Bible Study
See other Bible Study Articles
Title: Bible Help
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Feb 11, 2024
Author: Vicomte13
Post Date: 2024-02-11 10:25:51 by Vicomte13
Keywords: None
Views: 4983
Comments: 37
I've decided that it's time to offer my services for deep reading and interpreting of passages of the Bible. I have exhaustively read the Bible in English, Middle English and French, and have studies portions of it Latin, Koine Greek and Ancient Hebrew, including reading the ancient Hebrew pictographs. I did so for a simple reason: I'm alive because of God - 3 unambiguous episodes, and 6 other circumstances where God intervened to save my life. I have spoken with God on occasion, particularly during two 40-day water fasts. I know God exists, through direct personal contact. The scientific nature of God? Well, God never told me that he is the powers of nature. All that I know for certain is that he can read my thoughts and manipulate my physical body (including by healing it). In my thoughts, I extend this command over local nature, and the fact of intelligence, to control of the cosmos. God never told me that, but that's my logic and assumption. Now, the religious texts of the world, therefore, interest me. God exists, do these texts give any insight into him? In the West, we have the Bible. People here know it. I know it so well, so deeply BECAUSE I have looked through it, not for faith in God - I know God exists - but for factual details. As such, certain things in the text particularly interested me: the Genesis accounts, the Flood, the story of the Nephilim, the "soul", "Thou shall not kill...or murder", "Haaretz" - the land, the world?, "ha olam" and "ha slam va ed" (to.a distant time or forever?), "Kosmos", "Gehenna", "Sheol", the criteria for the afterlife, charity, Jesus on his return, "Spirit", "breath" and "wind" (Reach). These are the subjects that fascinate ME, and into which, therefore, I have placed the focus of my studies. I CAN, however, apply the same deep examination techniques to any part of the Bible. Just because these things fascinate me does not mean that they are the things that fascinate others So, if there is a particular aspect of the Bible that you want me to do a deep dive on, something that puzzles you, that you would like to hear an analysis of, reach out to me here and tell me. I will do an analysis and tell you what I see there. It may give you guidance, comfort, or something disturbing to think about. I have no agenda, just the ability to do deep study in multiple languages. That is all.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Vicomte13 (#0)
I missed this one. Where is praying to Mary in the Bible? Here this may help you.
@ninjakweli2993 2 months ago I’d also like to add Luke 11:27-28 “27 While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that carried You, and the breasts at which You nursed!” 28 But He said, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and follow it.”
Praying to Mary isn't in the Bible. People do it because of a logic tree they have built up. God apparently favors Mary greatly, because of the healings at Lourdes where she appeared in the 1830s, with a cascade of healings ever since. So, Mary has been a way to bring people to God. Fine by me. I don't care. I also am not going to sit and mumble rosaries, etc. Not my speed.
True. And what Jesus has to say is certainly what God wants. On the other hand, what Yahweh says in the Torah about taking sex slaves of captive girls, murdering rape victims, people who leave their tent on Saturday, people who have sex during the woman's period, people who are "witches", or who eat shrimp, or who - if they're the priest's daughter - fornicate, etc., etc. These say they are the words of God right in that book. Either they are, or they are not. If they are, then no, Jesus, I'm not going to do that. If they aren't, great! Because then God isn't angry at me for rejecting them. If I rejected what Jesus has to say about goodness, that would be a problem. But THAT I accept. So, what IS "the word of God"? Is it THOSE ugly, barbaric words from the Torah that SAY they are the words of God? Or it is the words of Jesus that go the other way? I'm on Team Jesus.
Speaking of teams, I'm also on Team Trump. And since Trump is going to choose Vivek Ramaswamy as is running mate, I am doubly enthused. 12 years of MAGA! The Democrats aren't going to know what hit them!
God apparently favors Mary greatly, because of the healings at Lourdes where she appeared in the 1830s She didn't appear in the 1830's. That sounds like some cult shit. Mary is dead and doesn't hear shit. If when Mary was alive someone asked for her to pray for them. I'm sure that would have been beneficial. Mary was a sinner like the rest of us. I'd say she sinned less than many or most. That would be a guess though.
