Avoiding questions

[Drich]

Drich, how can Jesus be God if he said that he wasn't good, that only God was and he exhibited a will that was not God's? (feel free to call me blashemous)
.

that not what is being communicated in Mark 10:
17 Jesus started to leave, but a man ran to him and bowed down on his knees before him. The man asked, “Good Teacher, what must I do to get the life that never ends?”

18 Jesus answered, “Why do you call me good? Only God is good. 19 And you know his commands: ‘You must not murder anyone, you must not commit adultery, you must not steal, you must not lie, you must not cheat, you must respect your father and mother ….’[d]”


The rich young man did not know Christ to be God, so Christ corrected Him (looking for the affirmation of the Holy Spirit with in him, as He found with the other deciples. They Knew Him to be God because God revealed to them) The rich young ruler when corrected did not insist that he knew Christ to be God. Which meant he was just blowing smoke to get in good with what at best he thought was a phrophet.

---

Fuck me, why not say this in the first place, instead of fucking wasting everyone's time.

You didn't ask that the first time.

You called it a bible first, "blue letter bible"

Because that is what it is called!
http://www.blueletterbible.org/index.cfm
It says it there right on the home page!

Is there a strongest one?

Their is if you are looking from a specific denominational perspective. If I want the strongest R/C version I would look to the vulgate of the LXX.

What does "pearls before swine excersize" mean?

Christ tells us not to throw our pearls of wisdom before swine. If you have no intrest in anything you are asking you can easily be judged a swine, or someone just looking for a way to trample what if offered into the mud.

Blue is not a bible. So for all verses it would be the NKJV for Darkstar

http://www.blueletterbible.org/index.cfm again tell that to the people who named and published the Blue letter Bible!

As you and I agree blue letter is not a bible. So which greek version is used for Minimalist?

You beg the question here.

It is the ocean. I assume it was not there due to the words "completely empty"

Completely empty of what? See this is where we would default to the Blue letter BIBLE:
The Hebrew word that is translated into the term 'completely empty" is:בהו bohuw
Which means with out life, or completely empty of any type of life.
This is underscored by how this same word is used in Isa 34:11. Now as water is not alive we know the Hebrew word is further supported by this passage, and when we put everything in it's proper context Gen 1:1 God created the Heavens and the EARTH, we know it to mean God created All of the Heavens and a Completed Earth (Rocks Minierals and Water minus dry land and life) as per verse 3 and 4.

Here is the question again

Question: How was it possible for darkness to cover the ocean when the ocean was not there?

Again how do you know it is not there? With a proper exegesis of scripture we know Water to be present at the point of Gen 1:2. Is it by simple faith that you believe water to be not there? If not then please explain what evidence you have to prove how you know their was no water present at the time of Gen 2 or Gen 3.

And don't forget the ones you avoided

How could god spirit move over water that was not there? The very first 2 lines of the bible and there are errors. How is it that your supposed god stuffed up the first 2 lines? If god is perfect, why are the first 2 lines wrong?[quote]

quid pro quoe Clairese, you answer me completly and i will answer you.

Thanks for the NOT providing link. Your problem is you used a capital for the word One. Just admit you were being a plus your example is not the same as what you used it for.

Per your request: "You were being a Jerk off."

Thank you. I would like to point out texts other than the bible have had the same thing happen.

Not generally no. for if you took a book, a movie, a newspaper they would all be contextually translated and not literally translated. That is why you can NOT take the english at face value like you tried to do with the easy to read gen 2. You have a contextual translation, desperatly trying to assign a literal meaning to what you just read. It does not work that way.

[ThomM]

[

Evidence that your godboy ever existed? Nope.

Evidence that he ever said anything? Nope.


All fictional characters have words put into their mouths by the authors of those stories. Your boy is just one more example.
[/quote]

What I read: oink, oink, oink...
[/quote]

------

OF course - because YOU have no proof to offer

IF you had proof you would gladly post it so that all would see it.
THAT you make fun of the statements simply point to how stupid the claims you make are

[Waratah]

Fuck me, why not say this in the first place, instead of fucking wasting everyone's time.

