Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amaleq13 · 03-18-2009, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

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

Except when he changed his mind from not creating the universe to doing so and when he changed his mind about how he felt regarding creating humans and when he changed his mind about killing all of them and when he changed his mind about destroying Nineveh? What utter crap.

Toto · 03-18-2009, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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...."

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?

"Lord" is ambiguous. When Christians read the Hebrew Scriptures, they assume that "Lord" refers to YWHW, whose name could not be profaned by being spoken, unless in context lord refers to some other person. Even in Paul's letters, Lord at times seems to refer to god and at times refers to Lord Jesus.

But all this avoids forcing IamJoseph to clarify what he meant by a passage in Genesis and explain how this relates to infinity.

Sheshbazzar · 03-18-2009, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

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

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.

If the name of The LORD changed to "JE'SOOCE", and this "Je'sooce" is the same LORD that created all things,(Gen 2:4, Isa 45:17-18, Jhn 1:3)
And is the "ROCK" of ages (Psa 18:2, 31:3, 89:26, 1 Cor 10:40)

-then The name of LORD, -"JE'HOVAH"- must -NOT- be infinite, or "everlasting"
even though Scripture says otherwise (Exodus 3:15, Mic 4:5),
because now The LORD's name has became changed to "Jee'sooce Kris'tos".

And as no one any longer knows how to pronounce "Je'hovah", His name which -was- to endure "forever", it is now "ineffable", "unpronounceable" and utterly "forgotten"; That the nations may NOT "call upon His Name", but now need substitute something like "Je'sooce Kris'tos" for the NAME of The LORD.

Therefore, seeing The LORD's "name" HAS changed from what it -was-, to a different name, one that certainly is NOT that ONE name appearing in the Torah, and in the Prophets, His promises of not changing are proven to have failed.

Julio · 03-18-2009, 11:02 AM

I liked this explanation, and agree that the old “LORD” [in the KJV] is now so old that we have to “interpret" it as not only “failed” but also DEAD!
Praise the Lord!

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

03-18-2009, 11:02 AM	#104
Julio Banned Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Johannesburg Posts: 5,187	I liked this explanation, and agree that the old “LORD” [in the KJV] is now so old that we have to “interpret" it as not only “failed” but also DEAD! Praise the Lord!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.