IamJoseph

If its not enshrined in a law book - its not a crime. Period.

IamJoseph

Better, its nonsense to talk about anything in this finite universe in a pre-universe premise.


There is nothing new in species than kind, aside from cross-speciation. The protocols of species is only correctly listed in Genesis, which caters to sub-atomic particles [dust], transit life forms, and much more. ToE omits the pre-actions which anticipate and cater to life: the critical seperation factors [light from darkness, water from land, day from night, etc] - as if these do not impact, or that species are possible without these precedents - you think!

This is only correct if they breed that way in our midst. Else the close relationship is not that impacting. Species do not follow biological traits per se - they follow the program embedded in their host seed - you can prove this by seed manipulation - and the same cannot be said of creating birds from bats via any other means.


Genesis is correct: the 'sameness' in kind applies to their both haboring air borne attributes - a far more distinct 'sameness' than any other biological attribute. The bio sameness is manifold, and shared by a manifold set of other life forms - this is not where the unique sameness lies! Genesis is also correct about setting apart a speech endowed life form as a different kind [species] from all others: the single most unique factor among all the trillions of life forms is speech - not the skeletal or dna imprints - and this is in total variance of any biological similarities.

Imagine you are given a 101 'spot the stand out difference' exam - if you choose anything variant from the Genesis pointers you must fail! The bat and the bird are the same kind because they both fly - not because both have necks or dna.




No - your reading is incorrect. Slave in the Hebrew bible constitutes contracted worker and terms of commerce: wages in due time [slaves dont get paid]; 1 day of rest per week with pay; retirement moneys; health insurence if accidents at work occurs; limited time periods of any contract and free to leave; etc. These overturned all the laws of Egypt and every other ancient nation. Check this out - you missed it:

'YOU SHALL LOVE THE STRANGER AND NOT FOOL THE STRANGER - FOR YOU WERE ONCE STRANGERS IN EGYPT AND YOU KNOW HOW THAT WAS' [Hebrew Bible]


Take a club med for ancient Egypt or brutal Rome instead. A one way ticket is cheaper too.

IamJoseph

Define 'FINITE' and 'INFINITE' - in absolute terms. I found the correct definitions for both of these only in Genesis.

Toto

Exactly what definitions did you find in which verse???

IamJoseph

Consider the verse: 'I AM THE LORD I HAVE NOT CHANGED'.

Its textual context is also applicable to infinity, however consider its application viability. IMHO, 'change' [being subject to changeability] is the singular, pivotal factor which differentiates between finite and infinite. This may not be a description via science equations and numbers - but it stands nonetheless.

Whatever changes something - is transcendent of what it changes. Whatever is subject to change - cannot be infinite. Contrastingly, only that which can withstand all changes is infinite. There is nothing in the universe which can withstand change. Any other reading of that verse makes it superfluous - a violation. The Hebrew bible is deceptively simple, and a stumbling block for the uninitated.

Julio

Consider please this other scriptural “imponderable”, and try to apply to it your train of thought to see if you can come up with an acceptable explanation/interpretation.
What happened to the TWO THOUSAND demons cast from the two demon-possessed, which upon possessing the swine drowned them in the sea?
Since demons don’t drown, what happened to them?
Matthew 8, Mark 5, Luke 8.

Toto

I considered it, and I googled it. It's not in Genesis. It's close to Malachi 3:6

"I the LORD do not change. So you, O descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed. 7 Ever since the time of your forefathers you have turned away from my decrees and have not kept them. Return to me, and I will return to you," says the LORD Almighty.

Stop rambling. You are just finding what you want to in the Bible, whether it is there or not.

avi

the Hebrew version indicates "Yhwh", while the Greek Septuagint states "kyrios", Lord. Are we then to understand, that Yahweh is synonymous with the English word "Lord", I thought Yahweh meant "GOD". Are these two words, God, and Lord, wholly interchangeable? For whatever reason, I always imagined that "Lord" referred to Jesus, and "God" to his father. Is this a simple case of my ignorance, or, is there also confusion in the texts themselves? When Christians read "Lord" in the old testament, for example in this extract from Malachi 3:6, do they think of Jesus, or his father? Does the appearance of "Lord" suggest that already at the time of Septuagint, ~200 BCE, the notion of Jesus, i.e. God's son, "kyrios", was already extant?

IamJoseph

There is no father in christianity - this is just a cursory after thought when heavily reminded and nudged. The father is duly fullfilled away. :huh:

Julio

Jehovah, in the KJV, is translated LORD [capitals].
In the NT there is no word Jehovah in the lips of Jesus or the apostles.
Yet, the NWT of the Russellites [JWs] worked out a system where references to Jehovah from the OT in the NT had to be put as Jehovah! See Matthew 4:4 and so on.
There are many such cases until the end of their translation [a nice book for target practice!].
A very cynical way to bring that tribal idol of Moses into the NT text.