You didn't ask that the first time.

You're correct I did not ask that exact question first. I did not ask you what bibles you owned either but hey that is the response given(finally started to answer some questions like a normal human being, fucking amazing ). The Original question I asked was avoided anyway with a bullshit answer.

You called it a bible first, "blue letter bible"

Because that is what it is called!
http://www.blueletterbible.org/index.cfm
It says it there right on the home page!

A title does not make it a bible. I was pointing out that you called it a bible first then said concordance.

Is there a strongest one?

Their is if you are looking from a specific denominational perspective. If I want the strongest R/C version I would look to the vulgate of the LXX.

If you could only have one holy bible which one would you pick and why?

What does "pearls before swine excersize" mean?

Christ tells us not to throw our pearls of wisdom before swine. If you have no intrest in anything you are asking you can easily be judged a swine, or someone just looking for a way to trample what if offered into the mud.

Don't worry then, you have to have wisdom first. The only pearls I could imagine you could spurt is from your

Blue is not a bible. So for all verses it would be the NKJV for Darkstar

http://www.blueletterbible.org/index.cfm again tell that to the people who named and published the Blue letter Bible!

Can you buy a hard copy of the Blue letter Bible?

As you and I agree blue letter is not a bible. So which greek version is used for Minimalist?

You beg the question here.

Can you please explain what you mean by this "I have to give the greek." I took it as meaning a greek translation. This is why I asked for which version which you have not given. You're not trying to avoid again, are you? hock:

It is the ocean. I assume it was not there due to the words "completely empty"

Completely empty of what? See this is where we would default to the Blue letter BIBLE:
The Hebrew word that is translated into the term 'completely empty" is:בהו bohuw
Which means with out life, or completely empty of any type of life.
This is underscored by how this same word is used in Isa 34:11. Now as water is not alive we know the Hebrew word is further supported by this passage, and when we put everything in it's proper context

Please show me where בהו bohuw means "with out life". As far as I am aware it means empty, void, nothing. Nice try but the use of the word empty(בהו bohuw) in Isa 34:11 is used in a different context. Since you have not proven the "without life" comment your next sentence is irrelevant, "Now as water is not alive we know the Hebrew word is further supported by this passage, and when we put everything in it's proper context", and it does not make any sense.

Gen 1:1 God created the Heavens and the EARTH, we know it to mean God created All of the Heavens and a Completed Earth (Rocks Minierals and Water minus dry land and life) as per verse 3 and 4.

Who's "we"? Can you substantiate this claim "we know it to mean God created All of the Heavens and a Completed Earth (Rocks Minierals and Water minus dry land and life) as per verse 3 and 4.

Here is the question again

Question: How was it possible for darkness to cover the ocean when the ocean was not there?

Again how do you know it is not there?

Because of the meaning of בהו bohuw

With a proper exegesis of scripture we know Water to be present at the point of Gen 1:2.

No we don't. It is quite clear that there is no ocean due to the meaning of בהו bohuw

Is it by simple faith that you believe water to be not there?

Oh you poor thing it has nothing to do with faith on my part

If not then please explain what evidence you have to prove how you know their was no water present at the time of Gen 2 or Gen 3.

What is Gen 2 and Gen 3?

And don't forget the ones you avoided

How could god spirit move over water that was not there? The very first 2 lines of the bible and there are errors. How is it that your supposed god stuffed up the first 2 lines? If god is perfect, why are the first 2 lines wrong?[quote]

quid pro quoe Clairese, you answer me completly and i will answer you.

Answer what? I have not avoided your questions, you have avoided myn.

Thanks for the NOT providing link. Your problem is you used a capital for the word One. Just admit you were being a plus your example is not the same as what you used it for.

Per your request: "You were being a Jerk off."

Your comprehension skills are lacking. Just admit you were being a


Also could you please answer this question that you avoided once again.

Why are you moving the the goal posts again with your inclusion now of "biblically" for a question?

