1 edit
Originally posted by josephwYou and Scofield differ on the translation and or meaning of the original text. You will find the notes in the Scofield Reference Bible as I stated. P.S. Unger gives "Shaddai" as did Scofield.
Shadday is the transliteration of the Hebrew. The root word Shaddad means the following:
1) to deal violently with, despoil, devastate, ruin, destroy, spoil
a) (Qal)
1) to violently destroy, devastate, despoil, assail
2) devastator, despoiler (participle) (subst)
b) (Niphal) to be utterly ruined
c) (Piel)
1) to assault
2) to devastate tion of anything feminine to it.
Show me where I can find the Scofield reference you cited.
Originally posted by josephwThere's plenty of evidence that your "God" doesn't exist...firstly it is a logically incoherent god given the properties you ascribe to it but more importantly there is not one shred of valid, testable evidence that any god exists let alone yours.
There is no evidence for the non-existence of a creator, but there is ample evidence that one will fall when they jump.
Unless you jump into the arms of Jesus. 😉
The only evidence you have is fear of death, conditioning, and circular reasoning.
Originally posted by Agerg"There's plenty of evidence that your "God" doesn't exist...firstly it is a logically incoherent god given the properties you ascribe to it but more importantly there is not one shred of valid, testable evidence that any god exists let alone yours.'
There's plenty of evidence that your "God" doesn't exist...firstly it is a logically incoherent god given the properties you ascribe to it but more importantly there is not one shred of valid, testable evidence that any god exists let alone yours.
The only evidence you have is fear of death, conditioning, and circular reasoning.
You are really reaching here. What evidence? Logically incoherent? But you are? No testable evidence? Have you looked into the night sky lately? Give one clear example of evidence you have to support the idea that you don't know how it all came to be! Show me the logical coherency of your argument about how you don't know at all how the universe, all matter, all energy, everything came to be.
"The only evidence you have is fear of death, conditioning, and circular reasoning."
Oh, I see. You're in my head and can tell what I'm afraid of. You know what I know and know how I know it.
It is you Agerg that is stuck running in circles trying in vain to avoid facing the fact that you don't really know the truth about whether there be a God or not. And it irks the crap out of you that I do. You don't know, so you think I shouldn't either.
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwJames Strong has shadday from shadad. Shad or shod = breast of a woman. Strong and Scofield do not agree. P.S. The Complete Jewish Bible and Hebrew Names Version has El Shaddai. I am getting a mixed message.
Shadday is the transliteration of the Hebrew. The root word Shaddad means the following:
1) to deal violently with, despoil, devastate, ruin, destroy, spoil
a) (Qal)
1) to violently destroy, devastate, despoil, assail
2) devastator, despoiler (participle) (subst)
b) (Niphal) to be utterly ruined
c) (Piel)
1) to assault
2) to devastate tion of anything feminine to it.
Show me where I can find the Scofield reference you cited.
7 edits
Originally posted by josephwYou are really reaching here. What evidence? Logically incoherent? But you are? No testable evidence? Have you looked into the night sky lately? Give one clear example of evidence you have to support the idea that you don't know how it all came to be! Show me the logical coherency of your argument about how you don't know at all how the universe, all matter, all energy, everything came to be.
[b]"There's plenty of evidence that your "God" doesn't exist...firstly it is a logically incoherent god given the properties you ascribe to it but more importantly there is not one shred of valid, testable evidence that any god exists let alone yours.'
You are really reaching here. What evidence? Logically incoherent? But you are? No testable evidence s the crap out of you that I do. You don't know, so you think I shouldn't either.[/b]
I don't need to know how the universe came into existence before rejecting your proposition "God" exists anymore than I need to know how to factorise
2^(43819434289273492891043847384798103130417888128741912)-1 into integers before rejecting 2 as a candidate. Indeed there are some persuasive ideas put forward by phycisists that are far more appealing than some magic man in the clouds.
When I look into the sky I see a moon - from this I conclude Gandalf put it there - not your "God"! Indeed, the night sky and everything around us is evidence for Gandalf!
Oh, I see. You're in my head and can tell what I'm afraid of. You know what I know and know how I know it.
