Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

David Bokovoy

The Biblical God as Literal Father

Recommended Posts

Sure, it is, as God is timeless (that's what the phrase means, it's not literal).

Tell me this, why would He create it this way, and then not have it work the way He created?

IOW, why create something just to have to suspend that creation to do something you wanted to do in the first place?

That just doesn't make sense.

It also doesn't make sense to me to see an idiot savant telling people actually educated in these ancient languages and cultures what exactly their writers were trying to say. You assume that the Genesis account means six literal days. How, praytell, does a tree sprout and start bearing fruit in a 24 hour period? Why do you insist it means a 24 hour period when the Hebrew means an indeterminate period of time? Why do you take a temple text literally?

Share this post


Link to post

So your a priori conclusion is supposed to weigh heavier on our consciences than our years of actual experiences?

And what exactly are those experiences? That you have a "feeling" in your heart that it's true? You have a testimony? That your "prophet" told you it's true?

Like I wrote, Mohammed's "God" told him to write a book in which Jews are pigs and should be slaughtered.

L. Ron Hubbard wrote Dianetics, and started Scientology.

Jim Jones had the People's Temple.

David Koresh had the Branch Davidians.

Heaven's Gate thought they were going to meet a spacecraft behind a comet.

I'm sure they all "felt" they were right too, and were guided by leaders, or prophets, if you will, who told them "the way".

What weight should their "actual experiences" have on the truth?

It also doesn't make sense to me to see an idiot savant telling people actually educated in these ancient languages and cultures what exactly their writers were trying to say. You assume that the Genesis account means six literal days. How, praytell, does a tree sprout and start bearing fruit in a 24 hour period? Why do you insist it means a 24 hour period when the Hebrew means an indeterminate period of time? Why do you take a temple text literally?

I don't.

I was responding to someone who, it appeared to me, was trying to make the case for a 7000 year old earth.

Share this post


Link to post

Or do you really believe the earth is only 6,000 years old?

Just in case you don't know, most Mormons do not believe in a 6000 year old Earth

Share this post


Link to post

We don't get out of our body to worship him.

Check your lexicon "sprit" has different meanings:

Yet you claim only one possible meaning for "God is Spirit"

What is your point ... "God is Spirit" or "God is a Spirit"

If you can't see an obvious difference between those 2 statements, there is no sense continuing this conversation. Your addition of the word "a" changes the entire meaning - to something you can stomach.

Share this post


Link to post

And what exactly are those experiences? That you have a "feeling" in your heart that it's true? You have a testimony? That your "prophet" told you it's true?

Like I wrote, Mohammed's "God" told him to write a book in which Jews are pigs and should be slaughtered.

L. Ron Hubbard wrote Dianetics, and started Scientology.

Jim Jones had the People's Temple.

David Koresh had the Branch Davidians.

Heaven's Gate thought they were going to meet a spacecraft behind a comet.

I'm sure they all "felt" they were right too, and were guided by leaders, or prophets, if you will, who told them "the way".

What weight should their "actual experiences" have on the truth?

So you judge my experiences (without having a clue what they are) based on the assumed experiences (that you also have no clue about) of psychos? What kind of methodology is that?

I don't.

I was responding to someone who, it appeared to me, was trying to make the case for a 7000 year old earth.

Understood.

Share this post


Link to post

maklelan,

Jeremiah 23

[24] Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD.

How many mother's did Adam and Eve have if they were formed?

This passage does not say what God fills everywhere with. Most likely his power and knowledge. We know this by looking at the word "fill". It is translated from the Hebrew word male' {maw-lay'} or mala' (Esth. 7:5) {maw-law'} Some other examples include the following.

Jeremiah 19:4 "Because they have forsaken me, and have estranged this place, and have burned incense in it unto other gods, whom neither they nor their fathers have known, nor the kings of Judah, and have filled [male'] this place with the blood of innocents."

Was the place filled completely with the blood of the innocent just as God fills heaven and earth. If so, were did all the blood go?

Jeremiah 33:5 "They come to fight with the Chaldeans, but [it is] to fill [male'] them with the dead bodies of men, whom I have slain in mine anger and in my fury, and for all whose wickedness I have hid my face from this city."

Jeremiah 41:9 "Now the pit wherein Ishmael had cast all the dead bodies of the men, whom he had slain because of Gedaliah, [was] it which Asa the king had made for fear of Baasha king of Israel: [and] Ishmael the son of Nethaniah filled [male'] it with [them that were] slain."

