Bible

[Schpankme]

No, I did not say that, although I agree with it. Once again please get what I say/ quote correct.

This is the same stuff you posted before, so it's obvious you did not read the link I gave you to Chapter 10 or the links they supplied to a more detailed discussion of each verse or topic.

Instead you continue to apply your own twisted interpretation/logic or Long's to whatever verse you choose. Do you even know the definition of denigrate?

Webster's Dictionary; "To cast aspersions on;defame." "From the French nigrare:to blacken."

Defame:" To injure or destroy the reputation of by by libel or slander."

Here's a perfect example of twisting and interpreting a verse incorrectly, as you posted;


Here are the actual verses(Have you ever read them or is this someone else's opinion) which are noted in my Schofield Edition of the KJV as "The innocent wife protected";

Here are the actual verses(Have you ever read them or is this someone else's opinion) which are noted in my Schofield Edition of the KJV as "The innocent wife protected";

13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, 14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say , I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: 15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: 16 And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her; 17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying , I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. 18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him; 19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.

Nothing there about having her killed. Matter of fact he is attempting to denigrate her reputation. Her family defends her before the elders (judges) of the city. They apparently get the bedsheets from the marriage bed as proof of her virginity, although that is not exactly specified (tokens?). But why not, judges require proof, not hearsay. So they prove their case and the dishonest husband is whipped (chastised), heavily fined, and made to remain in the marriage, perhaps the worst part of the sentence.

Your statement;


As you seem to have trouble understanding the Old English grammar in the KJV, here is I Cor. 11:3-16 from the Amplified Bible;


That explains it pretty well. Covering her head is a sign of respect to her husband, and through him to God. Verse 10 shows that clearly; the angels do not show reverence to men but to God. Also, her hair is her covering, but she can use a hat or a shawl, whatever the custom. That's why most women in our churches don't cover their head.
As for the wife being in subjection, that is simply a chain of command, which every household needs, just as a ship needs a captain. Children are also told to be obedient to their father; is that denigration? In verse 3 it says Christ is the Head of every man. Is that denigrating to men? I don't think so, and nothing about abusing anybody.

If you really want answers to the other verses read the links I supplied, they are all there. I am through on this subject.



I'll get back to this as soon as I can, I'm pretty busy with Easter right now.

Al

Al,

Deuteronomy 22:13-21 (King James Version)

13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,

14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:

15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:

16 And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;

17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.

18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;

19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.

20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:

21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the W-H-O-R-E in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.



HEY AL - WHY DID YOU LEAVE OUT VERSE 20 and 21 - COULD IT BE SATAN?


HEY AL, WHAT PERVERT HAS TO SAVE SHEETS FROM HIS DAUGHTERS WEDDING NIGHT JUST ENCASE HER HUSBAND DECIDES HE NO LONGER WANTS TO BE MARRIED AND ACCUSES HER OF BEING A W-H-O-R-E.

HEY AL, WHAT DID THE FAMILY OF THE MAN TAKE FROM HIS SHEETS THE NIGHT OF THE WEDDING?


HEY AL, DO YOU AGREE WITH THE DOZEN OF OTHER EXAMPLES I GAVE THAT WOMEN ARE DENIGRATED IN THE BIBLE - THAT HOLY WORD OF GOD?

HEY AL, DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE TERM PATHOLOGICAL LIAR?

Schpankme

"Faith, has for its object the unknowable. How could the things of faith be unknowable if they were all apparently revealed by God in the Holy Bible"?

[ANTIQUER]

Hi Aaron;

Can you point out to me where the historical evidence is that shows the
Canaanites premeditated the creation of the "Gospel of Judas" and
premeditated Judas's elevated status? I'm not arguing if they did or not,
the video discussed that but showed nothing to back it up.

It isn't uncommon for people to hear of the story that Judas "really
was in cahoots with Jesus to plan his own arrest and execution..."

In the video Dr. Paul Maier, Prof. of Ancient History at Western Mich. Univ., explained that Iraneus of Leon, in his book "Against Heresy" (180 A.D.), states "A strange group who have named themselves after the first murderer in history, Cain, have conceived an impious and false piece of writing called The Judas Gospel." Until it was discovered recently scholars had only the title of the work, but did not know what was in it. Now we know and can see why it was not included in the Bible, as he explains.

Jordan Maxwell may be a scholar on some level, but not on the level of men who have obtained a Doctorate in their field, which requires at least 4 years of intensive study in their particular field, after their initial 4 years to get their first baccalaureate degree. Then they have pursued studies and research for many more years in their respective fields. As the one stated, he has been in this for 30 years. As I said, I have only watched the first 27 minutes of the video, but I would love to debate him and expose the false logic and statements in just that much.
A quick example; he states that Christianity is an "outgrowth" of Old Testament Judaism and therefore one cannot understand Christianity without understanding the Old Testament and the Judaism on which it is based. Not true. If it were the millions of born again Christians in different parts of the world and of different religions, who have never seen a bible and certainly have no knowledge of Judaism ( not to even mention the primitive tribes such as live in Papau-New Guinea or the Amazon basin who also have never seen a bible and yet have come to Christ) would have never become Christians. The reason this does happen is explained very well at the end of part II of the video from Day of Discovery that you have not seen yet.

But it is undeniable the parallel to all the other "God-like" men that came
before Jesus - or Yeshua, since the letter J is only about 500 years old.
Also, it is undeniable the parallel to the astrological points.