[Annik]

Dear santie,
If you ever think your man enough then bring it. Remeber though I live in the states not some sissy country where citizens can't conceal carry. So you better come straped, because you know I am (btw thanks for the g30 you brought me last year http://www.basspro.com/GLOCK-G30-45-ACP-.../10217982/) Just be sure the Ipad is here on time and all will be good.. If not (GLOCK GLOCK)

Your truly,
Drich

You bought a Glock? I'm so sorry for your wasted purchase.

[Drich]

You're correct I did not ask that exact question first. I did not ask you what bibles you owned either but hey that is the response given(finally started to answer some questions like a normal human being, fucking amazing ). The Original question I asked was avoided anyway with a bullshit answer.

Actually no, Again a Holy One refers to a direct translation not a contextual translation. Giving you this answer helped me gauge your biblical/Translation knoweledge.
Just FYI because you still do not know the difference between a Holy Bible and a contextually translated version even after it has been explained hows me you are still trying to approach this discussion with the arguement you had in mind when you first asked your question. Why else ignore all of the information I have given you to this point? Is it just so you can claim that I have given you a bullshit answer thus differing the fact that you simply did not understand the answer given?? Or do you still after all of this do not understand a bible can not be technically be called 'Holy' unless it is a direct translation? Thus requiring me to tell you when asked what bible I use, "A Holy One." (Because again, Direct translations are what I personally use.)

Can you see now? The answer I gave was direct, forth comming and on topic. You simply did not have enough information to properly process the answer given, and rather than ask questions you assumed that your understanding of christianity was complete enough to assume that I dismissed your question.

All of this is the underlining point of this thread. There are no crap answers, just crap theology that you all bring to these conversations, that will not allow you to process that answer given.

A title does not make it a bible. I was pointing out that you called it a bible first then said concordance.

Let's see what makes a bible a bible: The word bible is from Koine Greek τὰ βιβλία ta biblia "the books" So a 'Bible' is a collection of Books, more specifically a collection of Koine Greek Books. As the Blue letter bible is such a collection then It does indeed qualify to be called a bible.

If you could only have one holy bible which one would you pick and why?

Blue letter. I gives the KJV along side the Hebrew and Greek.

Can you buy a hard copy of the Blue letter Bible?

Yes, it is a series of books.

Can you please explain what you mean by this "I have to give the greek." I took it as meaning a greek translation. This is why I asked for which version which you have not given.

I orginaly told you I gave minnie scripture from the blue letter because he needs to see the greek, as he does not like any known english transaltion.

Please show me where בהו bohuw means "with out life". As far as I am aware it means empty, void, nothing. Nice try but the use of the word empty(בהו bohuw) in Isa 34:11 is used in a different context. Since you have not proven the "without life" comment your next sentence is irrelevant, "Now as water is not alive we know the Hebrew word is further supported by this passage, and when we put everything in it's proper context", and it does not make any sense.

Bullinger's exhaustive lexicon and concordance. (Their isn't an online version.)

Who's "we"?

Christianity.

Can you substantiate this claim "we know it to mean God created All of the Heavens and a Completed Earth (Rocks Minierals and Water minus dry land and life) as per verse 3 and 4.

Yes and so can you. Just ask any Christian

No we don't. It is quite clear that there is no ocean due to the meaning of בהו bohuw

Wrong. For we are told in the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth. The "EARTH" includes Oceans. Again as God's presents Hovered over the Waters we have been informed that the Oceans were included in the creation of the Earth.

We know Bohuw means devoid of life even outside of the reference material because in the creation of the Earth everything else besides life is still present, otherwise It would not have been the "Earth" God created. What would the earth be without it's single most defining quality? We are known to ourselves as the blue planet because we are 2/3's water.

[What is Gen 2 and Gen 3?

Verse 2 Verse 3 of the book of Genesis.

Answer what? I have not avoided your questions, you have avoided myn.

Then tell me how you are so sure that the earth was devoid of water. We have established your incorrect understanding of the Hebrew, and how it is used. so what other evidence do you have to prove that their was no water after God created the Earth, and before He created Life.

Why are you moving the the goal posts again with your inclusion now of "biblically" for a question?

Not a topical biblical question. As I said in the beginning I reserve the right to ignore any question that I feel are designed to simply be arguementive or designed to derail the topic being discussed. This question does both, for all anyone has to do is go back and re-read the first time I mentioned this, to have an understanding of what I orginally meant.

