Freethought & Rationalism Archive

thentian · 07-15-2008, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DLH

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reason

Genesis 6:6 - And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth

1 Samuel 15:29 - Also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind.

Jeremiah 26:13 - Now therefore amend your ways and your deeds and obey the voice of the LORD your God; and the LORD will change His mind about the misfortune which He has pronounced against you.

Malachi 3:6 - For I, the LORD, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.

The Hebrew word nacham in each of the verses you gave don't really mean change in the way that you are seeming to imply. Nacham is more accurately translated as feel regret or repent. So at Genesis 6:6 it isn't that God had changed his mind it is that his creation changed. If there were two friends and one of them became something bad other than what he had been the other friend would not be changing him or herself for disliking that person. It would be a change of position within the relationship but not a personal change in the second person.

It is interesting that at Ezekiel 33:11 God says that he doesn't take delight in the death of the wicked so his mind didn't change his position did.

Arguably: to begin to feel regret or to begin to repent still means a change in attitude.

This could be the start of a discussion about God´s immutability (and maybe timelessness), which possibly deserves a topic of it´s own.

07-15-2008, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thentian

Nice, but not really answering the question. I know well that the different genealogies have been discussed through the centuries, and that some explanations are somewhat plausible. However, tracing Jesus´ line through Mary doesn´t really answer the simple question of who was Joseph´s father? Unless your claim is that the writer didn´t "really" mean Joseph, but Mary.

You didn't read all of the post, did you? Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli. They generally didn't use the mother as a genealogical link, so Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli through the marriage of Mary. Heli was Mary's father.

dr lazer blast · 07-15-2008, 01:33 PM

thenetian, unless you can provide a scripture where it has God saying "I do not change my mind" then it isn't a contradiction.

Quote:

Arguably: to begin to feel regret or to begin to repent still means a change in attitude.

so this has no bearing whatsoever if you can't provide a scripture that contradicts it.

07-15-2008, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thentian

Can you give us a timeline of these events, please? Starting at the time Jesus is taken from the cross, perhaps?

Why does everone ask me that? You mean like a Dan Barker's Easter Challenge? I don't actually see the point in doing that. What would the point be?

First of all Jesus didn't die on a cross, it was a simple single upright post. A Hebrew torture stake.

07-15-2008, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Ex

How did Judas die?

Matt. 27:5
And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

Acts 1:18
Now this man [Judas] purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

It appears that Matthew gives an account that Judas attempted to hang himself but Luke in his account at Acts gives the result, so if you mix the two Judas hung himself from a limb, which broke and fell over the cliff below gashing him open and spilling his guts out.

It is interesting that the purchase of the field is often questioned. Matthew 27:6-7 says that the priests couldn't put the money in the sacred treasury and so bought the field with Judas' money while Acts 1:18-19 says The man himself purchased the field as reward of iniquity. Meaning simply that the priests used his money for the field.

thentian · 07-15-2008, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DLH

Quote:

Originally Posted by thentian

Nice, but not really answering the question. I know well that the different genealogies have been discussed through the centuries, and that some explanations are somewhat plausible. However, tracing Jesus´ line through Mary doesn´t really answer the simple question of who was Joseph´s father? Unless your claim is that the writer didn´t "really" mean Joseph, but Mary.

You didn't read all of the post, did you? Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli. They generally didn't use the mother as a genealogical link, so Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli through the marriage of Mary. Heli was Mary's father.

It's more like I didn't read it carefully enough. I say that part is a wee bit convoluted.

But, yes, I understand what you mean now: When Luke wrote "son of Heli", he really meant "stepson of Heli". I guess he didn't have time to clarify trifling little details like that.

thentian · 07-15-2008, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DLH

Quote:

Originally Posted by thentian

Can you give us a timeline of these events, please? Starting at the time Jesus is taken from the cross, perhaps?

Why does everone ask me that? You mean like a Dan Barker's Easter Challenge? I don't actually see the point in doing that. What would the point be?

First of all Jesus didn't die on a cross, it was a simple single upright post. A Hebrew torture stake.

Heck, no; nothing as complicated as that! More like:

1) Women watch how J is buried
2) Women prepare spices
3) Women rests on sabbath
4) Women buy more spices

The above is about how I read it, but with dlb's extra shopping trip added in.

thentian · 07-15-2008, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr lazer blast

thenetian, unless you can provide a scripture where it has God saying "I do not change my mind" then it isn't a contradiction.

Quote:

Arguably: to begin to feel regret or to begin to repent still means a change in attitude.

so this has no bearing whatsoever if you can't provide a scripture that contradicts it.

I understand your position perfectly, dlb! When God says: (Malachi 3:6) "I the LORD do not change", then of course it must not be taken to mean that God does not change in any way at all! No, no! It simply means that he doesn't change in some as of yet unspecified meaning. He could still change in a lot of ways that isn't covered by the way he does not change (whatever that is).

Reason · 07-15-2008, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DLH

By the way, Reason, its God not gawd and Bible not babble.

The title "God" implies reverence, respect, and the notion that a god exists. Since I do not believe a god exists, I do not give such primitive notions validity by using said title, so it is "gawd."

The book of celestial bullshit consists of the incoherent babbling of Bronze Age goat herders and camel drivers. Hence, it is the "babble." (And FWIW, the Koine Greek biblios from which "bible" derives simply means "book.")

See how that works? :Cheeky:

Reason · 07-15-2008, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DLH

Quote:

Originally Posted by reason

Perhaps a discussion of contradictions alone would suffice? e.g.: gawd is unchangeable, yet he changes his behavior, his mind, his method of interacting with humans, etc. throughout the babble--in the latter case, most notably between the OT and NT.

It is important to point this out because the Bible - from Genesis to Revelation is in complete harmony.

Bullshit. It is full of contradictions from Genesis to Revelation as well as within each of the 66 books.

Quote:

Now. Where did you get the idea that God is unchangeable, meaning he can't change his mind, behavior and the way he interacts with people?

Ah, maybe from such babblical gems as, "I am the LORD, I change not."

Besides, a gawd that changes cannot be gawd, for to be gawd it would have to be perfect, eternal (even in retrospect), and unchangeable. So, if babblegawd is changable, it ain't a real gawd.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.