These are not new ideas. From what I have seen and heard before there are not many parallels and I think they are pretty deniable, but I have not seen his presentation, so I'll wait to comment further on that.

I am not sure there is any astrological connection, and I don't believe it matters anyway. The facts surrounding the life of Jesus and his ministry and message do not depend on any astrological theories. The picture of The Last Supper posted by Schpankme looks like it came out of "The DaVinci Code" and is as ridiculous as the book.

Have a nice Easter,

Al

[ANTIQUER]

Al,

Did you type the above post?

Did you say "Women are never denigrated in the Bible." ?

Schpankme

Yes; 2 1/2 years ago and not in response to you. That's why I said I never said it in any current post or response to you , not that I never said it in the history of the world. But it's a moot point anyway, as I said I agreed with it then and now. Meanwhile, you still don't seem to understand the meaning of "denigrate" as none of this fits the meaning of the word.

While you were spending so much time digging up ancient history to try to catch me in a mistake, did you notice post # 118 by Admin. or post #117 by Aaron on pg. 2 of this thread dated 7-28-08?
You might want to tone down your responses. Large red/black type is considered screaming/shouting and not very respectful. I don't wish to see you barred from EF as muttdog eventually was. It doesn't bother me, but they are not my rules.

I will discuss this one last time as you added something.

20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:

21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the W-H-O-R-E in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

HEY AL - WHY DID YOU LEAVE OUT VERSE 20 and 21 - COULD IT BE SATAN?

Because while your reference included them,, your discussion did not mention them. I therefore assumed the reference was a typo. Why didn't you reference or post the whole passage?

20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: 21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die : because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the ***** in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you. 22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die , both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel. 23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; 24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die ; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you. 25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die : 26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter: 27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried , and there was none to save her. 28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed , and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found ; 29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. 30 A man shall not take his father's wife, nor discover his father's skirt

I omitted the first verses which have already been posted.

It's obvious you pulled a few verses out of context, the context of this passage being law and punishment, not abuse or denigration of women, and the laws applied equally to men if they broke them.
Here's another example a few verses back;
Deut. 21:18-23;

18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: 19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; 20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious , he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton , and a drunkard . 21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die : so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear , and fear . 22 And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death , and thou hang him on a tree: 23 His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God that thy land be not defiled , which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

So they were to take their own son to the elders because he was a rebellious,lazy drunk, and they would have him stoned to death.
Notice the reason for both punishments is basically the same:to protect and preserve Israeli society by providing an example of justice and getting rid of the evil doer.

so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear , and fear.

because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the W-H-O-R-E in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

Well, let's just take one more since you insist.

Numbers 27:1-11;

1 Then came the daughters of Zelophehad, the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, of the families of Manasseh the son of Joseph: and these are the names of his daughters; Mahlah, Noah, and Hoglah, and Milcah, and Tirzah. 2 And they stood before Moses, and before Eleazar the priest, and before the princes and all the congregation, by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying , 3 Our father died in the wilderness, and he was not in the company of them that gathered themselves together against the LORD in the company of Korah; but died in his own sin, and had no sons. 4 Why should the name of our father be done away from among his family, because he hath no son? Give unto us therefore a possession among the brethren of our father. 5 And Moses brought their cause before the LORD. 6 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying , 7 The daughters of Zelophehad speak right: thou shalt surely give them a possession of an inheritance among their father's brethren; and thou shalt cause the inheritance of their father to pass unto them. 8 And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying , If a man die , and have no son, then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter. 9 And if he have no daughter, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his brethren. 10 And if he have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his father's brethren. 11 And if his father have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his kinsman that is next to him of his family, and he shall possess it: and it shall be unto the children of Israel a statute of judgment, as the LORD commanded Moses.

Your erroneous, twisted interpretation;

4) Numbers 27:8-11, According to Moses the wife’s well-being is irrelevant, as the deceased father’s/husbands inheritance goes entirely to his sons or other family members. Thanks mom, now hand over your money and property, It's God's Word!

There is no mention of "mom" as she is also dead. This event takes place 40 years after Korah (vs. 3) rebelled and all the Israelis murmered against God and Moses. They were told none of them would leave the wilderness alive. This event takes place as they were approaching the river Jordan, so they were out of the wilderness and both parents were dead. The judgement here went for the daughters as they received an equal share with the brothers, and further, set the inheritance laws to keep any inheritance in the family it belonged to in the future, just as our laws do today. No denigration or abuse of the daughters, just the opposite.

As I said before I am done on this subject. The correct answers/interpretation are in the links I provided if you care to read them.


If you are so concerned about the safety and reputation of women why don't you, in all fairness, go after the Koran and the current practice of stoning and abusing women?

Christians nor Jews stone anyone currently and haven't for many years, while the Muslims still do,and commit other atrocities against them such as setting them on fire in "Honor" killings.

HEY AL, DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE TERM PATHOLOGICAL LIAR

Yes I do, but I don't see what it has to do with this discussion.

Al

[Schpankme]

I will discuss this one last time as you added something.

20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:

21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the W-H-O-R-E in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

HEY AL - WHY DID YOU LEAVE OUT VERSE 20 and 21

Because while your reference included them, your discussion did not mention them.

I therefore assumed the reference was a typo.

Why didn't you reference or post the whole passage?

