18 Apr 12
Originally posted by galveston75God already knows a man's motives long before man reads anything including the Bible.
Perhaps you missed my comment in the beginning why they Bible is written the way it is. The truth in the Bible is to be searched out. The reason for this is so God will have to see ones motives and their heart condition to be given the knowledge and hope he only gives out to ones that he approves.
It is a gift and not all will recieve it.
Manny
18 Apr 12
Originally posted by galveston75Jehovah is an Anglicized word for the tetragrammaton but in and of its self Jehovah is not God's name at least it's not his real name it's a Anglicized version of the tetragrammaton which the Jews did not dare pronounce anyway for fear of saying God's name in vain. Modern scholars don't really know for sure how this YHWH was pronounced just a lot of theories.
We all have the Bible and we all agree on what it says. That in itself shows another clue in that the Bible says that a true follower of God and of his son would all be in agreement with his fellow brothers.
I asked my mother when she first started studing with the Witnesses when I was very young why she thought this was the "truth" of all the religion ...[text shortened]... t the same answers which would be a direct clue that Jesus said would mark his followers.
Manny
18 Apr 12
Jehovah
Later, Christian Europeans who did not know about the Q're perpetuum custom took these spellings at face value, producing the form "Jehovah" and spelling variants of it. The Catholic Encyclopedia [1913, Vol. VIII, p. 329] states: "Jehovah (Yahweh), the proper name of God in the Old Testament." Had they known about the Q're perpetuum, the term "Jehovah" may have never come into being.[35] For more information, see the page Jehovah. Contemporary scholars recognise Jehovah to be "grammatically impossible" (Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol VII, p. 8).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton
Manny
18 Apr 12
Originally posted by galveston75How have I twisted what you said?
No I'm not. I never said that so don't twist what I said.
You said: "Can you not comprehend God's ability to teach by any means possible including printed literature?"
Is it your view that the people who write "The Watchtower" and "Awake!" are instrumental in proving "God's ability to teach"?
18 Apr 12
Originally posted by menace71You're so ruining Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade for me. ðŸ˜
Jehovah is an Anglicized word for the tetragrammaton but in and of its self Jehovah is not God's name at least it's not his real name it's a Anglicized version of the tetragrammaton which the Jews did not dare pronounce anyway for fear of saying God's name in vain. Modern scholars don't really know for sure how this YHWH was pronounced just a lot of theories.
Manny
18 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by menace71It is pronounced "YaH" as in "Hallelu YaH" and means "I AM" or the "Self-existing One".
Jehovah is an Anglicized word for the tetragrammaton but in and of its self Jehovah is not God's name at least it's not his real name it's a Anglicized version of the tetragrammaton which the Jews did not dare pronounce anyway for fear of saying God's name in vain. Modern scholars don't really know for sure how this YHWH was pronounced just a lot of theories.
Manny
http://www.omegafaith.com/godisselfexisting.htm
P.S. The name of Christ, the Son of God - YaHshua (meaning - YaH saves).
He often said, "I come in my Father's name."
18 Apr 12
4 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsRemember, I asked:
We don't know the mind of God, but we know that man chose to disobey God.
After this man was left on his own without instruction from God. So man's lack
of understanding is a result of man's sin against God.
“....
why did 'God' not simply take into full ACCOUNT man's lack of knowledge so as to make sure 'God's' message is spread without misinterpretation?
-is it because he doesn't have the power to? -if so, then that would logically contradict 'he' being all-powerful.
-is it because he doesn't/didn't know that 'his' message would be misinterpreted? -if so, then that would logically contradict 'he' being all-knowing.
-is it because he doesn't know HOW to take into account man's lack of knowledge so that 'his' message would not be misinterpreted? -if so, then, again, that would logically contradict 'he' being all-knowing.
...” ( my comment )
“...We don't know the mind of God, but we know that man chose to disobey God. ...” ( your comment )
which is irrelevant to my questions even if true because the question was not about “ the mind of God” but “'God's' message”.
Also, how would man KNOW when he is disobeying 'God' in this modern age of science and reason ( and therefore choosing to disobey 'God' ) if 'God' stupidly allows 'God's' message to be spread with misinterpretation due to man's lack of knowledge of the word of 'God' because 'God' fails to take into account man's lack of knowledge of the word of 'God' ?
This is why this does not answer my last set of questions.
“...SO man's lack of understanding is a result of man's sin against God. ...” (my emphasis)
how does “ man's sin against God” supposed to CAUSE “ man's lack of understanding” of 'God'?
Explain the process of how one causally leads to the other….
and, when you refer to the “ man's lack of understanding” in the above, are you referring to “the mind of God” or to “'God's' message”?
18 Apr 12
Originally posted by humyI think the best thing for you to do is read the Holy Bible while referring to a
Remember, I asked:
“....
[b]why did 'God' not simply take into full ACCOUNT man's lack of knowledge so as to make sure 'God's' message is spread without misinterpretation?
-is it because he doesn't have the power to? -if so, then that would logically contradict 'he' being all-powerful.
-is it because he doesn't/didn't know that 'his' message would ...[text shortened]... “the mind of God” or to “'God's' message”?[/b]
bible commentary and praying everyday to God for understanding.
18 Apr 12
5 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsOnly if the "best thing" for me is to be as illogical and totally stupid as you are Praying to something that doesn't exist.
I think the best thing for you to do is read the Holy Bible while referring to a
bible commentary and praying everyday to God for understanding.
Your non-answers to my questions in my last posts that reveal your illogic only confirms the illogic in your posts.
What you need is to recognise your illogic and then do something about it.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
18 Apr 12
Originally posted by RJHindscan any of the christians on here offer any insight on why "thou shall not murder" has been left open for interpretation by god?
I think the best thing for you to do is read the Holy Bible while referring to a
bible commentary and praying everyday to God for understanding.
18 Apr 12
Originally posted by stellspalfieactually the Mosaic law from which it is taken differentiates between murder and
the sentence itself doesnt clarify what god classifies as murder so how would a christian know?
manslaughter, lawful and unlawful killing.
The original-language words variously rendered “kill,” “murder,” and “slay” refer to
the taking of a life, the context or other scriptures determining whether the
deliberate and unauthorized or unlawful taking of another person’s life is involved.
For example, in the command, “You must not murder” (Ex 20:13), the Hebrew word
for “murder” (ratsach) here clearly refers to deliberate and unlawful killing. But at
Numbers 35:27 the same term denotes an act that an avenger of blood was
authorized to carry out. Therefore, the command, “You must not murder,” has to be
understood within the framework of the entire Mosaic Law, which authorized the
taking of human life under certain circumstances, as in the execution of criminals.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
18 Apr 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieeven the examples that you have given are vague, could you imagine a law court operating based on a few simple examples. they dont offer clarification.
actually the Mosaic law from which it is taken differentiates between murder and
manslaughter, lawful and unlawful killing.
The original-language words variously rendered “kill,” “murder,” and “slay” refer to
the taking of a life, the context or other scriptures determining whether the
deliberate and unauthorized or unlawful taking of anothe ...[text shortened]... orized the
taking of human life under certain circumstances, as in the execution of criminals.
for example you say 'unauthorized taking of another persons life' authorization by who? who decides who is authorized?
if somebody breaks into your house can you kill them?
if a soldier shoots a civilian is it murder?
if an innocent man is killed on deathrow is it murder?