly saying--you have Yah defined down to a T right. Iow making you the most confused person in the room, see

Names were the point. I did not say, directly or indirectly I have Yah defined down to a T.
If my Lord God Almighty has more names than I know of...
So what? I have more names that you do not know, but you think you are well aquainted with what I believe...

 

[bbyrd009]

you think you are well aquainted with what I believe...

well i dont mean that i could define them all, but you do believe that apollos is going to come and take you away, right, same thing i believed when i first started; so yes, i have a pretty good idea. And fwiw imo it doesnt matter if you die with those beliefs, either; thats why we call them "beliefs" and not "truths," right?

 

[Naomi25]

Genesis in Reverse
iow totally ok imo anyway if you see it back to front

I just find it excessively strange that he made the claim, considering the historical data we have to work from. Doesn't it sort of seem like beginning with the conclusion that black is white, and then going on from there? How could he possibly land in a spot of accuracy when he starts 'back to front'?
Any....when it comes down to it, it doesn't hugely bother me either! What are your plans for Christmas? Hope you have a good one!

 

[bbyrd009]

I just find it excessively strange that he made the claim, considering the historical data we have to work from.

i did too, but then i read a totally competing pov from the same author, so i suggest that we are not really hearing what he means there prolly. I think his def of "religious" is um maybe more like mine than yours, if you will. I am not a religious guy, i am a pretty rough guy, but even if your 16 yo daughter rubbed her chest on me, no. And i aint gay.

Which tmi prolly sorry, but the point is that "religion" surely has a diff def to you than me. Imo God detests religion, which involves rote, ritual,"worship" of idols, be they Jesus, Trinity, even Communion, and/or whatever Papists call that, i forget. Going to "church" every "Sun"day, stuff like that. A valid argument can be made that most ppl did not do that back then, Temple was (nonetheless) the center of most ppls lives, in Israel anyway, so etc how can these two be true? Hinges in the def of "religion" maybe, yeh?

How could he possibly land in a spot of accuracy when he starts 'back to front'?

how could Genesis possibly make any sense read backwards? Learn them both ways imo

What are your plans for Christmas? Hope you have a good one!

um, decorating trees? And celebrating an idol's birth instead of Christ's Ascension? Call me a JW there, no offense. I mean, dont you know what Dec 25 comes from sis? Ask siri even. And then mourn, sry

knowledge brings sorrow

 

[Naomi25]

i did too, but then i read a totally competing pov from the same author, so i suggest that we are not really hearing what he means there prolly. I think his def of "religious" is um maybe more like mine than yours, if you will. I am not a religious guy, i am a pretty rough guy, but even if your 16 yo daughter rubbed her chest on me, no. And i aint gay.

Which tmi prolly sorry, but the point is that "religion" surely has a diff def to you than me. Imo God detests religion, which involves rote, ritual,"worship" of idols, be they Jesus, Trinity, even Communion, and/or whatever Papists call that, i forget. Going to "church" every "Sun"day, stuff like that. A valid argument can be made that most ppl did not do that back then, Temple was (nonetheless) the center of most ppls lives, in Israel anyway, so etc how can these two be true? Hinges in the def of "religion" maybe, yeh?

Actually....you might be surprised! I agree...religion is not a 'nice' word. Religion brings to mind fundamentalist, unloving, deceived masses. Bowing to a lie all in the name of 'god' just because they know there is more to life than what can be seen physically, but unsure where to point that conviction and so being taken advantage of. Sometimes giving themselves to the lie ferociously. Eh. You get my drift.
I don't really consider Christianity a religion. I see religion as mankind forcing themselves to adhere to rules and rituals in order to appease a god. Whereas I see Christianity as God coming to mankind in order to rescue and redeem them.

how could Genesis possibly make any sense read backwards? Learn them both ways imo

Huh, that's an interesting thought. But...maybe not. The bible is full of chiasms, and we know God uses numbers symbolically. Who knows what else he's done?

um, decorating trees? And celebrating an idol's birth instead of Christ's Ascension? Call me a JW there, no offense. I mean, dont you know what Dec 25 comes from sis? Ask siri even. And then mourn, sry

knowledge brings sorrow

Personally, I just don't get worked up about it. I take Paul's 'freedom of conscious' on the issue. Hey...if the date bothers you, don't celebrate it, that's cool. For me? I see it as a time of year I can get together with my family and remember what God has done and is still doing for us. But...we don't really make a huge production out of Christmas. I know some people do, and I think it's a huge thing in the US. And here in AU too, certainly in places. We live in a small place, we don't have a lot of money, so we keep things simple. Family time and remembering.
The funny thing is: we'd do it even if we had a theological objection about 'christmas' anyway. Everything shuts down over the period, so what else is there to do except gather with family, eat some nice food, and talk about the stuff you like to talk about: God?!

 

[bbyrd009]

The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis by Leon R. Kass, an excerpt

 

[bbyrd009]

Huh, that's an interesting thought. But...maybe not.

maybe not why?

 

[bbyrd009]

I did not say, directly or indirectly I have Yah defined down to a T.

I am not confused as to WHO Lord God Almighty is

wadr "who" implies "person," and imo spiritually violates 1 Timothy 6:16 Lexicon: who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen. , as does that Anglish xlation, which adds "Who."