Al's Emporium,

Anyone can tell by looking at your last post(s), and the Screen Shots, which I attach (proof of what you preach), that your trying to avoid answering the questions:

1) You clearly said in the past that "Women are never denigrated in the Bible", and you have CLEARLY been shown to support the Bible, that so called Word of God, in your most recent posts; even in the face of overwhelming proof that the BIBLE of abuse to women and actually tells in detail and promotes acts of selling, rape, kidnapping virgins, killing them all but virgins, stoning W-H-O-R-E-S (accused wife's), self-servitude to MAN and Incest. Here's just a couple of your remarks:

• "Covering her head is a sign of respect to her husband, and through him to God."

• "Also, her hair is her covering, but she can use a hat or a shawl, whatever the custom. That's why most women in our churches don't cover their head." (cause they got hair)

• "As for the wife being in subjection, that is simply a chain of command, which every household needs, just as a ship needs a captain.

• "In verse 3 it says Christ is the Head of every man."

2) and AL, you knew damn well that we were talking about Women denigration/mistreatment in the Bible and it was pointed out to you that Deuteronomy 22:13-21, SHOWED that a MAN at anytime during his marriage could CLAIM that his wife was NOT A VIRGIN, which would force her to PROVE through such things as STAINED BED SHEETS from the marriage night that she was in fact a virgin (sic).

• You damn well knew it and you omitted Deuteronomy 22:20 and 21, which proves that they would have STONED THE W-H-O-R-E if she had no proof. The consequence for the MAN was to be fined in SILVER; and who got the SILVER (ROFL), certainly not the wife.

Deuteronomy 22:13-21 (King James Version)

13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,

14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:

15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:

16 And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;

17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.

18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;

19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.

20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:

21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the W-H-O-R-E in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

Hey Al, here's my final question to you:

Did your Bible in Deuteronomy 22:13-21 (King James Version) say that at ANYTIME during the marriage , a MAN could ACCUSE his WIFE of NOT being a VIRGIN on their WEDDING NIGHT, and that the WOMEN would have to PROVE through "tokens of my daughter's virginity"; but if "tokens of virginity be not found", then "the men of her city shall stone her" to death?

Al, you need only answer YES or NO to the question above and I've included the BIBLE passages from Deuteronomy 22:13-21 (KJV) in-case you forget what were talking about.

Schpankme

"There is no origin for the idea of an after-life save the conclusion which the savage draws from the notion suggested by dreams." - Herbert Spencer.

[ANTIQUER]

Hi Aaron;

This is exactly right - it is a fact that this is what was written originally.

“Behold, the young woman has conceived -- [is with child) -- and beareth a son and calleth his name Immanuel.”

The copper scrolls weren't needed to teach this but they certainly reiterated
it. Since you posted this, I can say this. There never was any reference
to a virgin as in never having intercourse. The literal honest translation
was simply a young woman.

The immaculate conception story is just that, a completely made up out
of thin air story. It was common for the crafters of The Book to overlay
astrology/astronomy with real events to create more "magic" than there
was. The Star of Bethlehem being a supernova that exploded in the area
of the womb of the constellation Virgo or Virgin - that is the most likely
place where the story comes from.

Throughout time, there had been many, many stories that repeat an
immaculate conception story that spreads throughout many religions.
Even Buddha was born of a virgin and was so pure he was born through
her side - too pure to even be born of a vaginal birth - so the story goes.

Really? I think this is a better interpretation/explantion.

The Protevangelium

The first hint in the Old Testament that the coming Christ would be born of a virgin occurs right at the beginning.

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Genesis 3:15

This prophecy, known as the Protevangelium, comes from the most ancient oracle known to man—the oracle that the Lord pronounced when He found our first parents, Adam and Eve, guilty of sin. The Lord is speaking to Satan, who has enticed "the woman," Eve, into disobeying the Lord's command against eating fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. He is saying that Satan will someday be crushed and thereby utterly defeated by the seed of the woman.

The pronoun used to designate the seed is "his" (in "his heel"). In place of "it" (in "it shall bruise"), the more accurate translation is "he" (1). Therefore, the coming conqueror must be a single man. But why is He called the seed of a woman? A child is ordinarily regarded as the seed of his father and forefathers. The striking and unnatural character of the expression "her seed" suggests that it is a uniquely fitting name for the victor over Satan. Unlike other men, He would be the seed of a woman only. He would not be a man's seed. A virgin would conceive Him without losing her virginity.


Isaiah's Oracle

Over seven hundred years before Jesus was born, the prophet Isaiah enlarged upon the Protevangelium.

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign: Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Isaiah 7:14

The name Immanuel means, "God with us." Isaiah is appending to Genesis 3:15 the information that the virgin-born conqueror of Satan would be God Himself in the flesh.

Controversy has long raged over the word rendered "virgin" in the KJV of Isaiah 7:14. Translators of the RSV substituted "young woman." The contention of many critics who disbelieve prophecy is that Isaiah in this verse is referring exclusively to his own wife (2). She has already given birth to Shear-jashub, which means, "A remnant shall return" (Isa. 7:3). Later, she will give birth to Maher-shalal-hash-baz, which means, "Swift is the booty, speedy is the prey" (Isa. 8:3). Therefore, say these critics, Isaiah's only announcement here, in Isaiah 7:14, is that his wife will give (or has given) birth to another son with a prophetically meaningful name. After all, the prophet himself says,

Behold, I and the children whom the Lord hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the Lord of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion.