It is you Agerg that is stuck running in circles trying in vain to avoid facing the fact that you don't really know the truth about whether there be a God or not. And it irks the crap out of you that I do. You don't know, so you think I shouldn't either.
Actually it doesn't irk, it simply astonishes me that you inspite of your suggestion that you hold a philosophy degree (a subject which I respect), you undermine this with some absolutely terrible arguments for your case. Perhaps this is the only area where your bias tragically clouds your judgement; I don't know.
There are some Christians who believe in some sort of (or even a particular) God but have the integrity to acknowledge they do not *know* there is a God; and do not presume that a non-believer can be swayed by appeals to a holy book they reject as being accurate - I respect them for that. You on the other hand seem to think that we can look in your Bible, look in the night sky and conclude your particular formulation of "God" out of infinitely many definitely exists. I could equally well conclude Gandalf or the IPU exists wth this line of reasoning.
Originally posted by gambit3How bizarre can anything be?
James Strong has shadday from shadad. Shad or shod = breast of a woman. Strong and Scofield do not agree.
The word used in Genesis 17:1 is Almighty, and it comes from the Hebrew word Shadday. Shad and Shadday are two distinctly separate words with different meanings. Shad is not the root of Shadday.
Whether Strong and Scofield agree or not is irrelevant.
Originally posted by AgergI wish I held a degree in philosophy!
[b]You are really reaching here. What evidence? Logically incoherent? But you are? No testable evidence? Have you looked into the night sky lately? Give one clear example of evidence you have to support the idea that you don't know how it all came to be! Show me the logical coherency of your argument about how you don't know at all how the universe, all matter ...[text shortened]... ould equally well conclude Gandalf or the IPU exists wth this line of reasoning.
I chose Art instead. Imo art is the outward creative expression, though a medium, from the influence of all disciplines on the artist. In other words, art is everything. imo
Clay is where it's at! 😉
Unfortunately, my attempts to persuade you by reason and logic, and the actual physical existence of the universe as evidence for a creator have failed.
Maybe another day. Peace 🙂
Originally posted by josephwIt seems important to me for my sources to agree on what the original text is and what it means. Otherwise how am I to know what the truth is?
How bizarre can anything be?
The word used in Genesis 17:1 is Almighty, and it comes from the Hebrew word Shadday. Shad and Shadday are two distinctly separate words with different meanings. Shad is not the root of Shadday.
Whether Strong and Scofield agree or not is irrelevant.
Originally posted by josephwactually its true. the early old testament writings portray God as male, female and gender nuetral depending on the occasion. It's translated as "He" in English because male is the default gender. To keep the writing consistent in English, all the female and nuetral references were changed to "He" etc... Don't take my word for it, there is a world of information at your fingertips, just look it up.
Not in the Bible.
Originally posted by Doward"...early old testament writings..."
actually its true. the early old testament writings portray God as male, female and gender nuetral depending on the occasion. It's translated as "He" in English because male is the default gender. To keep the writing consistent in English, all the female and nuetral references were changed to "He" etc... Don't take my word for it, there is a world of information at your fingertips, just look it up.
Show me.
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwUnfortunately, my attempts to persuade you by reason and logic, and the actual physical existence of the universe as evidence for a creator have failed.
I wish I held a degree in philosophy!
I chose Art instead. Imo art is the outward creative expression, though a medium, from the influence of all disciplines on the artist. In other words, art is everything. imo
Clay is where it's at! 😉
Unfortunately, my attempts to persuade you by reason and logic, and the actual physical existence of the universe as evidence for a creator have failed.
Maybe another day. Peace 🙂
I think you meant to write
"Unfortunately, my attempts to persuade you by the actual physical existence of the universe as evidence for a creator have failed."
;]
Originally posted by AgergEither way, I failed.
[b]Unfortunately, my attempts to persuade you by reason and logic, and the actual physical existence of the universe as evidence for a creator have failed.
I think you meant to write
"Unfortunately, my attempts to persuade you by the actual physical existence of the universe as evidence for a creator have failed."
;][/b]
For now that is.