[Elmer G. White]

Re: Intro

Thank you, dear sinner, for your reply. Now we can assess how well you followed the instructions that could have made this an actual conversation:

Who? Cite the publication. Discuss why this "master" is more reliable than the other scholars and the other translations. Or is (s)he? This is what I meant with scholarship NOT simply being finding a suitable opinion that agrees with you. Compare this unknown "master's" views with those of the others. Are the overall results unambiguous? If not, can you choose which one of the many is the most probable translation? What are the approximate percentages of these probabilities?

Your "master" is just a fallacy. Without references it is a simple appeal to authority, a fallacy. And a weak appeal to authority as it is an appeal to an unknown authority.

Find the citation but that is not enough, as there are references that oppose the view of this "master". Find them also. Study, compare, try to find the material that is the strongest case against your hypothesis. Then try to defend yours. See if it survives.

Now, onto your post with great expectations.

Sorry I forgot to include his name. So the master's name is Samson Hirsch.

OK, we have a name. The things you're missing are as follows:

• Citation.
• Credentials.
• The actual publication.
• Link.
• Bibliographical information.
• Discussion why this person is more reliable than all the Bible translations and scholars (including LXX) who disagree with Hirsch.
• Comparison of this still unknown Hirsch source to other occurrences of these words in classical literature.
• The relative proportions of reliability of the different opinions.

Back to square one. As I told you, a citation is not enough. It's simply your confirmation bias and the appeal to authority fallacy again and again.

If your kids hate you, why should they respect you? It makes no sense. If they literally hate you then they are disobeying the Bible when it says to love your neighbors.

We live in the same household and not as neighbors. This issue is thoroughly covered in one of our Pastors' most influential sermons:

Your theory has so many holes and it does not make sense according to the Bible.

Once again, you make a simple assertion. Where are the citations, bibliographical information and the discussion of the various viewpoints. In addition, I don't make theories. I just read what's written in the Bible. Also in the classical languages. Did you start your Greek studies yet?

Also, if you believe that men are not equal to women, then you are not following the Bible, as the abundance of evidence that I provided from the Bible explains that thay are equal. The Bible makes it very clear that men and women are equal. As you never backed up your claim with the Bible...

My Brethren have shown you a plethora of verses about the issue. You ignored them. You continue to ignore them. There was a time when ignorance was an excuse: that was, however, changed long ago.

Acts 17:30
And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

Incidentally, if your read ὅτι ἀνήρ ἐστιν κεφαλὴ τῆς γυναικὸς ὡς καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς κεφαλὴ τῆς ἐκκλησίας, αὐτὸς σωτὴρ τοῦ σώματος to mean that the sexes are equal, you're also claiming that the Church and the men therein are equal to Jesus. I've encountered many forms of blasphemy but this is among the top three. From now on, I'll be replying you only if you can provide actual information and make an actual justified point, otherwise, I find it prudent to follow 2 Corinthians 6:14.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[Xanax]

Re: Intro

Who? Cite the publication. Discuss why this "master" is more reliable than the other scholars and the other translations. Or is (s)he? This is what I meant with scholarship NOT simply being finding a suitable opinion that agrees with you. Compare this unknown "master's" views with those of the others. Are the overall results unambiguous? If not, can you choose which one of the many is the most probable translation? What are the approximate percentages of these probabilities?

Your "master" is just a fallacy. Without references it is a simple appeal to authority, a fallacy. And a weak appeal to authority as it is an appeal to an unknown authority.

Find the citation but that is not enough, as there are references that oppose the view of this "master". Find them also. Study, compare, try to find the material that is the strongest case against your hypothesis. Then try to defend yours. See if it survives.
My father is deceased and most probably in Hell. I honor (Matthew 15:4) but hate my mother. She denies Christ and at her old age engages in fornicatory activities out of wedlock. Our relationship is polite and distant as it should be. I accept this and I am certain that my kids honor me but hate my guts because they have to follow Christ. They'll thank me if they get into Heaven. If they don't, God will comfort me for my failure (Revelation 21:4).
The important point is if God agrees with you and He doesn't!