It's nice that you assert with such certitude things you cannot possibly know.
Vivek as Veep? That would be ballsy, but would Trump adopt Ramaswamy's willingness to get rid of whole Federal Departments, starting with the Dept. of Education?
"NOW...Devolve Power Outta the Federal Leviathan!!"
No. Trump wouldn’t adopt any of Vivek’s big ideas. But in four years, if Trump does well and Vivek looks strong, he’ll have his own four or eight years to do that, depending on the composition of Congress.
That is funny coming from you. That is your entire view of God. You made it all up. Not based on the scriptures Jesus studied and told us about. Jesus regularly said it is written. You're more of a thus says Vic type of guy.
The dead aren’t dead, they’re with God. The Bible tells you that the witch of Endor raised Samuel’s shade to speak with Saul - and condemn him. And of course several dead people were raised from the dead. At least 5, by my count. Their spirits were somewhere to come back from. In any event, Paul was a far worse sinner than anything we know about Mary. Jesus never rebuked Mary for her sins, but Paul actively persecuted Christians. These things are not (the rebukes) and are (the persecutions) in the Bible. The most troubling aspect of Paul is his espousing of doctrines that are the opposite of what Jesus said or did. For example, Paul prohibited women to teach, and this ugly doctrine is espoused by many churches today. But Jesus used the Samaritan women to preach and teach to her people, converting the whole town. You have to decide who you’re going to follow, and what many Churches do is decide to follow Paul, and to not even see Jesus doing the opposite. This, they say, is upholding the Bible, but it isn’t. BOTH things are in the Bible. Some Christians CHOOSE to follow Paul’s example instead of Jesus ‘s. Then they lie and say there is no conflict. Yes, there is. It is clear as day. If you choose to follow Paul instead of Jesus, why call yourself a “Christian”? You’re a Paulist. In his letter to the Romans, Paul espoused the doctrine that Luther took to be “faith alone”. It was Luther who added that word “alone” to his translation of the Bible - it’s not there in the actual text. Still, Paul is very clear: faith in Jesus, and specifically in his death and resurrection, are the ONLY way to Heaven, according to Paul. That’s the central feature of his teaching. But Jesus clearly stated how he will judge the people of all nations in the tale of the sheep and the goats. The charitable get Heaven, and the uncharitable get Hell. He even made the point in that judgment of the people being judged saying “we didn’t see you;” - we don’t know you - but they are sent to Heaven because of their charity, NOT their faith. James said “faith without works is dead,” and Paul said works are unavailing, but Jesus in his plain speaking of his own judgment of the world did not include faith AT ALL in his judgment. He says he will judge all - all the nations - based on the sole criteria of the charity they did or did not do: Works ALONE, the very opposite of Paul. This is in the Bible for all to see. It’s a seam. And you must decide. This is why I say “Jesus Alone”, because in the story HE is the Son of God, the King, and the final judge. Not Paul, not James, not John. So, where THEY say something that opposes what Jesus said, or that opposes what each other says (James vs Paul on works), or (John vs. James on degrees of sin), a Bible Alone person is faced with a welter of contradictions, and really only one clear Biblical way to resolve it: to remember that Jesus in the text is the only begotten son of God, the King and judge, so he is the highest authority - higher than the apostles (Jesus reminds everybody of this when he says that the pupil is not above his master). Jesus is not ABOVE Yahweh, he carries the authority of Yahweh, and he comes later in time. So Jesus’s fulfilling of the law, which includes changing whole swathes of it, does not set up the same tensions as Paul, John and James do. There is a parallel, in that Jesus replaces whole elements of the law - which Yahweh never said was “forever” - ha olam means “to a distant unknown time, not forever. If you insist that the English translation of ha olam as “forever” is the inspired word of God, then you have created for yourself an impossible contradiction between Yahweh’s laws, said by your English translation to be FOREVER, and Jesus’s overt changing of many of those laws. You have a choice: you can double down on your English translation, and have this naked contradiction, and then be intellectually dishonest and lie and say “There is no contradiction”, when clearly there is. OR you can go back, read the Hebrew saying what it says - ha olam - to an indistinct future time- and realize that