The backbreaker

[downbeatplumb]

No Drich, I was having a little fun with the name of the topic.

I thought you'd have noticed by now I have no interest in conversing with you.

One does not "converse" with Drich, one gets preached to or ignored.

[Drich]

Once again you come at me with complete fabrications.  Read the site that you yourself linked us to.  Now, I don't know Hebrew, but they are breaking it down for us there and showing us, term by term, that all of those things you redacted in fact are in the passage.  I suppose in this case, after looking it over, that you are not lying but rather are just stupid.  It seems that you are looking at the direct translation of the root forms and then claiming that the text is written entirely in root form.  But there are 23 root form symbols on that chart and there are 54 symbols in the actual text:

Oh, my glob...
Hebrew is not a Latin based language. meaning you can not expect a word for word translation. It's whole structure is completely different. The prefix and suffix structure of the words give us indicators as to how the word is used meaning from the prefix and suffix structures are we get all of our conjunctions, adverbs adjectives, and the rest of the bits and pieces that fill in the syntax and grammar. It is the root word that gives us structure and direction for this or any translation.

Here is how to properly use the interlinear I provided a link to:
https://www.blueletterbible.org/help/vid...m#section5

Also - and I don't expect you to know this since Christians generally don't have an education on the Bible - but the King James Version, more or less, is as direct a translation as you can find, and whenever words are inserted for clarification they are italicized.  Common insertions are possessive pronouns and conjugations of "to be," presumably due to the structure of the Hebrew language.  Take a look at this:

Ah, no. That his just KJV propaganda sport.
All bibles come from codecees (a collection of original hand written manuscripts.) their are 4 primary codecees from which the majority of bibles in print were written.
The Textus receptus is the codex from which we get the KJV.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus

If you took the time to read the link, you would note that the Receptus was the most accurate codex in the REFORM Era! (500+ years ago) It was miles above and beyond the latin vulgate. (from which the catholic bible was written.) However since then we have discovered and authenticated much older texts, and more complete texts than what is found in the Textus Receptus. That is why they re did the KJV and we have or can get other english translations.

The KJV is not more 'accurate.' as some of it's minor principles do conflict with later codacees like the Morphological Greek New Testament.

See, nothing in verse 16 is in italics.  So nothing is being inserted.  It is as direct a translation as linguistically possible aside from where they alter poetic language to sound more poetic to seventeenth century Europeans.  Here is a link to my source for your convenience:
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Deu...hapter-24/

So now I'm wondering just how far up your ass you had to reach to pull that shit out.

Next time save yourself some embarrassment and just ask the question if you don't know how, why or what I am sharing with you.

All of that aside, This is a command from God to His people concerning relatives dying for the sins of others in their family, we in our unsaved state are not Children of God so the law does not apply.

WTF are you talking about?  This was God's covenant with the Jews.  David was a Jew.  In fact, he was the king Jew.  God shows he is above the law by torturing and executing David's infant son for David's sins.

The command is that no man judge or judge another for the sins of a son. God is not man, this answers the first 1/2 of your back breaker.

Jesus clearly explains this in the parable of the wheat and weeds, the sheep and goats, the wheat and chaff. He makes no bones about telling us that all of us were not placed here by God.

I don't know WTF you are talking about, or how you think it is relevant, and I certainly don't know how it is you think you've answered the question of whether or not God is above the law.  But there is one thing I do know:

what this addresses is the second 1/2 of your paradox in that Jesus died for our sins. (the implication being that was invalid)

It means we are not 'sons' of God till we accept the atonement of Christ.

[Nihilist Virus]

Once again you come at me with complete fabrications.  Read the site that you yourself linked us to.  Now, I don't know Hebrew, but they are breaking it down for us there and showing us, term by term, that all of those things you redacted in fact are in the passage.  I suppose in this case, after looking it over, that you are not lying but rather are just stupid.  It seems that you are looking at the direct translation of the root forms and then claiming that the text is written entirely in root form.  But there are 23 root form symbols on that chart and there are 54 symbols in the actual text:

Oh, my glob...
Hebrew is not a Latin based language. meaning you can not expect a word for word translation. It's whole structure is completely different. The prefix and suffix structure of the words give us indicators as to how the word is used  meaning from the prefix and suffix structures are we get all of our conjunctions, adverbs adjectives, and the rest of the bits and pieces that fill in the syntax and grammar. It is the root word that gives us structure and direction for this or any translation.

