3 of 5
3
God is Not the Creator Name. That has been a lie going around for years.
Posted: 03 April 2007 02:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14

Since I have nothing much to do at this moment, I’ll go ahead and look through that web page one section at a time.  So, let’s see what the first section has to say:

Almost every person in every nation in this world today worships God. Every person in these God-fearing nations is looking in himself or herself to find salvation, but they will not find salvation in themselves.

That’s an insupportable generalisation.

There are many, however, out of these God-fearing nations, who are searching the Holy Scriptures in order to find the way to eternal life for the worshipers. But, if there are three different men teaching three different doctrines, it is simple to see that all three could be wrong, but all three could not be right.

No, actually all three can be right.  Let’s take something a little more simple as an example:  salt.  One person can be describing its culinary uses and properties: its flavour, its use as a preservative, et cetera.  Another person can be describing its chemical properties:  its solubility in water, its crystalline form, and so on.  And a third person can be talking about its effects upon our health:  how it’s needed for in nerve cells, how it can cause high blood pressure, and all that.  Three different teachings about the same thing.  Does that mean that at least one has to be wrong?

Every one of the people in the Christian denominations claims to follow the Holy Scriptures. They worship God, they say, because that is in the Bible. However, the same Holy Scriptures they claim to follow are the same Holy Scriptures that say the whole world is deceived.
Revelation 12:9

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 April 2007 02:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  11903
Joined  2006-12-02

and that is precisely why I don’t go to those sorts of websites when I have PMS and am prone to headaches…

 Signature 

There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 April 2007 02:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14

Now, the second section:

In the beginning, Yahweh made a covenant between Himself and those whom He called out to be His own. The Holy Scriptures tell us

You mean the Holy Scriptures that you just finished telling us were corrupted and deceiving?

Yahweh, most assuredly, warned His people what would befall them if they ever turned from Him in order to serve GODS and LORDS, saying in:

Deuteronomy 30:17-20__ 17 But if your heart turns away, and you are not obedient, and you are drawn away to bow down and worship gods (elohim), and serve them; 18 I declare to you this day that you will surely perish; you will not prolong your days in the land which you cross over the Yardan to possess. 19 I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Because you are free agents to make your own choice between righteousness and evil-therefore choose life, so both you and your children may live; 20 So you may love Yahweh your Father, by listening to Him, and then obeying Him. Hold fast to Him, for He is your life. He will also give you many years in the land He vowed to give to your fathers; to Abraham, Isaac, and Yaaqob.

He warned them against worshipping other gods, yes.  Not against worshipping one god, though, as long as it was Him.  And He didn’t warn against worshipping “gods” or “lords”, since those two words didn’t even exist in 2,000 BC or whenever this all happened.

Again and again, Yahweh WARNED His people against the worship of GODS; warning them that IF they did such things, punishment would come.

Against gods other than Him.

It is a Scriptural FACT

In spite of the FACT that you proclaimed earlier, that the Scripture is corrupted?

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 April 2007 03:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14

Third section.  Sorry about all the “ref1” and “ref2” stuff; he decided to scan pages and include them on his website as images, rather than as text.  So that’s how they ended up here.

In II Kings 17:16, we read that the people worshiped all the Host of Heaven, and they worshiped Baal. We know that the host of heaven was being worshiped during the time of the kings of Israyl, for the Scriptures say that they were. The word translated HOST in this Scripture is word #6635 in Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary; the word Tse-ba’ah, which means: mass of persons, company, army.
Then in Isayah 65:11, KJV, we find the word troop mentioned.

Do you really think that the original Hebrew version of Isaiah said the actual English word “troop” in it?

The center reference of The King James Version will show you what the word troop means:
***ref1***

The word troop means: gad, which is a euphemism for God, as Webster’s Deluxe Unabridged Dictionary, Second Edition, page 746, indicates:
***ref2***

“Gad” can mean many different things, as it’s been used as a label for all sorts of varied concepts.  “Gad” was one of the Tribes of Israel, if I recall correctly, as well as the names of various individuals.  In the case of Isaiah, though, it has a clear meaning.  Isaiah was describing the Hebrews backsliding and worshipping the local gods.  One of those gods was actually named Gad.  If you look at the Hebrew scriptures, you’d see that.  You looked at the Hebrew text earlier on, when looking up “host” in II Kings; why did you conveniently ignore the Hebrew text in this case and instead try pretending that the English word “gad” was what the Hebrews has used?