that time came 1500 years later with Jesus. Then there is no contradiction, and Jesus, as Son of God, King and Supreme Judge has the authority to state the law. And he did. There’s no seam or contradiction if you read the Hebrew exactly. But if you won’t - if you pridefully assert something about English translation there, you end up with the contradictions raised by the bad translation into English of key phrases. Now, the same problem arises between Jesus, who spoke earlier, and whose judgment of the world, by his own words, is based on works of charity, and Paul, James, and John contradict him and each other. So, then, are we left with a mess? Yes, IF you assert that the BIBLE ITSELF is the highest authority, then it’s a matter of picking and choosing what one pleases, and dishonestly ignoring the parts you don’t agree with, like Martin Luther did when he called James “an epistle of straw” and wanted to take it out of the Bible. OR you can read the statement of authority IN the Bible, realize that it says Jesus is King and final judge, ABOVE the apostles, and that wherever, therefore, they contradict him, they are always to be disregarded in favor of Jesus. This is obviously correct on the text itself, so why doesn’t everybody do it? Simple, really. Paul is easier. All you have to do is believe in something. Jesus is more demanding. He gets into your money and property and makes you poorer, by sound mandatory charity as the only way to get to Heaven. Belief is easy. Charity costs money and time and is hard. So every sort of effort is expended by the religious to have an easy code on their head that says if they just think something, they’re in, and then fight about those details. But Jesus said you have to do charitable works, and THAT is the criteria by which he will judge the world. Lots of “Christians” hate that idea SO BADLY - it forces them to be nice and to spend lots of money; they would rather think things and be pious. But it’s actually all right there IN the Bible.
KJV Deuteronomy 22: 23-24 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and he lie with her; Then ye shall bring the 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 neighbor’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil among you.
Can you give your thoughts on these verses from Proverbs chapter 26? 1As snow in summer, and as rain in harvest, so honour is not seemly for a fool. 2As the bird by wandering, as the swallow by flying, so the curse causeless shall not come. 3A whip for the horse, a bridle for the ass, and a rod for the fool's back. 4Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. 5Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit. 6He that sendeth a message by the hand of a fool cutteth off the feet, and drinketh damage. 7The legs of the lame are not equal: so is a parable in the mouth of fools. 8As he that bindeth a stone in a sling, so is he that giveth honour to a fool. 9As a thorn goeth up into the hand of a drunkard, so is a parable in the mouth of fools. 10The great God that formed all things both rewardeth the fool, and rewardeth transgressors. 11As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly. 12Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him.
Sure: the author doesn't like fools.
Here is an example of what I mean by flat out contradictions in the Bible. In Luke 24, Jesus says this: “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." Written WHERE? None of that is anywhere in the Hebrew Old Testament. That is Christian belief, stated by Christ, but what he says "is written" is NOT, in fact, written ANYWHERE in the Old Testament. The Bible is shot through with these contradictions. It isn't surprising that a book composed of books, written over the course of hundreds of years by different authors, none of whom had the whole collection of books we call "the Bible", come up with a welter of contradictions, write things that contradict other things that are written. The assertion of some Protestants that God gave us the Bible perfect - the problem with that is passages like this, where Jesus himself says that the Jewish Scriptures say that the Messiah will be killed and rise from the dead on the third day. That is not anywhere in the Hebrew Scriptures. But Jesus says outright that it is. That's either a lie, or a statement from ignorance. It is not possible for me to simply overlook things like that because I want to believe. I don't want to believe so badly that I will ignore obvious error and deceit. If you want to argue with me, it's really easy: cite the old testament passage that says that the Messiah will be killed and rise from the dead, on the third day, and preach reptentance to the whole world starting at Jerusalem. Go ahead, cite it. I'll wait. Crickets. Crickets. More crickets.