Here is how to properly use the interlinear I provided a link to:
https://www.blueletterbible.org/help/vid...m#section5

Also - and I don't expect you to know this since Christians generally don't have an education on the Bible - but the King James Version, more or less, is as direct a translation as you can find, and whenever words are inserted for clarification they are italicized.  Common insertions are possessive pronouns and conjugations of "to be," presumably due to the structure of the Hebrew language.  Take a look at this:

Ah, no. That his just KJV propaganda sport.
All bibles come from codecees (a collection of original hand written manuscripts.) their are 4 primary codecees from which the majority of bibles in print were written.
The Textus receptus is the codex from which we get the KJV.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus

If you took the time to read the link, you would note that the Receptus was the most accurate codex in the REFORM Era! (500+ years ago) It was miles above and beyond the latin vulgate. (from which the catholic bible was written.) However since then we have discovered and authenticated much older texts, and more complete texts than what is found in the Textus Receptus. That is why they re did the KJV and we have or can get other english translations.

The KJV is not more 'accurate.' as some of it's minor principles do conflict with later codacees like the Morphological Greek New Testament.

See, nothing in verse 16 is in italics.  So nothing is being inserted.  It is as direct a translation as linguistically possible aside from where they alter poetic language to sound more poetic to seventeenth century Europeans.  Here is a link to my source for your convenience:
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Deu...hapter-24/

So now I'm wondering just how far up your ass you had to reach to pull that shit out.

Next time save yourself some embarrassment and just ask the question if you don't know how, why or what I am sharing with you.

All of that aside, This is a command from God to His people concerning relatives dying for the sins of others in their family, we in our unsaved state are not Children of God so the law does not apply.

WTF are you talking about?  This was God's covenant with the Jews.  David was a Jew.  In fact, he was the king Jew.  God shows he is above the law by torturing and executing David's infant son for David's sins.

The command is that no man judge or judge another for the sins of a son. God is not man, this answers the first 1/2 of your back breaker.

Jesus clearly explains this in the parable of the wheat and weeds, the sheep and goats, the wheat and chaff. He makes no bones about telling us that all of us were not placed here by God.

I don't know WTF you are talking about, or how you think it is relevant, and I certainly don't know how it is you think you've answered the question of whether or not God is above the law.  But there is one thing I do know:

what this addresses is the second 1/2 of your paradox in that Jesus died for our sins. (the implication being that was invalid)

It means we are not 'sons' of God till we accept the atonement of Christ.

Wow ok so you reject the KJV. Remarkable. Are you working on the Drich version? Perhaps the Rick James version? Can you tell me which version currently in existence is the one you use?

Also your rebuttal to me exposing you as a complete moron is that Hebrew is not Latin based. No shit. But it's still based on using symbols to create words so basic principles of cryptography apply. You were obliterated. You can actually save face by admitting that you were wrong. We'd respect you more. Burying your head in the sand does not impress us.

Anyway, you still don't get it. David's son was put to death by God for David's sins. This is directly opposed to the verse which means that God is above the law. Which is no real surprise since God invented the law. God probably eats shell fish and has a small uncircumcised cock. So the point is that God can do whatever he wants, so he can forgive us without dying on the cross, and he didn't want to die on the cross, so WTF was the point?

[Mister Agenda]

Repeating 'you're wrong' in different ways does not demonstrate that you are a Christian with knowledge of the scriptures. People with real knowledge show their work. Mere assertions don't cut it.

Go read my first post to the OP.

GC

I did, and it was composed entirely of assertions. I assume this is your way of congratulating me on spotting that.

[Nihilist Virus]

One thing I'm confused on is whether we are supposed to be God's children or Christ's bride... or both?

[Ravenshire]

Both, I think. After all, gawd is it's own dad.

[Drich]

Wow ok so you reject the KJV.  Remarkable.  Are you working on the Drich version?  Perhaps the Rick James version?  Can you tell me which version currently in existence is the one you use?

What are you talking about. I provided you a link to the source material the KJV was translated from. from that link it clearly states that the codex (Textus Recepticus) was 500 years old. Again a codex being a singular set of specific individual manuscripts. In that link it tells us those 500 year old manuscripts of the recepticus have been superceeded by manuscripts that are older and or have a better provenance than what was available 500 years ago. That is why they compiled new codices.

For instance are you familiar with the dead sea scrolls? They were a library of original manuscripts (hand written books) of the bible found sealed in clay pots in a cave outside of kumron. Before this discovery our oldest book of Isaiah was 4 or 500 AD. Which many people/jews believed that our current manuscript had to have been modified after Christ was alive. Because of all the accurate prophesies written specifically about him in that book. In the dead sea scrolls, were several copies of Isaiah. one of which dates back several hundred years before Christ, and aside from literary differences and a few spelling errors it reads the same. That said, some of those literary difference make big changes. Like the command "thou shalt not kill" in the book of Genesis in the KJV has been revised to "thou shalt not Murder" in the NKJV The difference in the English being the first command demands that no taking of human life is permitted, while the second command says no unsanctioned taking of human life is permitted. The sanction being on no personally motivated taking of human life is allowed.

It is to these literary changes that the people who love the KJV had to update it to reflect the absolute best and most current information we have.

The translation matrix does not change, meaning the way the codices are translated does not change, what changes is the source material.