Ecclesiastes 7:26
And I find more bitter than death the woman, whose heart is snares and nets, and her hands as bands: whoso pleaseth God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her.

There are no "my thoughts". Nor opinions. Just the Word of God. Praise!


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

Sorry I forgot to include his name. So the master's name is Samson Hirsch. If your kids hate you, why should they respect you? It makes no sense. If they literally hate you then they are disobeying the Bible when it says to love your neighbors. Your theory has so many holes and it does not make sense according to the Bible.

Also, if you believe that men are not equal to women, then you are not following the Bible, as the abundance of evidence that I provided from the Bible explains that thay are equal. The Bible makes it very clear that men and women are equal. As you never backed up your claim with the Bible...

[Basilissa]

Re: Intro

But, if what you are saying is true, then we should throw the Bible away. Because if God hates people, that means His salvation is not offered to everyone, because He does not love the world. Do you not see how saying that God hates certain people contradicts the message of the Gospel?

Dear, you are giving me a headache. God never said He loved all people. He only loves those who love Him back. Everyone else will be tormented in Hell forever.

When I love someone, I do not plan to torture them forever, even when they don't love me back. I might stalk them a little, but nothing too pushy and definitely no vengeance for not loving me.


God loves the world, yes. I love the world, too. I have been to three continents and plan to visit another one soon. That does not mean I love all people who live in this world.

Yes, I agree with you. A minority will make it to heaven. As the Bible says it is not simply enough to have faith. We need accept Him into our lives and repent of our sins and if we are truly saved our life will reflect it. But that does not mean that God does not want all to come to repentance, because He does. And it doesn't mean that everyone will repent. Because as the passage says, many people will not repent.

And even more people die not knowing that they need to repent, because they were raised in a non-Christian religious tradition. And they will suffer in Hell forever for their ignorance.

[Elmer G. White]

Re: Intro

Hi Elmer

The 19th centery Hebrew master and linguist applies the word rejection as a more accurate word for the Hebrew word "שׁנה", instead of hate.

Who? Cite the publication. Discuss why this "master" is more reliable than the other scholars and the other translations. Or is (s)he? This is what I meant with scholarship NOT simply being finding a suitable opinion that agrees with you. Compare this unknown "master's" views with those of the others. Are the overall results unambiguous? If not, can you choose which one of the many is the most probable translation? What are the approximate percentages of these probabilities?

Your "master" is just a fallacy. Without references it is a simple appeal to authority, a fallacy. And a weak appeal to authority as it is an appeal to an unknown authority.

Find the citation but that is not enough, as there are references that oppose the view of this "master". Find them also. Study, compare, try to find the material that is the strongest case against your hypothesis. Then try to defend yours. See if it survives.

Also, as I mentioned earlier, the Bible says that we are to hate our mother and father. Do you literally hate your parents?

My father is deceased and most probably in Hell. I honor (Matthew 15:4) but hate my mother. She denies Christ and at her old age engages in fornicatory activities out of wedlock. Our relationship is polite and distant as it should be. I accept this and I am certain that my kids honor me but hate my guts because they have to follow Christ. They'll thank me if they get into Heaven. If they don't, God will comfort me for my failure (Revelation 21:4).

Also, what are your thoughts on the equality of men and women. Do you agree with me?

Thanks!

The important point is if God agrees with you and He doesn't!

Ecclesiastes 7:26
And I find more bitter than death the woman, whose heart is snares and nets, and her hands as bands: whoso pleaseth God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her.

There are no "my thoughts". Nor opinions. Just the Word of God. Praise!


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[Xanax]

Re: Intro

Dear sinner, if what the Bible (not I) is saying is True™ and it is, we most definitely should not throw it away. A "god" that would simply anyone to gain access into Heaven would be totally unnecessary, it would be of absolutely no use to worship him/her/it or read his/her Bible, (s)he'd still simply accept anyone who had Faith, and who wouldn't have, because it would be so easy. First a life here, some hardships and a guarantee of a place in Heaven. In contrast, the Real God that re-defines the "good" and "bad" sometimes in line but sometimes in contrast to our wishes is the God to be Feared (Ecclesiastes 12:13) and to be worshiped.