But we literally lack any other language, than possibly "What," which imo would be more accurate but less palatable, even to me. So we deem Yah a "Who," and postulate Hands and etc i guess, bc created man in His image right. So i generally dont bring this up is my point, except when "Who, Whom" becomes the subject, as it has here. Yes, you are, by definition, confused as to Whom Yah is; no man has seen or can see.

"As the example of Socrates reminds us, humility before mystery and knowledge of one's own ignorance are hardly at odds with a philosophic spirit"

 

[bbyrd009]

who revealed himself in detail to the prophets

so prolly not; maybe so, but maybe they just were made aware of Yah, too?

 

[bbyrd009]

The revelation of Yawah through His people, defines who He is

i would argue that that revelation can only define our relationship to Yah, and not Yah Himself, nor His relationship with what we do not know; and as a proof i would offer that we are aware that we are only aware of just less than 5% of Yah's creation on our physical plane, recently up from about 4%. So i dont mean to disagree exactly, but imo "defines Who He is" is just dangerous ground, that could easily be misconstrued?

The church historically tried to dictate what was truth and what was not outside their understanding and view, which failed, and was definitively not loving or understanding of others.

i get what your def of "church" is and agree in that context, however imo this is not in keeping with the Scriptural def of "Church" huh? And so see how again some misconstruing might easily be extracted from your innocent appraisal? Iow the Church never tried to do any such thing, yeh? Some Guys who appropriated the term Church did?

i know this seems nitpicky, ok, but our common language is imo as heinous as our common translations--and concepts of heaven, immortality, hell--and virtually every other meaningful concept that derive from them, rather than the easily accessible original?

To make sense of the world we are linked to these ideas.

i think we are only as linked as we allow ourselves to be? Arent there other, more far-out ideas posited by those who would claim "scientist" that you are not linked to? Astral Projection up your alley, for instance? But our Gov is spending millions a year on it anyway, yeh, your tax $ at work lol. Are you linked to chemtrails? But they were covering the sky here this morning, and you paid for it. So linked, maybe, but i dunno if that is a good thing? Or am i misunderstanding what you mean there?

 

[Naomi25]

maybe not why?

Hmmm, I don't think I phrased that particularly right, sorry. My point was (or attempting to be)...could be wrong, but might not be...

 

[Taken]

Yes, you are, by definition, confused as to Whom Yah is; no man has seen or can see.

That is presumptious of you, whom I do NOT KNOW, to pretend you KNOW my heart.

Sorry dude, You are in error. And you are NOT included in my relationship with my Lord God, whom I do know.

"As the example of Socrates reminds us, humility before mystery and knowledge of one's own ignorance are hardly at odds with a philosophic spirit"

Good for you, irrelevant to me.
Socrates ~ Greek philosopher, executed for inpart corrupting the minds of children.
(FYI, you do know, Socrates did not write any of his supposed famous sayings...right?)

Col.2
[8] Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[bbyrd009]

That is presumptious of you, whom I do NOT KNOW, to pretend you KNOW my heart.

well, which is deceitful above all things right, but i sure dont mean that personally and it certainly applied to me as well ok, im not meaning to say you are unique from me in almost any way at all ok. We are prolly both collectively aware of about 5% of Yah lol

That is presumptious of you, whom I do NOT KNOW, to pretend you KNOW my heart.

Sorry dude, You are in error. And you are NOT included in my relationship with my Lord God, whom I do know.



Good for you, irrelevant to me.
Socrates ~ Greek philosopher, executed for inpart corrupting the minds of children.
(FYI, you do know, Socrates did not write any of his supposed famous sayings...right?)

Col.2
[8] Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Glory to God,
Taken

my apologies if i offended you ok sis, i dont really have that gene i guess, and everyone's diff there so i never know. We are just talking, yeh? And hopefully hearing what the other is saying too

so ty, and its been good talking at ya ok. Happy hollies
ps you sure im not included in your relationship with your Lord?
bc imo that is a very telling statement, T

 

[Taken]

well, which is deceitful above all things right, but i sure dont mean that personally and it certainly applied to me as well ok, im not meaning to say you are unique from me in almost any way at all ok. We are prolly both collectively aware of about 5% of Yah lol

I can't say, what Applies to you, but do know what Applies to me. I have had the good fortune to have been able to Apply 5 years of my time exclusively every whole day and evening to the indepth study of scripture and since that time, do so, every day, but not the entire day and evening as before.

my apologies if i offended you ok sis, i dont really have that gene i guess, and everyone's diff there so i never know.

Accepted. Yes, we are all different. And many be on the Same Path, heading in the Same direction, but not necessarily at the Same distance....so there WILL be differences even among those committed and converted.

We are just talking, yeh? And hopefully hearing what the other is saying too

Sure. And the thing is; We each decide what particular things in Scripture we want to indepth study...and focus on...and rarely is it the Same as everyone else's interest at the moment.

so ty, and its been good talking at ya ok. Happy hollies

Thank you, and same to you as well.

ps you sure im not included in your relationship with your Lord?
bc imo that is a very telling statement, T

You may be included in LIKENESS, as are the SAME who are converted....

However my relationship with the Lord, is personal between Him and Myself.
Our communication is through private prayer, and no, you and others are not included.

Matt 6:
[6] But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

God Bless,
Taken