These two examples would require a lot of dead people be be like Jer 23:24 in its used of fill. There would have to be a process that smashed the bodies together so that no air would be present between the bodies so that the bodies would fill (be physically onmipresent) in the land.

Jeremiah 46:12 "The nations have heard of thy shame, and thy cry hath filled [male'] the land: for the mighty man hath stumbled against the mighty, [and] they are fallen both together."

If filled here means physically omnipresent like God fills heaven and earth, then that must have been the loudest audible sound that any living thing has ever occurred. Even then, that would not make it omnipresent as sound moves in waves. So the sound would not be present at every point in the land at the same time.

Genesis 1:22 "And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill [male'] the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth."

God commanded the fishes and other marine life to fill ("male' ") the waters of the seas. Do fish occupy every cubit inch of all the waters in the oceans?

1 King 20:27 "And the children of Israel were numbered, and were all present, and went against them: and the children of Israel pitched before them like two little flocks of kids; but the Syrians filled [male'] the country."

Did the syrians fill every inch of the land?

The fact that the passage you cite says the Lord fills heaven and earth does not literally mean God fills both heaven and earth as from these other examples show. It can be said to be a figure of speech and need not be taken literal.

Share this post


Link to post

Sure, it is, as God is timeless (that's what the phrase means, it's not literal).

Tell me this, why would He create it this way, and then not have it work the way He created?

IOW, why create something just to have to suspend that creation to do something you wanted to do in the first place?

That just doesn't make sense.

free will, for his creations, we make it what it is, we limit ourselves through unbelief and the litany of negatives called sins.

Lust , greed, selfishness, idolatry, jealousy, gluttony, murder, laciviouness etc. etc. etc.

Share this post


Link to post

Hello David,

This reminds me of widespread bull worship in the ancient near east. If I remember correctly, Ugaritic texts associate the bull with El, symbolizing strength and fertility.

Israelâ??s association with bull worship can be seen when king Jeroboam made two calves of gold to be given to the new sanctuaries at Dan and Bethel saying â?? behold your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt" (1Kings12:28-30).

Perhaps they picked this up from Egypt where bull worship of Apis might have influenced them to make the golden calf after leaving Egypt, worshipping it as their God who â??brought thee up out of the land of Egyptâ? (Ex32: 8 )

Speaking of Egypt, this also reminds me of the Hypocephalus, or facsimile No.2, in the book of Abraham.

Figure 7 â??God sitting upon his throneâ?, published (depending on the edition) with or without the phallus, is a clear statement of Godâ??s sexual potency as he sits near the bull (figure5).

It seems that saying God was simply sexual to the ancient near east might be an understatement, and super potency might be more the case?

Share this post


Link to post

ozemc has plainly never read the Koran. Mohammed was never "told" by his God to kill Jews (because they were pigs or for any other reason). The Koran treats the Jews (and Christians) quite favorably, as Children of the Book.

He has also plainly never read the Bible, to assert that God could not be any more like us than an amoeba.

I was once discussing religion at my workplace because I had just purchased a modern English Bible during lunch hour, and people gathered round to look at it. Asked about Mormonism, I said that LDS were some of the most primitive religionists of all (or as someone on this thread so quaintly put it, "barbaric"), because we believe in an anthropomorphic God. I explained that the Israelites believed it too, and only later became more sophisticated, turning Him into an invisible God (like the God that Johnny loves so much).

For proof, I turned to the end of Deuteronomy (remember, I had never read this particular edition of the Bible before), which states in 34:10 There has never yet risen in Israel a prophet like Moses, whom the Lord knew FACE TO FACE.

The footnote here ran as follows: "While on the surface the meaning is that Moses was able to see the Invisible Deity, it is likely that this is not the intent; the intent rather is to speak of the unique stature of Moses (so far, so conventional, but read on to the end of the footnote!). The thought that a Moses could see the Deity IS A RELIC OF EARLY TIMES, before the view matured that the Deity is invisible."

This elicited oohs and ahhs from the gallery. :P

Btw, ozemc, just so you know where I am coming from, I have no difficulty accepting a 5-billion-year-old Earth and evolution for the life that appeared there. I see no conflict between that, and a God who is a Man who is my literal Father in Heaven.

Beowulf

Share this post


Link to post

The thought that a Moses could see the Deity IS A RELIC OF EARLY TIMES, before the view matured that the Deity is invisible."

I love it. It's a first hand account but over three thousand years later we laugh at how their first hand account was too early and barbaric to actually get it right. What a joke. And yet, we have people fighting tooth and nail to push the same agenda.