The message of the Gospel is in the Gospels, don't you agree? Let's see what the Gospels say about access to Heaven:

Matthew 7:14
Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

What do think of that verse? Not any other verse, just that one? Do not reply with other verses but by assessing that particular verse. Are there problems in the original Greek? If there are, what are they? Is the verse correct? Is it True™ that those who get into Heaven are a minority? If not, what is your justification? Feelings won't be enough.

That is the God of the Bible. Of course He is also much more. We accept that God.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

Yes, I agree with you. A minority will make it to heaven. As the Bible says it is not simply enough to have faith. We need accept Him into our lives and repent of our sins and if we are truly saved our life will reflect it. But that does not mean that God does not want all to come to repentance, because He does. And it doesn't mean that everyone will repent. Because as the passage says, many people will not repent.

[Xanax]

Re: Intro

Hi Elmer

The 19th centery Hebrew master and linguist applies the word rejection as a more accurate word for the Hebrew word "שׁנה", instead of hate.

Also, as I mentioned earlier, the Bible says that we are to hate our mother and father. Do you literally hate your parents?

Also, what are your thoughts on the equality of men and women. Do you agree with me?

Thanks!

[Elmer G. White]

Re: Intro

I will definitly be doing more research (I am currently writing midterms for school and have not had a lot of time). But, if what you are saying is true, then we should throw the Bible away. Because if God hates people, that means His salvation is not offered to everyone, because He does not love the world. Do you not see how saying that God hates certain people contradicts the message of the Gospel?

Dear sinner, if what the Bible (not I) is saying is True™ and it is, we most definitely should not throw it away. A "god" that would simply anyone to gain access into Heaven would be totally unnecessary, it would be of absolutely no use to worship him/her/it or read his/her Bible, (s)he'd still simply accept anyone who had Faith, and who wouldn't have, because it would be so easy. First a life here, some hardships and a guarantee of a place in Heaven. In contrast, the Real God that re-defines the "good" and "bad" sometimes in line but sometimes in contrast to our wishes is the God to be Feared (Ecclesiastes 12:13) and to be worshiped.

The message of the Gospel is in the Gospels, don't you agree? Let's see what the Gospels say about access to Heaven:

Matthew 7:14
Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

What do think of that verse? Not any other verse, just that one? Do not reply with other verses but by assessing that particular verse. Are there problems in the original Greek? If there are, what are they? Is the verse correct? Is it True™ that those who get into Heaven are a minority? If not, what is your justification? Feelings won't be enough.

That is the God of the Bible. Of course He is also much more. We accept that God.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[Didymus Much]

Re: Intro

...Do you not see how saying that God hates certain people contradicts the message I TAKE of the Gospel?

FTFU, while pointing out the problem AGAIN.

[Xanax]

Re: Intro

[*]Looking for evidence is a complex matter: it means looking at all evidence, not just those data that you agree with.[/LIST]You need to start all over. Read the Bible from the beginning. In any translation (but preferably the KJV) in parallel with the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek originals. You'll learn the languages on the way with some suitable grammars and textbooks. Then compare the words to other occurrences in Greek and Hebrew literature. Then you might have something to say about the "meanings in the original languages". Until that time, I'll be praying that Jesus won't return before you've completed your task.

Revelation 22:12
And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

I will definitly be doing more research (I am currently writing midterms for school and have not had a lot of time). But, if what you are saying is true, then we should throw the Bible away. Because if God hates people, that means His salvation is not offered to everyone, because He does not love the world. Do you not see how saying that God hates certain people contradicts the message of the Gospel?

[Elmer G. White]

Re: Intro

Dear sinner, you hoped to clear any confusion and asked us to tell you if you didn't make it. Well, you didn't. You started this conundrum by claiming that the meanings of "hate" and the referrals to homosexuality are different from the translations in KJV etc. You did not provide any further justification besides your own assertions. This is how our discussion unfolded, in summary:

T...verses about Esau. How can you justify that God does not express hate there. Even in the original Greek it is crystal clear:

• καθάπερ γέγραπται Τὸν Ἰακὼβ ἠγάπησα, τὸν δὲ Ἠσαῦ ἐμίσησα. The verb is in aorist active indicative, 1st person singular. A direct quote from God. The dictionary form is μισέω, "hate". Don't try the "love less" ad hoc escape by some badly educated scholars. If you took that initiative, you'd get into all kinds of trouble, for instance, in John 3:20 φαῦλα πράσσων μισεῖ τὸ φῶς. The Evil would then "love the light less" but we know that He hates Jesus. If he loved light "less", he would still love Jesus, which is contradictory.

