Avoiding questions

[The Grand Nudger]

Who were these people

People who had heard his gospel....

and what exactly happened?

he didn't listen.

[catfish]

Why is it that he avoids my questions and not all of yours???
.

[Rayaan]

Why is it that he avoids my questions and not all of yours???

This was his reply to your last question. You may have missed seeing that post somehow.

[catfish]

Thank you, I did miss that somehow...

[Waratah]

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 because you answered my question does not mean you are not avoiding. After your first answer you changed it to the holy bible. I correctly pointed out to you that one does not mean bible in the context you used.

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?

What is this argument that you think I have? You said before you wanted to change my plan of attack. Please enlighten us all of what this "attack" was and/or "the argument"?

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.)

You can try to twist it as much as you want but you were being a smart ass because in your eyes I had a pacific plan("attack","the argument").

Can you see now?

Always have been able to see.

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.

In a post after your bullshit answer you said this

"I have found the people like this have a set arguement to offer and when I say something like this (Not according to this set arguement) they bail. so I was giving the Op'er the oppertunity to bail before I changed the direction of his attack."

I could be wrong but to me it is clear that it was not direct or forthcoming.

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.

My bold
No wonder you are so far up yourself. Hey everyone Mr Perfect is here . With this mindset, you are fucked.

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.

We are getting there. If you could only have one holy bible(and no blue letter bible) which one would you pick and why? Please be careful in your response.

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

Yes, it is a series of books.

Could you please show me a link to buy the blue letter bible. Please do not just point to their website, as I have searched and could not find. So if it is there I need a direct link.

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.

So you don't use any of the english translations, so which greek one do you use for minnie?

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.)

---

[catfish]

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.

Yeshua didn't "correct" him, he stated that he didn't deserve to be called good and that only one (God) deserved that adjective. I'm curious as to where you got all of the back-story to support what I don't see written...

---

Don't forget my original question

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

Verse 2 Verse 3 of the book of Genesis.

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.

I am just following the story of the holy bible and its mistakes. First line says creation of earth, second line clarifies the earth is empty.You have made claims without substantiation.

Can we use the same english version of the holy bible, so there is no discrepancy. So could you please copy and paste Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 from your named source, whatever english version you want.

Also don't forget these questions

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?

Who's to say if anyone's Hebrew is perfect?
I can see the first two lines as an analogy and NOT a literal interpretation.
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInter...f/gen1.pdf

The word for "earth" was הארץ , nf. country, land; earth, ground, geo-; territory
Tanslation here: http://translation.babylon.com/hebrew/to-english/

You do know that the Hebrew Bible was meant to provoke thought and discussion, don't you?

So, if you can apply "earth" to mean "matter", it may make sense, but I bet that you can't do that.
.

[Angrboda]

Drich, love, would you mind providing me with the full title of this concordance of Bullinger's which you are referencing, because in addition to finding that Bullinger was a class 'A' nutball not even accepted by his own kind (he believed Jesus was crucified with four thieves, not two, and noted dispensationalist Harry A. Ironside declared Bullinger's views an "absolutely Satanic perversion of the truth"), the only reference to a concordance by him (google, Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and Worldcat, the world's largest library catalog) is a concordance of the New Testament (A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament, which I don't need to point out is not a relevant authority for Genesis). Please cite a reference which even mentions such a concordance. (It's possible it's in his companion to the bible, which I'm torrenting as we speak; I have examined the complete appendices to that work, and if worse comes to worse, it's only $3 from Amazon or B&N.)

Please. Tell me more about this Bullinger's concordance of yours ("Bullinger's exhaustive lexicon and concordance"), its full title, where you obtained it, and how I might obtain a copy. I've got a handful of concordances and bible study aids, most not installed, but would welcome adding another resource to my counter-apologetics.

(ETA: It appears that I can download a free copy of Bullinger's New Testament concordance, so if that's the work you were citing, let me know so I can verify the accuracy and cogency of the citation.)

[Drich]

Yeshua didn't "correct" him, he stated that he didn't deserve to be called good and that only one (God) deserved that adjective. I'm curious as to where you got all of the back-story to support what I don't see written...

Because a similar thing happens when He introduces Himself to the other deciples. Christ was considered to be a teacher or Rabbi. A common greeting to a Rabbi is to start one's request with the phrase "Good Rabbi." Here are a few examples where Christ accepts the usage of this term when those to know Him call Him this.http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=Good+teacher&qs_version=NKJV

Which makes the only distinction between what the Rich young ruler said, and what the Deciples Call Jesus is the knoweledge of Who Christ was. Which is why we can call what Christ did a correction or rather a test. Did the rich young man know who Christ was? Was He willing to give what He had up and follow him as the deciples did? The answer to both was no, and the young man knew it. That is why he went away disappointed.

---

Don't forget my original question

Question: How was it possible for darkness to cover the ocean when the ocean was not there?I am just following the story of the holy bible and its mistakes. First line says creation of earth, second line clarifies the earth is empty.You have made claims without substantiation.

Can we use the same english version of the holy bible, so there is no discrepancy. So could you please copy and paste Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 from your named source, whatever english version you want.

Also don't forget these questions

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?