---

Dear santie,
If you ever think your man enough then bring it. Remeber though I live in the states not some sissy country where citizens can't conceal carry. So you better come straped, because you know I am (btw thanks for the g30 you brought me last year http://www.basspro.com/GLOCK-G30-45-ACP-.../10217982/) Just be sure the Ipad is here on time and all will be good.. If not (GLOCK GLOCK)

Your truly,
Drich

You bought a Glock? I'm so sorry for your wasted purchase.

what do you work for bretta or S&W?

---

OF course - because YOU have no proof to offer

IF you had proof you would gladly post it so that all would see it.
THAT you make fun of the statements simply point to how stupid the claims you make are

I have asked this question 100 times or more when ever one of you asks for proof. Maybe you can answer where you atheist brothers have failed:

What does Proof of God look like? What can be presented that someone who does not want to believe can't simply dismiss as something else? If you can not tell me what proof looks like then how can you ask to see something you would not recognise even if you saw it?

[Angrboda]

You originally used the definitive article, 'the', so your claims to have said 'A Holy One' are revisionist (not to mention equivocating and evasionary). But what strikes me is how little you know about bibles and translation. Your very discussion and answers here indicate that you have a typically near sighted view of the variety of (incompatible) bibles that exist, as well as a thoroughgoing misunderstanding of the process and art of translation, as well as that of interpretation. You are definitely bush league when it comes to biblical understanding.

Drich, which bible is the right bible according to you.

The Holy One.

[Drich]

You originally used the definitive article, 'the', so your claims to have said 'A Holy One' are revisionist (not to mention equivocating and evasionary). But what strikes me is how little you know about bibles and translation. Your very discussion and answers here indicate that you have a typically near sighted view of the variety of (incompatible) bibles that exist, as well as a thoroughgoing misunderstanding of the process and art of translation, as well as that of interpretation. You are definitely bush league when it comes to biblical understanding.

The Holy One.

The please by all means show me What a tripple A understanding looks like Alpo, show me the error of my ways. Show me a list of 'Holy Bibles' and the incompatiablities they contain. Or do you just assume because their are different translations all are incompatiable with each other?

[Angrboda]

You originally used the definitive article, 'the', so your claims to have said 'A Holy One' are revisionist (not to mention equivocating and evasionary). But what strikes me is how little you know about bibles and translation. Your very discussion and answers here indicate that you have a typically near sighted view of the variety of (incompatible) bibles that exist, as well as a thoroughgoing misunderstanding of the process and art of translation, as well as that of interpretation. You are definitely bush league when it comes to biblical understanding.

The please by all means show me What a tripple A understanding looks like Alpo, show me the error of my ways. Show me a list of 'Holy Bibles' and the incompatiablities they contain. Or do you just assume because their are different translations all are incompatiable with each other?

Why would I waste my time on such a task?

Teaching you would be a waste of resources because you would still be stupid and incompetent at the end of the process. I believe somebody said something about casting one's pearls before swine. I'll bet if that person were here now, at least they would understand.

No Drich, you are not a worthwhile student, and I am nobody's teacher. I simply enjoy watching your responses and the humor that results, unintentional though it may be. You're a barrel of laughs.

[Drich]

The please by all means show me What a tripple A understanding looks like Alpo, show me the error of my ways. Show me a list of 'Holy Bibles' and the incompatiablities they contain. Or do you just assume because their are different translations all are incompatiable with each other?

Why would I waste my time on such a task?

Teaching you would be a waste of resources because you would still be stupid and incompetent at the end of the process. I believe somebody said something about casting one's pearls before swine. I'll bet if that person were here now, at least they would understand.

No Drich, you are not a worthwhile student, and I am nobody's teacher. I simply enjoy watching your responses and the humor that results, unintentional though it may be. You're a barrel of laughs.

So you got nuth-in? except what you as an atheist believe to be true about the various translations of the bible? Not even a hastily googled website that might provide a couple of under scoring points?

[pocaracas]

Drich, apo is not atheist.