To assess this, you should make a linguistic case: look at the Greek vocabulary and its meanings across not only the Bible but Classical Literature as a whole. It might be possible. Let us see how you did!

In regards to Esau, if you look at the word hate in the original language it holds a different meaning than in english. It means that Esau was less privileged than Jacob and did not have the protection that God provided Jacob.

Once again, no linguistic discussion, no references, no comparison across translations, no mention of any Greek texts using these words. Did we provide any additional actual material for you?

μισέω

As I explained, people (such as you) have tried to explain it away. Let us remember that the Bible was only a tiny fraction of Greek literature produced during those centuries. μισέω is also present in other texts. There is also another verb, εχθαίρω, that is frequently encountered (Aischylus, Aristotle, Sophocles among others). The Bible uses the first one in the cases you dismissed. We should look at the Hellenic world and its literature in a wider scope to understand the subtleties of meaning. A good primer is Dossier: Comment se définissent et se construisent les émotions en Grèce ancienne? Comment sont elles instrumentalisées? Différents types d’émotions (la douleur, l’amour, la jalousie, le dégoût, la haine, la colère, etc.), leur valeur, leur place et leurs fonctions sont analysés. Les auteurs se demandent si et en quoi, pour les Anciens, leur perception, leur description et leur compréhension, ainsi que leur pratique diffèrent des nôtres. There we can see how μισέω is the emotional hate. That is the hate used in the Bible. On the other hand, εχθαίρω would be the "social, practical" hate. It would be the "hate the institution of sin, not the sinner". ἐχθρός, -ή, -όν can be found in the NT but as a noun (Judges 14:18 in LXX does use it as a verb). Not in the Esau verses, they use μισέω. Nowhere in other Greek literature is there a reference to "being less privileged".

..."hate" is much more easily translated in both Hebrew and Greek than the verses about homosexuality. For instance, Malachi 1:3 goes as we well know, in Hebrew as follows:
וְאֶת־עֵשָׂ֖ו שָׂנֵ֑אתִי וָאָשִׂ֤ים אֶת־הָרָיו֙ שְׁמָמָ֔ה וְאֶת־נַחֲלָתֹ֖ו לְתַנֹּ֥ות מִדְבָּֽר׃

שָׂנֵ֑אתִי: it is the qal perfect, 1st person singular, one of the least ambiguous forms of Hebrew. It comes from the root שָׂנֵא, a root that even the notoriously liberal Strong's concordance refuses to translate as "loves less" or "is less privileged" but only gives the alternatives "detest (1), enemy (3), enmity (1), foes (1), hate (78), hated (28), hated her intensely (1), hates (19), hating (2), hatred (1), turned against (1), turns against (2), unloved (7)." Romans 9:13 obviously cites Malachi here, hence μισέω is also easy to translate as "hate". You still haven't answered why you don't find this translation plausible.

Now, in contrast, the verses about homosexuality are indeed most obscure if we discard the KJV (which we won't do but I'm humoring you here). There are only a few verses.

1 Corinthians 6:9
ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἄδικοι Θεοῦ βασιλείαν οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν; μὴ πλανᾶσθε· οὔτε πόρνοι οὔτε εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται

μαλακοὶ [malakoì]: What does it mean? We don't really know. It is more or less equivalent to "squishy", and Matthew uses it to describe the too showy clothes of a king. Does it mean effeminate? We don't really know. It could as well mean show-offs. Or something. However, μαλακοὶ is easy.