Share this post


Link to post

freakin a man,

The fact that the passage you cite says the Lord fills heaven and earth does not literally mean God fills both heaven and earth as from these other examples show. It can be said to be a figure of speech and need not be taken literal.

In Eph 4:6 do you take the words "through all" as figure of speech ... if so could you explain?

Also, in Eph 4:6 what does it mean "Father of all" ... who or what is "all"?

Eph 4

[6] One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Share this post


Link to post

So you judge my experiences (without having a clue what they are) based on the assumed experiences (that you also have no clue about) of psychos? What kind of methodology is that?

Understood.

It doesn't matter. Any sort of experiences of God are, by design, based on feelings and emotion.

And what I'm pointing out by using the "psychos" (your term, but OK), is that everyone of those people had what they determined was real, awe-inspiring and full of "God" just like anyone who has claimed to "know" what God thinks, or what He wants them to do. If that wasn't their experience with it, then they wouldn't have done what they did.

How are those experiences any less valid than yours?

Share this post


Link to post

Just in case you don't know, most Mormons do not believe in a 6000 year old Earth

I would hope not. That's a good thing.

Of course, that does bring up another question: Do you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible? (I know, as long as it's tranlsated correctly, whatever that means).

Share this post


Link to post

mnn727,

Yet you claim only one possible meaning for "God is Spirit"

In John 4:24 I use defination #3 in the lexicon (see below):

John.4

[24] God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

3 ) a spirit, i.e. a simple essence, devoid of all or at least all grosser matter, and possessed of the power of knowing, desiring, deciding, and acting

My usage is consistent with the early Christians (see below)

"What is God? â??God,â?? as the Lord says, â??is a spirit.â?? Now spirit is properly substance, incorporeal, and uncircumscribed. And that is incorporeal which does not consist of a body, or whose existence is not according to breadth, length, and depth. And that is uncircumscribed which has no place, which is wholly in all, and in each entire, and the same in itself" (ibid.). ... "No one can rightly express him wholly. For on account of his greatness he is ranked as the All, and is the Father of the universe. Nor are any parts to be predicated of him. For the One is indivisible; wherefore also it is infinite, not considered with reference to inscrutability, but with reference to its being without dimensions, and not having a limit. And therefore it is without form" (Clement of Alexandria: Miscellanies 5:12 [A.D. 208]).

> What is your point ... "God is Spirit" or "God is a Spirit"

If you can't see an obvious difference between those 2 statements, there is no sense continuing this conversation. Your addition of the word "a" changes the entire meaning - to something you can stomach.

There is no difference between saying "God is Spirit" or "God is a Spirit", neither wording reveals that their is a body associated with Spirit.

Share this post


Link to post

free will, for his creations, we make it what it is, we limit ourselves through unbelief and the litany of negatives called sins.

Lust , greed, selfishness, idolatry, jealousy, gluttony, murder, laciviouness etc. etc. etc.

I was refering to the idea that God makes creation to act a certain way, i.e. in regards to the 7 day creation.

Another poster did indicate that most mormons do not believe in a 6000 (or 7000) year old earth.

Share this post


Link to post

ozemc has plainly never read the Koran. Mohammed was never "told" by his God to kill Jews (because they were pigs or for any other reason). The Koran treats the Jews (and Christians) quite favorably, as Children of the Book.

Well, not exactly. Please read Suras 2, 5, and 7. Sorry, but Islam is a death cult masquerading as a religion.

He has also plainly never read the Bible, to assert that God could not be any more like us than an amoeba.

As I have stated, I do not believe many parts of the Bible. I have read it and know what it says about God. Of course it's going to be written with God being like man. It was written by men, for men, thousands of years ago.

People also once believed the world was flat, and you could fall off the edge. (Some still do, unfortunately).

I think we can safely say that now, in 2006, we know that not to be the case.

All I can say is ... look to the stars. Do you really believe that a God that can create all that is going to be like us?

I was once discussing religion at my workplace because I had just purchased a modern English Bible during lunch hour, and people gathered round to look at it. Asked about Mormonism, I said that LDS were some of the most primitive religionists of all (or as someone on this thread so quaintly put it, "barbaric"), because we believe in an anthropomorphic God. I explained that the Israelites believed it too, and only later became more sophisticated, turning Him into an invisible God (like the God that Johnny loves so much).

For proof, I turned to the end of Deuteronomy (remember, I had never read this particular edition of the Bible before), which states in 34:10 There has never yet risen in Israel a prophet like Moses, whom the Lord knew FACE TO FACE.