Also your rebuttal to me exposing you as a complete moron is that Hebrew is not Latin based.  No shit.  But it's still based on using symbols to create words so basic principles of cryptography apply.  You were obliterated. You can actually save face by admitting that you were wrong.  We'd respect you more. Burying your head in the sand does not impress us.

My point stands sport. if you fully understood the implication of the hebrew not being Latin based you would understand that the representation of the root is indeed all that can be discussed with out an advanced degree in Hebrew. The prefix/sufixtures of those root words are or can be up for debate, and with out that advanced degree their is absolutely nothing for you to argue. because a 'qual' can mean several different things and even opposite things dependent on the 'stem or aspect' of a word, All you did is hit a wall so hard you don't know who got 'obliterated.' Why else do you think this and all laymen lexicons only represent the root?

Anyway, you still don't get it.  David's son was put to death by God for David's sins.

No, you still don't get it. God's law, was a command given to man. Just like YOU shall not MURDER. or YOU May not Kill Unless God permits it. In the same vain is how your supposed back breaker works. 'Man shall not kill another man for the sins of the son.' The command given does not forbid God from doing this very thing?

What do you think the term Alpha and Omega Means? It means first and last word on what is to be done. He does not need permission. If He wanted to create a rock so big He could not lift it then he can, if He didn't want to then He couldn't.. He is not bound to the rules of your simple minded games/paradoxes.

 So the point is that God can do whatever he wants, so he can forgive us without dying on the cross, and he didn't want to die on the cross, so WTF was the point?

Yes he could, but would you be able to comprehend the pain he endured to provide you with said forgiveness? Let lone would you then be able to fathom why He demanded the respect and obedience he does to accept this forgiveness?

Apparently not, because you cant even understand what it is the cross represents with all of it's vivid imagery... So how then could you give God the proper respect needed to simply accept his gift?

[Nihilist Virus]

Wow ok so you reject the KJV.  Remarkable.  Are you working on the Drich version?  Perhaps the Rick James version?  Can you tell me which version currently in existence is the one you use?

What are you talking about. I provided you a link to...

...laymen lexicons only represent the root?

OK.  You concede the argument below so you can have this.

Anyway, you still don't get it.  David's son was put to death by God for David's sins.

No, you still don't get it. God's law, was a command given to man. Just like YOU shall not MURDER. or YOU May not Kill Unless God permits it. In the same vain is how your supposed back breaker works. 'Man shall not kill another man for the sins of the son.' The command given does not forbid God from doing this very thing?

It does not specify that certain entities may break the rule.  It simply says SHALL NOT BE PUT TO DEATH. God broke his own rule because he is above the law.

What do you think the term Alpha and Omega Means? It means first and last word on what is to be done. He does not need permission. If He wanted to create a rock so big He could not lift it then he can, if He didn't want to then He couldn't.. He is not bound to the rules of your simple minded games/paradoxes.

I'm a nihilist.  I don't believe in logical axioms being absolutely true so of course God could violate them if he exists.

 So the point is that God can do whatever he wants, so he can forgive us without dying on the cross, and he didn't want to die on the cross, so WTF was the point?

Yes he could, but would you be able to comprehend the pain he endured to provide you with said forgiveness? Let lone would you then be able to fathom why He demanded the respect and obedience he does to accept this forgiveness?

Apparently not, because you cant even understand what it is the cross represents with all of it's vivid imagery... So how then could you give God the proper respect needed to simply accept his gift?

You just said God could have forgiven sins without Christ's sacrifice.  Therefore Christianity is pointless.

[FebruaryOfReason]

He does not need permission. If He wanted to create a rock so big He could not lift it then he can

Presumably he could also then make exactly the same rock liftable without changing anything at all about it or himself? You realise what total bollocks your talking, don't you? A being totally beyond logic, which conveniently excuses your need to explain the massive inconsistencies in what you're saying?

You're talking about a God who could intervene any moment to stop all suffering, but chooses not to. A merciful god who lets two year old children drown in front of their mother's eyes in a tsunami, while allowing Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse Tung - who both murdered millions - to die of natural causes at a ripe old age?

Why does he do that? Why not just forgive us our sins? Why bother with the whole Jesus bollocks?

Aren't the observable facts far more readily explained by the non-existence of God?

You can spend forever arguing about minor linguistic points, but you can't change the fact that the bible contains only
a) Things which were known to laymen at the time, and
b) Baseless assertions which cannot be investigated, and which would be just as enduring if they were substituted for any other baseless assertions that could not be investigated.

In other words, again, the observable fact about the bible is that it is far more readily explained as a work of fiction than as the work of an omniscient being. There are no inconsistencies in the former position, but to believe the latter you have to abandon logic, and even abandon self-consistency.

[Godscreated]

Go read my first post to the OP.

GC

I did, and it was composed entirely of assertions. I assume this is your way of congratulating me on spotting that.

Those things you call assertions were in fact true answers, the OP was't able to dispute what I stated.

GC