ἀρσενοκοῖται [arsenokoîtai]: Now we're in murky waters. It's basically an innovation, a compound word by Paul. It doesn't occur almost anywhere else in other Greek literature. If we look at the word, it is a compound of man+bed. BUT Paul did have a more readily available word for a homosexual available, ανδροκοιτες, that would have been easily defined as "having sexual intercourse with a man". He did not use it and boy or boy we're in trouble now... The later Vulgate thought it meant masculorum concubitoribus, which means something, but we can't be 100% or even 50% sure what. It could have meant a pimp. Or a male prostitute. Luther, the one with the poorly disguised Catholic spin-off translated is as Knabenschänder or "violator of boys", kiddie sex. Did these translators know their Hebrew and Greek worse than you? No-one really knows: We can only trust (and we do) that the KJV translators received their text from the Holy Spirit. It they didn't then we can have erred grievously by making these people suffer based on the Bible that we don't understand. So it's better that we trust the KJV. But you don't trust it. You require proof from the original language, so let's go on.

Romans 1:26-30? This is probably (if we trust exegetics) Paul attacking worshipers of Cybele who engaged in unnatural acts. Do you trust those people? They know the Greek culture, religion and language inside out? Do you trust them when they tell you "hate is not hate"? Do you trust these same people if they tell you "we don't know if these verses mean homosexuals"? Do you?

OT: Leviticus 20:13
וְאִ֗ישׁ אֲשֶׁ֨ר יִשְׁכַּ֤ב אֶת־זָכָר֙ מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֔ה תֹּועֵבָ֥ה עָשׂ֖וּ שְׁנֵיהֶ֑ם מֹ֥ות יוּמָ֖תוּ דְּמֵיהֶ֥ם בָּֽם׃
יִשְׁכַּ֤ב, Qal imperfect, 3rd person masculine. What does this verb mean? We don't really know. Too many alternatives to be sure what is means right here... There are multiple discordant translations, unlike "hate". Let us see. Once again, Strong's concordance.

שָׁכַב = lie down but also "actually lies (1), has (1), laid (6), laid low (1), lain (3), lain down (2), lay (22), lay down (15), lie (26), lie down (31), lie still (1), lies (25), lies down (10), lodged (1), lying (7), lying down (4), make your bed (1), recline (1), rest (4), rested (1), sleep (4), sleeps (1), slept (37), take...rest (1), taking (1), tip (1)."

Thus, if we give these people the benefit of doubt, we have really no idea (based on the Hebrew and Greek Bibles) what we should think about their private lives.

Leviticus 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

This could be equally well translated as "If a man takes rest and makes a bed with another man and they have (actual) sleep together similar to he would do with (his wife) a woman, ..."

1 Corinthians 6:9
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

This could, again based on Greek be equally well translated as "Don't you know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don't be deceived: not sexoholics, not those who worship other gods, not marriage-breakers, nor those who dress too fancy, nor those who are pimps/rape children/have anal sex with their wives".

OK, now you should have had enough material to actually do some research, look at what the scholars are saying, not just choosing those who agree with you. You could have looked at Homer or Euripides or Plato and checked how they use these words. Did you?

If we read Romans 9 where it states that God loved Jacob and hated Esau, it is talking about the nation of Israel and the nation of Edom, the descendants of the two. We also need to keep in mind that when reading the Bible, it is important to consider the original text. I am not a scholar, but this is what I believe the chapter is speaking about. The word “hate” used in the original text is addressing how God chose to use Jacob instead of Esau.
In the Hebrew language when love and hate are contrasted, they are usually meant hyperbolically. The expression just means preferring one over another. The Bible also says we are supposed to “hate” our father and mother in Luke 14:26. This does not mean we literally need to hate our mother and father, it just means that we should prefer God over them, because He should be first in our lives. The Bible preaches on the importance of family and how we are to love and honour our parents.

Looking at 1 Corinthians ... This passage is self explanatory as we see the same expectations given to both men and women in a marriage relationship.

I hope this cleared up any confusion. If not please let me know.

Where is the evidence? The references? The discussion of the merits between one translation and another? One sentence in your post was most revealing: "I am not a scholar, but this is what I believe the chapter is speaking about." OK, If someone else who is not a scholar says that these verses actually mean the opposite to your beliefs, why should we not accept her opinions, as well.

Not all opinions are equally valid. If you wish to change our minds you need much more. You need evidence. How can you discern your own wishful thinking from actual proof?
I urge you to answer my previous questions.