Who's to say if anyone's Hebrew is perfect?
I can see the first two lines as an analogy and NOT a literal interpretation.
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInter...f/gen1.pdf

The word for "earth" was הארץ , nf. country, land; earth, ground, geo-; territory
Tanslation here: http://translation.babylon.com/hebrew/to-english/

You do know that the Hebrew Bible was meant to provoke thought and discussion, don't you?

So, if you can apply "earth" to mean "matter", it may make sense, but I bet that you can't do that.
.
[/quote]

---

Drich, love, would you mind providing me with the full title of this concordance of Bullinger's which you are referencing, because in addition to finding that Bullinger was a class 'A' nutball not even accepted by his own kind (he believed Jesus was crucified with four thieves, not two, and noted dispensationalist Harry A. Ironside declared Bullinger's views an "absolutely Satanic perversion of the truth"), the only reference to a concordance by him (google, Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and Worldcat, the world's largest library catalog) is a concordance of the New Testament (A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament, which I don't need to point out is not a relevant authority for Genesis). Please cite a reference which even mentions such a concordance. (It's possible it's in his companion to the bible, which I'm torrenting as we speak; I have examined the complete appendices to that work, and if worse comes to worse, it's only $3 from Amazon or B&N.)

Please. Tell me more about this Bullinger's concordance of yours ("Bullinger's exhaustive lexicon and concordance"), its full title, where you obtained it, and how I might obtain a copy. I've got a handful of concordances and bible study aids, most not installed, but would welcome adding another resource to my counter-apologetics.

(ETA: It appears that I can download a free copy of Bullinger's New Testament concordance, so if that's the work you were citing, let me know so I can verify the accuracy and cogency of the citation.)

It seems my spelling is not the only thing faulty. The bullingers i have is the Greek New testament. I was relying on some work i did on a similar discussion a few months ago, and simply got mixed up in reference material and in meaning. I went to: http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=0922

My mistake. (actually i have made this mistake here or one of the other forums before. The Bullingers is my Goto Hard copy resource that i have used for the better part of 20 years. The majority of what i have committed to memory has come from that source material. I assumed rather than checked and verified. Good Call thanks for keeping me honest, even if it makes me look like a fool.)

[Waratah]

---

Don't forget my original question

Question: How was it possible for darkness to cover the ocean when the ocean was not there?I am just following the story of the holy bible and its mistakes. First line says creation of earth, second line clarifies the earth is empty.You have made claims without substantiation.

Can we use the same english version of the holy bible, so there is no discrepancy. So could you please copy and paste Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 from your named source, whatever english version you want.

Also don't forget these questions

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?

---

Who's to say if anyone's Hebrew is perfect?
I can see the first two lines as an analogy and NOT a literal interpretation.
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInter...f/gen1.pdf

The word for "earth" was הארץ , nf. country, land; earth, ground, geo-; territory
Tanslation here: http://translation.babylon.com/hebrew/to-english/

In what context do you think it was used for in Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2?

You do know that the Hebrew Bible was meant to provoke thought and discussion, don't you?

Is it .

So, if you can apply "earth" to mean "matter", it may make sense, but I bet that you can't do that.
.

For enough money I can apply "earth" to mean whatever you want to make sense for whatever you want. Until you provide me with enough incentive I will stick with common sense and not behave like a christian fundamentalist.

[Angrboda]

It seems my spelling is not the only thing faulty. The bullingers i have is the Greek New testament. I was relying on some work i did on a similar discussion a few months ago, and simply got mixed up in reference material and in meaning. I went to: http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=0922

My mistake.

Okay. Now that we actually have a correct citation, let's go back and examine your exegesis. You actually posted the translation from the Amplified Bible, I am quoting your expansion on the matter.

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.

The first problem is that, as any dictionary can tell you, the word 'empty' is an adjective, whereas the concordance you cite clearly indicates that bohu(w) is a masculine noun. Now I freely confess to knowing nothing about Hebrew grammar, but grammar units 4 and 5 at Hebrew 4 Christians . com indicates about what I would have guessed, they function much the same as in English. So your exegesis is attempting to defend a translation in which bohu(w) is translated as an English adjective, when it's clear from your own concordance that this exegesis, translating it as 'empty', is likely a misleading translation. You reference Isaiah 34:11 to back up your exegesis. Good for you! Additional lines of evidence are always welcome! Except that from a quick perusal of an interlinear bible (here), and even more clearly in a parallel bible (), it's clear that it is used as a noun meaning 'emptiness' or 'nothingness' or 'chaos' or 'confusion' - all nouns - in the verse of Isaiah referenced, not as an adjective describing the condition of something. Moreover, when we look at the Amplified bible's translation of bohu(w) in Isaiah 34:11, "But the pelican and the porcupine will possess it; the owl and the bittern and the raven will dwell in it. And He will stretch over it [Edom] the measuring line of confusion and the plummet stones of chaos [over its nobles]," we find that it too is translated as a noun instead of an adjective. I think what likely got you confused was the use of the word 'void' as an English word defining the meaning of the term bohu(w); indeed, the English word 'void' can be either a noun or an adjective, but that says nothing about the actual grammatical function of the Hebrew word whose usage you are trying to claim corresponds to 'empty'.

I can't wait to see how you spin this one.