The footnote here ran as follows: "While on the surface the meaning is that Moses was able to see the Invisible Deity, it is likely that this is not the intent; the intent rather is to speak of the unique stature of Moses (so far, so conventional, but read on to the end of the footnote!). The thought that a Moses could see the Deity IS A RELIC OF EARLY TIMES, before the view matured that the Deity is invisible."

This elicited oohs and ahhs from the gallery. :P

And, of course, Deuteronomy was written (supposedly) by .... Moses. So, we have a scripture saying this wonderful man knew the Lord face to face, because he was such a great prophet, written by himself. Sounds rather self-aggrandizing to me.

Btw, ozemc, just so you know where I am coming from, I have no difficulty accepting a 5-billion-year-old Earth and evolution for the life that appeared there. I see no conflict between that, and a God who is a Man who is my literal Father in Heaven.

Beowulf

There's a phrase for that. It's called cognitive dissonance.

Share this post


Link to post

I love it. It's a first hand account but over three thousand years later we laugh at how their first hand account was too early and barbaric to actually get it right. What a joke. And yet, we have people fighting tooth and nail to push the same agenda.

You know what I think is funny about all that?

Deuteronomy was written by Moses. At least that's the prevailing thought.

So, he wrote about how he saw God, and what a great guy he was, and we accept it as holy scripture because he said so?

Sorry to keep beating a dead horse, but didn't David Koresh say he was the messiah?

Share this post


Link to post

All I can say is ... look to the stars. Do you really believe that a God that can create all that is going to be like us?

Why not? we are but embryo's in godhood.

"As man is, God once was, as God is, man may become"

There is no difference between saying "God is Spirit" or "God is a Spirit", neither wording reveals that their is a body associated with Spirit.

I always love talking with someone that does not understand the English language and its grammar -- not!

Share this post


Link to post

mnn727,

I always love talking with someone that does not understand the English language and its grammar -- not!

Since it appears you have a grasp on the English language and its grammer then please explain to me how "God is Spirit" reveals that God has a body and a Spirit.

For me in the English language, saying "man is human" is the same as saying "man is a human".

Share this post


Link to post

johnny, is English not your native language? In English the same word can be a noun, an adjective even a verb. When you say "man is human" the word human is an adjective. It means that man has qualities which we have defined as human. When you "man is A human" you are using the word as a noun. A man is a human. That isn't the same thing.

Words do mean something, and when we want to discuss, we need to use words precisely.

Share this post


Link to post

charity,

That isn't the same thing.

Either way ... it reveals man is human ... either way it does not reveal man is part human and part something else like rabbit.

Words do mean something, and when we want to discuss, we need to use words precisely.

I agree that is why we must look at other scripture, for example Eph 4:6 reveals God is incorporeal.

Eph 4

[6] One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Share this post


Link to post

johnny, since words can be used imprecisely as the thread has shown, you must be sure you use ALL the words, not just a few that you have picked out.

Since you want to be very literal that God is a spirit, then please explain how your literal mind thinks that "created in the image of God" means something less literal than body, parts, and passions?

Share this post


Link to post

charity,

Since you want to be very literal that God is a spirit, then please explain how your literal mind thinks that "created in the image of God" means something less literal than body, parts, and passions?

Man is created in the image of God, for a Trinitarian the Son is God, the Son has body, parts, and passions. Gen 1:26 says "our image".

Share this post


Link to post

It doesn't matter. Any sort of experiences of God are, by design, based on feelings and emotion.

So now you're telling me exactly what my experiences are without even knowing anything about them?

And what I'm pointing out by using the "psychos" (your term, but OK), is that everyone of those people had what they determined was real, awe-inspiring and full of "God" just like anyone who has claimed to "know" what God thinks, or what He wants them to do. If that wasn't their experience with it, then they wouldn't have done what they did.

How are those experiences any less valid than yours?

I don't use them to kill people, steal from people, immasculate myself or kill myself. When people are motivated to do this kind of stuff it is because of abnormal catalysts, not the same ones that act upon the billions of believers in the world who do good throughout their lives. That you equate their motivations to all belief in God is disgusting and perverse. That's a ridiculous argument and it shows complete and utter disrespect for people who have done more good with that motivation than you ever will. It's the fallacy of equivocation and it disgusts me that you would reduce faith down to that level.

Share this post


Link to post

I was refering to the idea that God makes creation to act a certain way, i.e. in regards to the 7 day creation.

Another poster did indicate that most mormons do not believe in a 6000 (or 7000) year old earth.

What way does He make them to act?

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...