Smart people wait to say crickets and give people a chance to answer instead of just saying crickets. You don't believe God has the power to empower people to write down what he wills them to do. You believe God is more interested in raising rats and lizards from the dead as you have claimed you did or God did for you. Because you think God is more interested in stuff like that AND IS TO MUCH OF A WIMP TO PRESERVE HIS WORD. Meaning you lack faith in him. You are more interested in your false idols like a shroud that was tested I believe to be an age that doesn't line us with the Bible that you don't believe in. But you swear on radio carbon dating to date the fossils that were put there by the flood of Noah in the Holy Bible. The doctrine of Vic will never Trump Gods holy word. No matter how smart you think you are. Matthew 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Jonah 1:17 Context 14Wherefore they cried unto the LORD, and said, We beseech thee, O LORD, we beseech thee, let us not perish for this man's life, and lay not upon us innocent blood: for thou, O LORD, hast done as it pleased thee. 15So they took up Jonah, and cast him forth into the sea: and the sea ceased from her raging. 16Then the men feared the LORD exceedingly, and offered a sacrifice unto the LORD, and made vows. 17Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights. Hosea 6:2 says,"He has struck us and He will bind up our wounds; after two days He will revive us, on the third day He will raise us up and we shall live in His Presence." Did you know some of the books were lost? 1. Book of the Wars of the Lord, Numbers 21:14 Therefore it is said in the Book of the Wars of the Lord, "Waheb in Suphah, and the valleys of the Arnon, 2. Book of Nathan the Prophet, 1 Chronicles 29:29 29 Now the acts of David the king, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer, 3. Book of Gad the Seer, 1 Chronicles 29:29 29 Now the acts of David the king, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer, 4. Story of Prophet Iddo, 2 Chronicles 13:22 22 And the rest of the acts of Abijah, and his ways, and his sayings, are written in the story of the prophet Iddo.
No it isn't possible for people who lack faith to see some things. Proverbs 3:5-6 King James Version 5 Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. 6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
What is the Book of the Wars of the Lord? Book of the Wars of the Lord ANSWER The Book of the Wars of the Lord is a book referred to in Scripture but now lost to us. The only information we have about the Book of the Wars of the Lord is what is found in one passage of Scripture. The way it is mentioned in Scripture would indicate that it was somewhat well-known or accessible to the people of ancient Israel. Such “lost books” are not uncommon, because very few ancient books have survived to the present day. Given the impermanency of most ancient writings, it is a testament to the miracle of Scripture that the books of the Bible have done more than survive—there are so many ancient copies that we can, with great certainty, discern what the originals said. The biblical passage that mentions the Book of the Wars of the Lord concerns the Israelites’ trek through the wilderness on their way to the Promised Land: “The Israelites moved on and camped at Oboth. Then they set out from Oboth and camped in Iye Abarim, in the wilderness that faces Moab toward the sunrise. From there they moved on and camped in the Zered Valley. They set out from there and camped alongside the Arnon, which is in the wilderness extending into Amorite territory. The Arnon is the border of Moab, between Moab and the Amorites. That is why the Book of the Wars of the LORD says: ‘. . . Zahab in Suphah and the ravines, the Arnon and the slopes of the ravines that lead to the settlement of Ar and lie along the border of Moab’” (Numbers 21:10–15). According to Numbers 21, Israel was careful to stay out of Edomite, Moabite, and Amorite territory, camping along the Arnon River. Edom was descended from Esau, and Moab from Lot; these were not part of the Canaanite people that Israel was supposed to destroy. In Numbers 20, Moses had requested permission to pass through the land of Edom, since it was a more direct route to the land of Canaan. Edom refused permission and mustered an army to keep Israel out, but Israel simply withdrew and traveled another direction. Ancient borders were often a source of contention, and Israel was very careful to stay out of Moabite territory. Moses sent messengers to King Sihon of the Amorites, requesting passage through their territory, promising, “We will not turn aside into any field or vineyard, or drink water from any well. We will travel along the King’s Highway until we have passed