The host of heaven that Yahweh condemned our fathers for turning to was GAD, or the English equivalent, GOD.

You’re mixing up II Kings with Isaiah here.  II Kings was about the host of heaven.  Isaiah was about Gad.  Gad was not the host of heaven.

Nor does English “God” come from “Gad”.  Using Webster’s Deluxe Unabridged Dictionary, which you yourself appear to consider a proper and reliable source, “God” comes from the early Germanic languages, which are part of the Indo-European language family.  The Semitic word used in Isaiah, however, comes from a completely different language group.  They are not related.  “Gad” does not equal “God”.

I realize that many will ask, “Isn’t the word GOD a name for the Creator?” Or they will ask, “Isn’t the LORD a holy name?” The Scriptural answer to these questions is a definite NO!

Of course they’re not, since they’re titles, not names.  Nor would “God” and “Lord” have been used in the original scriptures, as has already been mentioned.  The Hebrew texts would have used something else, such as as the form of “elohim” (such as you had in your earlier quotations from Deuteronomy) that the Hebrew texts have in Genesis.

If you have a reliable Bible dictionary, you can research these words for yourself. If you do not, you may go to your nearest library where these Bible helps are available, and you will find the FOLLOWING in Unger’s Bible Dictionary, Merrill F. Unger, Moody Press, Chicago, IL, under the word Baal on page 413, which says:
***ref3***

That doesn’t say much of anything about what you were talking about.  It does, however, say that the Hebrews were “bound to serve a holy God”.  This source, then, finds “God” to be a perfectly acceptable title for Christians to use.

As we have just read: The Name of the Creator is Yahweh, and should have been retained in that form in The Holy Scriptures. The words Lord and God are NOT RIGHTEOUS titles and are NOT to be used as titles of Yahweh, since they ARE the very titles for BAAL, the host of heaven, or troop.

No, we have not just read all that.  And while “lord” and “god” are terms that are used to refer to Baal, they do not mean Baal.  They are, as you have said, just titles.  Just like “vice president” or “chief executive”.  They are descriptive titles, not absolutes.

And he’s still basing all of his argument off of Scripture, which he has proclaimed to be deceptive.

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 April 2007 03:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7525
Joined  2005-04-23

I am alone in a small cell
there is nothing in the cell except for myself and the book
There is nothing outside of my cell
How do I know?
because the book tells me.
How do I know the book is the truth?
Because the book tells me!


(this is pinched from something I read about 20 years ago
wish I could remember what)

 Signature 

Smerk the cutest dragon
Lived by the sea
And frolicked in the autumn mist
In Western Australi

Little Accipiter loved that girl enough
He told her jokes and crazy facts
And other forum stuff

Smerk the cutest dragon:
Traveled cross the sea,
To hunt her prey in foriegn lands,
And snuggle with Acci!

Smerk the cutest dragon
Is getting married now they say
Though little Accipiter
Has yet to name the day.

http://www.veshearman.com/

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 April 2007 03:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15276
Joined  2006-01-17
MadCarlotta - 03 April 2007 03:54 PM
David B. - 03 April 2007 03:12 PM
Charybdis - 03 April 2007 02:57 PM

Just call him Joyce and have done with it.

James, or Grenfell?

Charybdis - 03 April 2007 03:15 PM

DeWitt, you fool.

Heh. I immediately thought “James Joyce” smile

And I thought Joyce Grenfell - ‘George, don’t do that…’ smile

 Signature 

Research Mod

“We are wise to avoid association with those who hide their identity in Internet chat rooms.”
                                                                  - The Watchtower

The platypus is mother nature’s way of saying, “I made this thing out of spare parts I found on the workshop floor, and it can still ****ing cripple you.”