Isaiah 8:18

To defend their identification of Immanuel as a son of Isaiah, the critics assert that the prophet himself, within his human limitations, could not have intended any other meaning. Yet, the prophets of old were merely obedient mouthpieces for the Holy Spirit of God (2 Pet. 1:21). In that role, they left us intimations of the Messiah which they themselves did not fully understand (1 Pet. 1:10-12). Thus, the view that Isaiah 7:14 must refer to Isaiah's own family betrays an antisupernatural bias. At the heart of this view is a settled disbelief that God placed in Isaiah's mouth an utterance wholly concerned with matters then hundreds of years in the future. But we should examine Isaiah's prophecy without bias, according to the ordinary rules of hermeneutics. We should start with the precise meaning of each word and build an interpretation that fits the context.


The Meaning of Almah

The word translated "virgin" in the KJV is almah. This term in either its feminine form (almah) or masculine form (elem) occurs nine times in the Old Testament (Gen. 24:43; Ex. 2:8; 1 Sam. 17:56; 20:22; Psa. 68:25; Prov. 30:19; S. of Sol. 1:3; 6:8; Isa. 7:14). So far as we can judge from the contexts, the term never refers to a married person or even to an adult. In some instances, the term obviously refers to someone young and unmarried. For example, Moses' sister Miriam was an almah when she hid him in the bulrushes (Ex. 2:8).

According to Alfred Edersheim, the great Jewish scholar converted to Christianity over a century ago, the Jews recognize eight stages of growth (3). He says that the word almah pertains to the sixth stage, which is between dependent childhood and independent youth (4). By its connotation of firmness and strength, the word suggests the rapid bodily growth of early adolescence (5). Thus, an almah was a girl about twelve to fourteen years old. The closest English equivalents to almah are "maiden" and "damsel" (6). "Young woman," although passable as a translation, stretches the concept too far into adulthood.

The rabbis taught that a father should betroth his daughter to his slave rather than keep her unbetrothed beyond puberty (7). A girl was normally married before she passed much beyond fourteen (8). Thus, since almah specifically denotes a girl at the stage of growth just before marriage, the term apparently came to signify "unmarried girl of marriageable age" (9). And since nearly all unmarried girls in ancient Hebrew culture were chaste, the term seems to have acquired the further meaning "virgin" (10). In some of the texts exhibiting almah, "virgin" is clearly the most appropriate translation.

43 Behold, I stand by the well of water; and it shall come to pass, that when the virgin [almah] cometh forth to draw water, and I say to her, Give me, I pray thee, a little water of thy pitcher to drink.
44 And she say to me, Both drink thou, and I will also draw for thy camels: let the same be the woman whom the Lord hath appointed out for my master's son.

Genesis 24:43-44

The speaker is Abraham's servant, who has been sent to a far country to find a wife for Abraham's son Isaac. The servant would certainly have found it natural to call Isaac's prospective wife a virgin. Another instructive text is the following:

There are threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and virgins [plural of almah] without number.

Song of Solomon 6:8

The list comprehends all the women within the king's household. Although many queens and concubines were young women, the term almah is reserved for girls unmarried to the king—in other words, for virgins (11).

The Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament dating perhaps from the early second century B.C., renders almah in Isaiah 7:14 as parthenos, a word that indisputably carries the specific meaning "virgin" (12). The Jewish scholars who produced the Septuagint were certainly familiar enough with Hebrew to know what almah meant. Also, when the Gospel of Matthew quotes Isaiah 7:14, it substitutes parthenos for almah (Matt. 1:23) (13).

We conclude that although Isaiah's wife might be called a young woman, she could not by any means be called an almah, for two reasons (14).

1. She was too old. At the time of Isaiah 7, she had already given birth to Shear-jashub (Isa. 7:3).
2. She was not a virgin.

The Virgin Birth of Christ: Prophecies in Genesis and Isaiah

I hope you enjoyed your Easter as much as I did mine.

Al

[Schpankme]

Hi Aaron;

Really? I think this is a better interpretation/explantion.

The Meaning of Almah

The word translated "virgin" in the KJV is almah.

Al:

Al,

Your actually laughable, you will go out of your way to keep your brain-washed Bible fantasies.

Here for the slow people among us is the passage from Isa. VII, 14. Translated in Hebrew just for you. You must agree that the Hebrew Version of the BIBLE came hundreds of years before the English version!

“Hinneh ha-almah harah ve-yeldeth ben ve-karath shem-o immanuel”;

The Hebrew words ha-almah means the young woman; and harah is the Hebrew past or perfect tense, “conceived,” which in Hebrew, as in English, represents past and completed action.

Honestly translated, the verse reads:

“Behold, the young woman has conceived -- [is with child) -- and beareth a son and calleth his name Immanuel.”