1. Why do you accept obscurities of translation as factual when it comes to "God hating"?
2. Why do you dismiss the more problematic obscurities of translation when it comes to your condemning homosexuality?
3. Are you really saying that the Holy Spirit tells you which one to choose? Are you in this case more special than those who did the actual translations?
4. What are the criteria that you use when choosing to trust the linguistics or not? Are your criteria consistent? If not, why should we accept your conclusions as valid?

In summary:

1. Simple claims are not evidence.
2. Just saying that "original languages do not mean what they seem to mean" is null evidence. Learn the languages. That way you might have some substantial material to work with. I mean this. Learn the languages.
3. Opinions are not evidence.
4. Beliefs are not evidence. In what manner is your belief more reliable that that of L. Ron Hubbard?
5. Looking for evidence is a complex matter: it means looking at all evidence, not just those data that you agree with.

You need to start all over. Read the Bible from the beginning. In any translation (but preferably the KJV) in parallel with the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek originals. You'll learn the languages on the way with some suitable grammars and textbooks. Then compare the words to other occurrences in Greek and Hebrew literature. Then you might have something to say about the "meanings in the original languages". Until that time, I'll be praying that Jesus won't return before you've completed your task.

Revelation 22:12
And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[Xanax]

Re: Intro

I apologize if my responses have not been totally clear. I will try to elaborate on what the Bible preaches in relation to His love for everyone and how men and women are equal.

1. God loves everyone

If we read Romans 9 where it states that God loved Jacob and hated Esau, it is talking about the nation of Israel and the nation of Edom, the descendants of the two. We also need to keep in mind that when reading the Bible, it is important to consider the original text. I am not a scholar, but this is what I believe the chapter is speaking about. The word “hate” used in the original text is addressing how God chose to use Jacob instead of Esau. In the chapter, Paul is illustrating that God chose the nation of Israel to serve the world, as they were supposed to be a nation of priests (Is. 61:6) and a light to the nations (Is. 42:6). Their election was about service and not about Salvation. Romans 9-11 is painfully explaining that God’s goal was to reach the nations beyond the borders of Israel (Romans 9:25-26, 10:10-21).

In the Hebrew language when love and hate are contrasted, they are usually meant hyperbolically. The expression just means preferring one over another. The Bible also says we are supposed to “hate” our father and mother in Luke 14:26. This does not mean we literally need to hate our mother and father, it just means that we should prefer God over them, because He should be first in our lives. The Bible preaches on the importance of family and how we are to love and honour our parents.

The Bible explains that God does not want anyone to perish, but for all to come to Him in repentance (1 Peter 3:8-10). The Bible clearly says that God loved the World, but He does not force anyone to do anything. It has to be a person individual choice if they want to live for Christ and accept His gift of salvation.

2. Equality of men and women

Now on the matter of women being equal to men. The Bible never says that women are inferior to men. And Deborah is a perfect example of a strong woman in the Bible. In Genesis 1:26-27 we read that God created both men AND women in His image. In creation, God refers to when he creates woman as a “helper”. In the Bible the word “helper” is described God as His people’s rescuer, strength or might. We eve see the Holy Spirit being referred to as our “helper” in John 14: 26, “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.” The Holy Spirit is God and if God uses the same word to reference the Holy Spirit, women must be important to Him. So, the word “helper” emphasizes equality. Nothing in Genesis grants men status over women, in fact it emphasizes equality. In Genesis 2:24, mother and father are identified without hierarchal distinction and I marriage, they are united as one flesh. All these things of me ruling over women is a result of the fall and because of sin. Because of the fall, men have used this to treat women poorly. But Genesis 3:15 says that the seed of the woman (Jesus Christ) would crush the serpants head with His heel and has overcome the fall. This we should resist the consequences of the fall.

In the Old testament we see the Prophetess Miriam who was sent by God to “lead” (Mic 6:4). Back to Deborah who was the highest leader of Isreael. She was also a mother and wife. She had authority of Barrak who was Isreael’s military commander. We also see Queen Ester, who brought about the distruction of the house Hamen, along with others. But we also see Queen Jesebel who was a wicked ruler, along with many of the Kings of Isreael. But never once does it criticize a woman as leader.