Sylvia Browne

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 April 2007 03:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14

The next section of that website:

Most of you know that after King Solomon’s death, his kingdom was divided: Ten Tribes were allotted to Yeroboam, son of Nebat, which was the NORTHERN KINGDOM, for there is great significance to this FACT, which will be discussed shortly. The TWO remaining TribesSOUTHERN KINGDOM called Yahdah (Judah) under Rehoboam, the son of Solomon. then formed the
At first these two kingdoms were at war, but later in the history we find they had become allies—through marriage. In I Kings 22:2 we find the kings of the two kingdoms discussing waging war against the Arameans. Yahshaphat of Yahdah, however, asked to first inquire of Yahweh about this joint venture. We read in I Kings 22:4-7, KJV—
***ref6***

What this deceived world does not see (because of this English translation) is the fact that the prophets of Ahab (Israyl) first inquired of ADONAI (LORD), NOT YAHWEH, at which point Yahshaphat (Yahdah) then asked if there still remained a prophet of YAHWEH there. The NIV Interlinear Hebrew-English Old Testament, John R. Kohlenberger III, Zondervan Publishing, Grand Rapids, MI, 49506, Volume 2, page 418, gives us the word for word Hebrew translation of I Kings 22:5-7, which shows us the difference between the word written as Lord (Adonai) and as Lord (Yahweh) in The King James Version:
***ref7***

Here you’re presupposing a difference between Yahweh and adonai.  The Hebrews used “adonai” and “Yahweh” interchangeably, as people in England will refer to “the Queen” or “Elizabeth II”.  In fact, you’ll even see “adonai” and “Yahweh” combined together, as in “the Lord Yahweh”.

Further, the single prophet who is questioned after the four-hundred is described as another prophet of God.  Meaning that the others also were.

What this also proves is the fact that the Lord was being worshiped in the Northern Kingdom while Yahweh was still being worshiped in the Southern Kingdom! As Unger’s Bible Dictionary on page 665 has previously informed us, Adonai is NOT properly a title for Yahweh!

No it doesn’t.  The selection that you provided from page 665 of Unger’s Bible Dictionary said nothing of the kind.  It says, “Adonai, emphatic, the Lord; and by many considered the plural of [lord].  It is used chiefly in the Pentateuch; always where God is submissively and reverently addressed (Exod. 4:10, 13; Josh. 7:8); also when God is spoken of (I Kings 13.9; 22:6; etc.).  The Jews, out of a superstitious reverence for the name Jehovah, always, in reading, pronounce Adonai where Jehovah is written.  The Similar form, with the suffix, is also used of men, as of Potiphar (Gen. 39:2, sq.; A.V. “master”), and of Joseph (42:30, 33).

So the source that you cite actually shows that “adonai” and “Yahweh” are the same.  It also uses the term “God” to refer to Yahweh, you’ll notice.

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 April 2007 04:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1624
Joined  2006-05-20

If A=1, B=2, etc, the value of “NIGEL” is 47.  The pentagram is the symbol of the devil—so 5 represents evil.

Therefore Nigel minus evil is. . . . 42!

Now in Aramaic. . . .

 Signature 

The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.

  —Terry Pratchett, Hogfather

[color=green]“That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 April 2007 07:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5153
Joined  2005-01-11
JoeDaJuggler - 03 April 2007 08:34 PM

If A=1, B=2, etc, the value of “NIGEL” is 47.  The pentagram is the symbol of the devil—so 5 represents evil.

Therefore Nigel minus evil is. . . . 42!

Now in Aramaic. . . .


eek. This reminds me of some calculation someone showed me once that “proved” beyond a doubt that girls were the root of all evil.

Ah, here it is
http://www.math.psu.edu/matsnev/personal/humor/girls.pdf

(sorry its not made into a word instead of just a plain ole link, I always forget how to do that… even though its on the forum manual. Heigh ho.

 Signature 

If you can’t handle someone at their worst,

You don’t deserve them at their best.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 April 2007 07:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  8164
Joined  2005-02-06

Thundy, I believe we even had a post on that in the old forum….

 Signature 

———
The Kruger-Dunning effect is rampant on internet fora.
J. Kruger & D. Dunning (1999), Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. J Pers Soc Psychol. 77, 1121-1134

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 April 2007 07:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1624
Joined  2006-05-20

No, Thunder, I’m quite certain that they located the evil gene on the Y chromosome.

 Signature 

The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.

  —Terry Pratchett, Hogfather

[color=green]“That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way.”

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 5
3