It's amazing how many times YOUR BIBLE(s) forgers screwed up; as when they didn't know the Hebrew Word for Virgin or how bout the GREEK joke -- when Jesus tells Peter (Petros - meaning rock) on this rock I will build my Church; What would a bunch of Aramaic speaking people know about the GREEK PUN of Petros. And my absolute favorite forger has to be the guy describing the EXODUS in such detail, when he didn't actually know the NAME of the PHARAOH...and don't even get me going about the story of MOSES...ROFL

Schpankme

"The beatings will continue until morale improves" - unknown

[ANTIQUER]

Hi Schpankme;

The Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament dating perhaps from the early second century B.C., renders almah in Isaiah 7:14 as parthenos, a word that indisputably carries the specific meaning "virgin" (12). The Jewish scholars who produced the Septuagint were certainly familiar enough with Hebrew to know what almah meant. Also, when the Gospel of Matthew quotes Isaiah 7:14, it substitutes parthenos for almah (Matt. 1:23) (13).

Maybe less laughing would improve your reading comprehension?

In addition William Tyndale wrote and spoke Hebrew fluently, even understanding the idioms as well as a native Israeli. You don't suppose he read a copy of the Torah during his linguistic studies, plenty of which were available in England and France in scroll and book form, and therefore knew the Septuagint was accurate? Not to mention the Hebrew scholars among the 54 men who checked his work.

It is the oldest of several ancient translations of the Hebrew Bible into Greek, lingua franca of the eastern Mediterranean Basin from the time of Alexander the Great (356-323 BCE).

The Septuagint was held in great respect in ancient times; Philo and Josephus ascribed divine inspiration to its authors.[4] Besides the Old Latin versions, the LXX (Septuagint) is also the basis for the Slavonic, the Syriac, Old Armenian, Old Georgian and Coptic versions of the Old Testament.[5] Of significance for all Christians and for Bible scholars, the LXX is quoted by the New Testament and by the Apostolic Fathers.

Septuagint - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Old Latin version was pre-Vulgate and the Coptic is in Aramaic.
The Septuagint was one of the sources the KJV was translated from.

However, even though the feminine noun petra is translated as rock in the phrase "on this rock I will build my church," the word petra (πέτρα in Greek) is also used at 1 Cor. 10:4 in describing Jesus Christ, which reads: "They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ."

Although Matthew 16 is used as a primary proof-text for the Catholic doctrine of Papal supremacy, Protestant scholars say that prior to the Reformation of the sixteenth century, Matthew 16 was very rarely used to support papal claims. Their position is that most of the early and medieval Church interpreted the 'rock' as being a reference either to Christ or to Peter's faith, not Peter himself. They understand Jesus' remark to have been his affirmation of Peter's testimony that Jesus was the Son of God.[60]

Saint Peter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building. 10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. 11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid , which is Jesus Christ.

I Cor. 3:11

You will not find anyplace in The New Testament where Peter ever calls himself more than an Apostle or an Elder, nor is there any other reference in there that does, nor do any of the apostolic churches nor any of the early writers. Instead they spoke of Peter and Paul as equal co-workers.

II Peter 3:15-18.

15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest , as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before , beware lest ye also , being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. 18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever . Amen.

and AL, you knew damn well

You damn well knew it

At least you have cut down on the shouting; swearing is better?
Matt. 15:10 & 11

10 And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear , and understand : 11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man

Vs. 18 & 19

18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. 19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: 20 These are the things which defile a man:

Vs. 14

14 Let them alone : they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch

"There are none so blind as they which will not see" Anonymous

Al

[Schpankme]

Maybe less laughing would improve your reading comprehension?

Hey AL, AGAIN you left out Deuteronomy 22: verses 20 & 21. Encase you forgot, your claim IS that "Women are never denigrated in the Bible".


YES or NO, did your Bible in Deuteronomy 22:13-21 (KJV) say that at ANYTIME during the marriage, a MAN could ACCUSE his WIFE of NOT being a VIRGIN on their WEDDING NIGHT, and that the WOMEN would have to PROVE her innocence through "tokens of my daughter's virginity"; but if "tokens of virginity be not found", then "the men of her city shall stone her" to death?

20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:

21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the W-H-O-R-E in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

Come on AL, all those Bible fairy-tales will come to an end with just ONE answer (YES or NO)!

Schpankme

"A cult is every other religion other than the one that you believe in." - Church of Reality

[ANTIQUER]

Hi Schpankme;

"Women are never denigrated in the Bible".

As I said before I am done on this subject. The correct answers/interpretation are in the links I provided if you care to read them.

Maybe less laughing would improve your reading comprehension?

1 Corinthians 13:11

11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

Al

[admin]

Religion and Politics

Two subjects that can be flashpoints of emotion.

Here is a good post to read before continuing this discussion.

http://www.energeticforum.com/genera...s-respect.html

Play nice!

[ANTIQUER]

Hi Aaron;

I wouldn't say that Jordan Maxwell is not a "real" scholar because he isn't
mainstream and isn't backed by some university. Some of his claims are
stretches and speculation such as the creation of the word Israel and
Solomon. What he says may be true about that, but it is still just a
hypothesis

A video entitled "The truth about Jordan Maxwell" is here;

http://www.veoh.com/group/Truth1/off...676412AYQyQkc9

Here's Wiki on Horus;

Horus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Does that bear any resemblance to the birth and life of Jesus?