Looking at the New Testament, we see in Romans 16:1-6 Paul greets ten people who he identifies as colleagues in Christian ministry and seven of them are women. We see Phoebe who is a deacon and six others who are commended for their service for the Lord.

Looking at 1 Corinthians
2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt youbecause of your lack of self-control. 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

This passage is self explanatory as we see the same expectations given to both men and women in a marriage relationship.

I hope this cleared up any confusion. If not please let me know.

[Dolores de Barriga]

Re: Intro

Hello Mr. Zaranith. I have been following your thread with much interest and seeing your latest posts I decided it was the time to chime in.


I will warn you, I am not a Christian, I lurk around this website because the blind faith in the Bible as the unerrant Word of God that these people have, truly fascinates me.


I see from your posts that you share the deep belief in God with the members of this community. I respect that, although your posts show a lot of what is called "cognitive dissonance:" a fancy term to describe that when the brain receives conflicting information it chooses to accept incoming information selectively, it discards the information which is contradictory with the person's beliefs.


In this post you mention a lot of verses which are supposed to prove that God loves all people. Yet several of the verses, including the first one on top, state that God's love is conditional - not inconditional. God only loves those who love Him. Personally, that seems to me like a very cruel thing, especially when you take under account that vast majority of people through history lived and died without ever hearing about Jesus.


That means they lived and died without ever having a fighting chance to be saved. They were born only to go to Hell. Is that something a truly loving father would do?


In the same post you also cite Jesus' death as another example of God's love for us. Jesus was dead for one and a half day, after which He resurrected and will continue His existence as God forever. That is not a sacrifice, nor a real show of love. For an eternal deity, to suffer for a few hours and be dead for a day and a half would be equivalent to getting pinched by a needle for a fraction of a second, on a human scale. If you tell your significant other, "I'm going to show you how much I care about you by pinching myself with a needle for a fraction of a second," do you think the person would be impressed? I don't think so.


Later, you forgot to acknowledge that the Bible teaches that women are inferior, despite being schooled by Mr. Hutchins on this subject. In fact, a few posts later you continued to insist that in the Bible women are equal to men - does that mean that you discard all of the verses which say otherwise?

And no, Deborah is not the rule: she's the exception that confirms the rule. Personally for me, open misogyny expressed by several authors of the Bible was one of the reasons why I began to doubt that a real deity actually inspired men to write such hateful frases about women.


Later, you blatantly ignored Mr. Hutchins' post which clearly shows that God hates more than He loves, and you just changed the subject. You really don't like certain parts of the Bible, huh?

Then, in a completely nonsensical reply to Dr. Elmer's beautiful explanation of linguistic complexities of the Bible (which he had to write after you ignored the first one), you said this:

I am sorry but I cannot support that God hates some people

But you were just clearly shown by Mr. Hutchins and Dr. White that the Bible tells us that God does hate plenty of people! Why do you chose to ignore these parts of the Bible?


And while we're at it, why do you chose to lie to yourself by denying that you are, in fact, ignoring large portions of the Bible?

A few posts later, your cherry picking is showing again. Dr. Elmer White clearly shows that God's disapproval of homosexuality is ambiguous if we look at the original texts - you know, the argument you used in your previous exchange with Dr. White - and yet this time, your decision is that English translation is better than the original, contrary to your previous argument about Esau.


You need to pick a side here, Mr. Zaranith. Which one is more correct: translation or the original? If you want to be consistent, you have to accept that either:
1) God hated Esau and God hates homosexuals
or
2) The Esau situation is murky and so is God's stance on homosexuality.

Yet again, you decided to just change the subject when your inconsistency was proven.


Then, you decided to ignore a very important post by Mrs. Etheldreda. Here is a part of it:

In this theology of yurs, will Jesus still damn the unrepentant Sodomite who genuinely loves Him?

This whole problem raises a very important theological question: Does Jesus send the people He loves to suffer an eternity in Hell? If so, does that make Him a Loving God, or a Monster? Good grief Zaranith, I love my children and would and do discipline the Fear of God right into them, but I wouldn't subject them to torture. I wouldn't skin them alive and drop their still living bodies in a vat of flaming brimstone to punish them, and I sure as hell wouldn't do that to them for eternity. That would break my heart and ruin me emotionally and mentally for the rest of my life, and I'm a mere human. I couldn't do that to someone I love. Could you?