From a link at the bottom of the above article;

Ancient Egypt

Self-taught amateur Egyptologist Gerald Massey argued that the deity of Horus and Jesus shared identical mythological origins in his 1907 book Ancient Egypt, the light of the world.[17] His views have been repeated by theologian Tom Harpur, author Acharya S, and political comedian Bill Maher.[18][19][20] Theologian W. Ward Gasque composed an e-mail to twenty leading Egyptologists, including Professor Emeritus of Egyptology at the University of Liverpool Kenneth Kitchen, and Professor of Egyptology at the University of Toronto Ron Leprohan. The e-mail detailed the comparisons alleged by Massey which had been repeated by Harpur. The scholars were unanimous in dismissing any similarities suggested by Massey, and one Egyptologist criticized the comparison as "fringe nonsense."[21]

Parts of this Osirian mythology have prompted comparisons with later Christian beliefs and practices.

David J. MacLeod argues that the resurrection of Osiris differs from Jesus Christ, saying

"Perhaps the only pagan god for whom there is a resurrection is the Egyptian Osiris. Close examination of this story shows that it is very different from Christ's resurrection. Osiris did not rise; he ruled in the abode of the dead. As biblical scholar, Roland de Vaux, wrote, 'What is meant of Osiris being "raised to life?" Simply that, thanks to the ministrations of Isis, he is able to lead a life beyond the tomb which is an almost perfect replica of earthly existence. But he will never again come among the living and will reign only over the dead. This revived god is in reality a "mummy" god.'... No, the mummified Osiris was hardly an inspiration for the resurrected Christ... As Yamauchi observes, 'Ordinary men aspired to identification with Osiris as one who had triumphed over death. But it is a mistake to equate the Egyptian view of the afterlife with the biblical doctrine of resurrection. To achieve immortality the Egyptian had to meet three conditions: First, his body had to be preserved by mummification. Second, nourishment was provided by the actual offering of daily bread and beer. Third, magical spells were interred with him. His body did not rise from the dead; rather elements of his personality - his Ba and Ka - continued to hover over his body.'"[34]

A. J. M. Wedderburn further argues that resurrection in Ancient Egypt differs from the "very negative features" in Judaeo-Christian tradition, as the Ancient Egyptians conceived of the afterlife as entry into the glorious kingdom of Osiris.[35]

Jesus Christ in comparative mythology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That link has a very broad and interesting discussion of most of the myth/Jesus theories.

I'm guessing Massey's book on ancient Egypt is where Maxwell got most of his info.

His statements as to astrological connections are just as wrong.

For example he makes a big deal out of the mention of 2 star clusters and the zodiac chart mentioned in Job 38:31-32. God is talking directly with Job and is describing Himself and his power. Here he is talking about how He controls the stars and the seasons and relating it to stars and symbols Job and his companions could understand, not that God created the zodiac chart; men did and applied it to the creation around them.
Then he jumps from the 12 "houses" of the zodiac to the mansions in John 14:2, which he misquotes.
"In my Fathers house are many mansions;...". Many mansions, not 12, and the Greek word used here means a household, not a "sign".
The rest of his comparisons are the same sort of wild assumptions based on misapplications. If there are any in particular you wish to discuss I welcome them. It would take too long to address them all.

What is your opinion of why Jesus' life story matches those that came
before him. I'm not trying to convince you that these other individuals
are on equal footing as the commonly believed Jesus, but there is as much
or more historical record for their existence so I'm not asking to compare
their significance - just what is your explanation of why all those people
mentioned that came before Jesus had virtually identical histories of
them being born of a virgin mother as well as all the other items?

I'll get back to this with more detail, but it pretty much follows the same pattern as Maxwell's misconceptions, i.e. they really did not exist and they are not parallel, just as the myth of Horus was not.

Al

[wpage]

Wisdom

Hey Al,
Where ignorance is bliss. Tis folly to be wise...
Do not cast your pearls B4 swine.

[Schpankme]

Jesus_Christ_in_comparative_mythology

Did someone say "Jesus the Christ"

The central character of the Christian faith, Jesus the Christ, this assumed historical personage, was a Jew, as were, by tradition, his disciples and entourage. As is, of course, well known:

"Christianity took its rise in Judaism; its Founder and His disciples were orthodox Jews, and the latter maintained their Jewish practices, at least for a time, after the day of Pentecost. The Jews themselves looked upon the followers of Christ as a mere Israelitish sect, ... 'the sect of the Nazarenes' (Acts XXIV, 15)," -- the believers in the Promised Messiah. (Catholic Encyclopedia - CE III, 713.) In this they were grievously deceived and disappointed, as, too the world knows; "Christ's humble and obscure life, ending in the ignominious death on the cross, was the very opposite of what the Jews expected of their Christ." (CE. I, 620.)

Jesus was a native of Galilee, "his own country" (Mt. II, 23; XIII, 54-55),
or of Judaea, "his own country" (John IV, 43-44).
He was born "in the days of Herod the King" (Mt. II, 1), about 6 B.C.,
or "when Cyrenius was governor of Syria" (Luke II, 1-7), about 7 A.D.,
or some 13 years later. (CE. VIII, 377; Encyclopedia Biblica - EB. I, 307-8).

The destructive contradictions as to his lineage and parentage, and other essential particulars, are reserved for opportune notice. Jesus became a Jewish sectarian religious teacher of the zealot reformer type; so zealous that his own family thought him insane and sent out to apprehend him (Mark III, 31); many of the people said of him, "He hath a devil, and is mad" (John X, 20); his own disciples, seeing his raid into the Temple after the money-changers, shook their heads and muttered the proverb: "The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up" (John II, 17).

His ministry, of about one year, according to the first three Gospels, of some three years according to the fourth, was, by his own repeated assertion, limited exclusively to his own Jewish people:

"I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Mt. xv, 24; ef. Acts III, 25-26; XIII, 46; Rom. xv, 8); and he straightly enjoined on his Twelve Apostles: "Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Mt. X, 5-6); to the woman of Canaan who pleaded with him to have mercy on her daughter, "grievously vexed with a devil," he retorted: "It is not meet to take the children bread, and cast it to dogs" (Mt. XV, 22-28; VII, 6).

His own announcement, and his command to the Twelve, was "Preach, saying, The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand" (Mt. X, 7), -- the exclusively Hebraic Kingdom of the Baptist (Mt. III, 2), as of the Jewish Messianic apocrypha which we have noticed. Jesus lived at the height of the "age of apocryphal literature," and in due time got into it, voluminously.

Before his death, time and again he made and repeated the assurance -- the most positive and iterated of all the sayings attributed to him -- of the immediate end of the world, and of his quick triumphant return to establish the Kingdom of God in the new earth and reign on the reestablished throne of David forever. Time and again he said and repeated:

"Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his Kingdom" (Mt. XVI, 28; Mk. IX, I; Lk. IX, 27);
"This generation shall not pass, till all these things be done" Mk. XIII, 30). -- So quickly would this "second coming" be, that when the Twelve were sent out on their first preaching tour in little Palestine, their Master assured them: "Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of man be come" (Mt. X, 23).

Caiaphag, the high priest before whom Jesus was led after his capture in the Garden, solemnly conjured him "By the living God" for the truth; and Jesus replied: "Nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man ... coming in the clouds of heaven." (Mt. XXVI, 63, 64; Mk. XIV, 61, 62.)

Some people are expecting him yet. Of course, there were, could be, none but Jews in heaven, or in this new Kingdom of Heaven on the new earth:

"Salvation is of the Jews." (John IV, 22.) It was 144,000 Jews, the "scaled" saints, who alone constituted the original Jewish "Kingdom of God" (Rev. VII).

With the expectation of a quick and sudden end of the world and of all things human, no books were written on the subject in that generation or, for a little leeway, the next or so, after the death of the expected returning King. The scant, number of credulous Jews who accepted this preachment as "Gospel truth" and lived in this expectation, were nourished with neighborhood gossip and oral traditions of the "good news," and needed and had no written books of inspired record of these things.

Thus many years passed. Only as the dread consummation was delayed, and the hope deferred sickened the hearts of the expectant Jews and they waned in faith, and as accused by Paul and Barnabas, "put it from you," did the defeated propagandists of the "Faith that failed at the Cross," give the shoulder to the Jews and "turn to the Gentiles" (Acts XIII, 46), and begin to expand the failing new Jewish faith among the superstitious Pagans of the countries round about. But this was still by the spoken word; through "missionary tours", the Word of God was spread by word of mouth, as the written gospel books were not yet.

When at last, the "coming" being still unrealized -- these books began to be written, we can accurately determine something of the order of their writing, and finally, though negatively, the approximate times when they were written, by ascertaining when they were not yet written.

As shown for a century and more the only "Scriptures" used by the Jewish propagandists of the Christ were the Greek Septuagint translations of the old Hebrew sacred writings, "the Law and the Prophets" (CE. V, 702; I, 635); supplemented by sundry Jewish apocrypha and the Pagan Sibylline Oracles; these were the only "authorities" appealed to by the early "Fathers" for the propaganda of the new faith.

Unquestionably, if the wonderful "histories" of their Christ and the inspired pretended writings of his first, Apostles, forming the New Testament, had then existed, even in scraps of writing, they would have been the most precious and potent documents of propaganda, would have been snatched at and quoted and appealed to with infinite zeal and ardor, as they have been through the centuries since.

But, for some 150 years, little or nothing besides Old Testament and Pagan Oracles were known or quoted. As said by the great critic, Solomon Reinach, "With the exception of Papias, who speaks of a narrative by Mark, and a collection of sayings of Jesus, no Christian writer of the first half of the second century (i.e., up to 150 A.D.) quotes the Gospels or their reputed authors." (Reinach, Orpheus, p. 218.)

So, as yet no "Gospels" and but few if any "Epistles" of our "canon" had as yet been written. Again, we read the 23 booklets from and including Acts to Revelation: there is not a solitary reference to a word of quotation from, any of our four Gospels; scarce a trace of the wonderful career and miracles of Jesus the Christ; not a word of his "gospel" or teachings mentioned or quoted. These Epistles, indeed, "preach Christ Crucified" (from oral tradition), as the basis of the propagandists' own "gospel." But the written "Gospel of Jesus Christ" (his life and words and deeds), was unknown: indeed, jealous of the so-called Petrine preaching which "perverts the gospel of Christ" as preached by him, the so called Apostle Paul fulminates:

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached, let, him be accursed" (Gal. I, 7, 8); -- so early did priestly intolerance and priestly curses on opponents come into holy vogue.

Therefore the conclusion is inevitable that when those 23 Acts and Epistles were written, none of the four "Gospel" biographies of Jesus the Christ had yet seen the light. "Written Gospels are neither mentioned nor implied in the NT epistles, nor in that, of Clemens Romanus, nor, probably, in that of Barnabas, nor in the Didache. Luke (I, 1-4) implies that 'many gospels' were current" (Encyclopedia Biblica - EB. II, 1809), at the time that Gospel was written.