This is very important and this is the reason I admire this community so much. In the world, there is so much evidence that God hates people, so many wars, diseases, catastrophic events, human pain in general. God punishes people on Earth and He will also send vast majority of humans to Hell. He will send some really incredibly good people to Hell, just because they were of a different religion. To me, this does not sound like a deity that I would want to worship. He is cruel, vindictive, and has no compassion whatsoever. Yet, the people of Landover accept that hateful, masochistic God and worship Him anyway.


That amazes me, because based both on the contents of the Bible as well as on the history of the world, it seems to me that God is like a researcher in a research lab, who studies rats. He makes some rats suffer in one way, some in another, some He lets live nice lives, others He starves to death. He doesn't really care about individual rats, He just cares about the experiment as a whole. How did you put it - "for He loved the world so much..." - indeed, He does seem to love the world but not the rats.


I really don't want to bow before such a heartless dick. I know, I know. It's a blasphemy and I will suffer in Hell forever for it. But I just can't force myselt to love an respect a deity that does not love people.

The voice in my head is the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is God.

All of your posts above, I understand - cognitive dissonance is hard and it's really difficult to accept new information which stands in disagreement with what you want to believe in.

This, however, is a whole new level of psychological problems. Hearing voices in your head is not normal. It could be schizophrenia, and you should seek a professional who can diagnose you and prescribe appropriate medication or treatments.

But He did. He died for everyone, but only those who accept His free gift is saved. But, its is a choice. We can either accept that He died for us or reject it.

How about people who lived and died without having a chance to heat about Jesus?


Jesus is very clear: He is the only way, and those who do not follow Him are condemned already (John 3:18). That includes all people who lived and died in the Americas before Columbus. That includes people in many remote areas where missionaries did not get into until recently. That includes good people who continue to be born in non-Christian religions, and are taught that their religion is the only way, and that Christianity is wrong. That means that 99.9% of all people ever born are going to Hell. In short: that means God did not die for everyone's sins, just for the few lucky ones who were either born into Christian families or were persuaded by Christian missionaries.

I do not expect a reply to my long post. I understand - cognitive dissonance is really hard to beat.


I do hope, however, that you will seek professional advice regarding these voices in your head. I would prefer not to hear about the next mass shooter saying "God made me do it." Because while the Bible does support genocide, this is a part of the Bible that definitely needs to be ignored.

[Dana723]

Re: Intro

Because the actual message did not say what the message title says. That is what confuses me.

Side note: I am a dud.

A...dud?

[Xanax]

Re: Intro

So what you have been saying is we are to follow the Holy Bible except when the voices in your head tell you to do otherwise. How do you deal with the voices telling you to go against the Bible? How could God have written His book wrong (Does God even ever make any mistakes? - Rhetorical, of course not, He is Perfect©) and in over 2,000 years, never corrected it in future editions? Do you really think He is that lazy? A Perfect Man© capable of creating everything in just six days but cannot get His publisher on the phone to make some change?

The Holy Spirit is God’s gift for believers. The Holy Spirit will never go against the Bible.

According to you of the Holy Spirit does not do all the things I have pointed out, then what do believe He does for us. Why do we have the Holy Spirit.

[James Hutchins]

Re: Intro

The Bible says Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to "help" Christians. We need the Bible, or course. The Bible is their to guide us in our life and we need to obey what it says. All I am saying is that the Holy Spirit gives us the discernment to understand scripture and He assists us in our daily lives. The Holy Spirit is powerful and is just as important as the Word of God

So what you have been saying is we are to follow the Holy Bible except when the voices in your head tell you to do otherwise. How do you deal with the voices telling you to go against the Bible? How could God have written His book wrong (Does God even ever make any mistakes? - Rhetorical, of course not, He is Perfect©) and in over 2,000 years, never corrected it in future editions? Do you really think He is that lazy? A Perfect Man© capable of creating everything in just six days but cannot get His publisher on the phone to make some change?