The Acts and Epistles, therefore, with Revelation, were written before any of the Gospel biographies.

If these Christ histories had existed, how eagerly would they have been seized upon to garnish and glorify the preachment of the early propagandists of the Faith that failed at the Cross, -- and would have perished wholly but. for the all believing Pagan Gentiles, who, when they heard it, "were glad, and glorified the word of the lord" (Acts XIII, 48), as orally delivered.

Schpankme

"Hinneh lash-sheqer asah et sheqer sepharim -- Behold, the lying pen of the scribes hath wrought lies." (Jeremiah VIII, 8)

[aljhoa]

The Alternative

Geert Wilders at the House of Lords
Mar
5 Written by: Diana West
Friday, March 05, 2010 7:40 AM
The Death of the Grown-Up | Diana West > Home - Geert Wilders at the House of Lords

The economies of the future will be materials. The religion of the future will be Islam. Uncodified patterning. Non-statist community. Pre-systems legality sustaining personal illumination. A new dialectic.

S.A.A

England, 1982

Al

[Schpankme]

...The religion of the future...

"The answer to religion of the future, is to understand the forgeries of the past."

The "God" Forgery

The first sentence of the translated Bibles is a falsification and forgery of the highest importance. We read with awed solemnity of faith: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Gen. 1:1).

The Hebrew word for God is el; the plural is el.ohim, gods.

The Hebrew text of Genesis 1:1, reads:

"Beresh.ith bara elohim," etc., -- "In-beginning created gods the-heavens and-the-earth."

In the same chapter we read in Hebrew honestly translated, -- thirty times the word "elohim" gods, to whom are attributed all the works of creation in the six peculiar "days" of Genesis. This is plainly evident from the Hebrew texts of Genesis I, which even false intention could not hide in the translation,

"And-said elohim (gods), let-US-make man (adamah) in-image-OUR, after-likeness-OUR" (Gen. 1:26).

And when "adamah" had eaten of the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge, "the Lord God" said, "Behold, the-man has become like one of US, to know good and evil" (Gen. 3:27).

And during the building of the Tower of Babel, "The Lord [Heb. Yahveh] said ... Come, let US go down," etc. And thus, some 2570 times the plural, elohim, gods, is used in the Hebrew texts, but is always falsely translated "God" in the false singular, when speaking of the Hebrew deity, Yahveh.

In the three (3) Genesis verses above quoted, we have three (3) different designations of the Hebrew deity or deities:

1. Elohim, gods, falsely translated "God"

2. Lord God (Heb. Yahveh-elohim); and "Lord" (Heb. Yahveh)

3. Yahveh is the proper name of the Hebrew God, in English rendered Jehovah: Yahveh-elohim is a Hebrew "construct-form" honestly meaning "Yahveh-of-the-gods."

Invariably (with rare exceptions to be noted), these personal names are falsely rendered "Lord" and "Lord God," respectively, for purposes of pious fraud.



The "Adam" Forgery

There was no first man "Adam," according to the Hebrew texts of the story. The word adam in Hebrew is a common noun, meaning man in a generic sense; in Genesis Chapter 1:26, we have read:

"And elohim (gods) said, Let us make adam (man)"; and so "elohim created ha-adam (the-man); ... male and female created he them" (Gen. 1:27).

And in the second story, where man is first made alone: "Yahveh formed ha-adam (the-man) out of the dust of ha-adamah, the ground" (Gen. 2:7).

Man is called in Hebrew adam because formed out of adamah, the ground; just as in Latin man is called homo because formed from humus, the ground, -- homo ex humo, in the epigram of Father Lactantius. (Lact., Divine Institutes, II, 58; ANF. VII, 58.)

The forging by the common noun adam into a mythical proper name Adam, was a post-exilic fraud in the forging of fictitious genealogies from "in the beginning" to Father Abraham.



The "Soul" Forgery

In Genesis 1 is the account of the creation of elohim – gods:

on the fifth day, of "nephesh hayyah -- the moving creature that hath life," and of "nephesh hayyah -- every living creature" – out of the waters (Gen. 1:20, 21)

on the sixth day of "nephesh hayyah -- the living creature" out of the ground (Gen.1:24); and he gave to ha-adam -- the-man dominion over "kol nephesh hagyah, -- everything wherein there is life," (Gen.1:30.)

So reads the Hebrew text – all these dumb animal living creatures are by God called "nephesh hayyah," literally "living soul," as will be found stuck into the margins of the Authorized Version.

In Genesis Chapter 2 we have the history of ha-adam made from ha-adamah; and, in wonderful contrast to these lowly "living creatures" (nephesh hayyah), Yahveh-elohim "breathed into his nostrils nishmath hayyim -- (living breaths), and ha-adam became nephesh hayyah -- a living soul"! (Gen. 2:7).

In Hebrew nephesh simply means soul, and hayyah (living) is the feminine singular adjective from hai, life. Man, therefore, was created exactly the same as the other animals; all had or were nephesh hayyah -- living souls, indistinctly.

The "false pen of the scribes," who in translation made the dumb animals merely living creatures, and "Creation's micro-cosmical masterpiece, Man," a "living soul," falsely altered these plain words so as to deceive into a belief of a special God-breathed soul in man, far different from the brute animal that perisheth.

Schpankme

"The time has come for honest men to denounce false teachers and attack false gods." -- Luther Burban