through your territory” (Numbers 21:22). However, Sihon refused to allow the Israelites into his land and mustered the Amorite army against Israel. By the power of the Lord, the Israelites defeated the Amorites and camped in their territory (verses 23–26). If the citation of “the poets” in verse 27 is a reference to the authors of the Book of the Wars of the Lord, then another passage from that book is used to poetically relate the overthrow of the Amorite kingdom (verses 27–30). From the title, “The Book of the Wars of the Lord,” some assume that this was a book about battles in which the Lord fought or perhaps were fought on His behalf; and it may have been just such a book. However, Hebrew books were often named by the first word or phrase in the book and were not a summary of the book’s contents. For instance the book of Exodus is called Shemot in Hebrew, which means “names.” The book of Exodus begins, “These are the names of the sons of Israel who went to Egypt with Jacob.” Thus, the title of an ancient book might tell very little about the content of the book. In summary, we know little about the Book of the Wars of the Lord, but we may assume that this ancient work documented geographical boundaries between nations and possibly related poetic descriptions of particular battles. It is even possible that the Moabites may have known about the Book of the Wars of the Lord. In any case, the work is cited in Numbers to help substantiate the claim that Israel did not encroach on Moabite territory. https://www.gotquestions.org/book-of-the-Wars-of-the-Lord.html
The Book Of Nathan The Prophet 1 Synopsis 2 Canonicity 3 Text 3.1 Fragment 1: Vision Of The Messiah 3.1.1 Variant (The Revelation Of Stephen) 3.2 Fragment 2: The Last Words Of David 3.3 Fragment 3: Origin of The Ascent Psalms Synopsis Mentioned in the Bible, this partially lost work was seemingly preserved along with other works, by the Cochin Jews of India. Part of the lost five books of the prophets, with The Book Of Gad The Seer, The Book Of Nathan The Prophet is one of two of the unique books from the Cochin Jews broader canon published in English. Sadly, only three fragments are known, with vague origins. The fragments were uncovered by Ken Johnson Th.D., and have not been published. However, he did read from them, and the following fragments are the ones he presented from verbatim. As well, Johnson did give details on the rest of the text: The book was divided into five sections: Prophecy, Doctrine, History, Psalms, and a part dedicated to the Temple of Solomon. It had Psalms 51, and 120-134 along with it. It contained sermons attributed to David It contained a story of the restoration of the Ark Of The Covenant, after being stolen by the Philistines, an account of Nathan’s family being killed by King Saul, and an expanded narrative on the sin of King David with Bathsheba. Aside from this, a Medieval Romance dubbed the Revelation Of Stephen, quotes from “Nathan The Prophet.” This quote is nearly identical to the first fragment discovered by Johnson. Also, there is evidence that the second was also discovered by another, and the details told of it having been a fragment written in French. Finally, there is a legend in an ancient document called the Lives Of The Prophets, which told a legend, identical to the final detail mentioned Ken Johnson. Canonicity While it is likely the ancient Jewish people used this work often as scripture, it became lost to the scattered nation. Currently, only the Cochin Jews of India own this text, and according to Johnson, view these works as taboo, because of Christian-like themes. Text Fragment 1: Vision Of The Messiah I saw one, a maiden without the touch of a man, with a child in her arms. And that child was the Lord of the Earth, to the ends of the Earth. Variant (The Revelation Of Stephen) I saw one, a maiden and without touch of man, and a man child in her arms, and that was the Lord of the earth unto the end of the earth. Fragment 2: The Last Words Of David Keep the commandments of God, O my son Solomon. Study the law of the Lord, walk before him in a perfect heart. God has chosen you, and established you over all the children of Israel. Execute the justice did not do all these forty years. I admonish you, O my son Solomon, carry out my will, and remember the mystery of YHWH that I saw in a vision of wonders from the Lord of the universe, about his virgin mother, who will emerge from our tribe. I pray that he gives mercy to me and all his creatures in the world. And David told all this to his son Solomon. He stopped talking, and died a good old age. Solomon gave him a dignified burial, near his fathers, and rendered thanks to God, to whom we give thanksgiving and praise unceasingly and eternally. Fragment 3: Origin of The Ascent Psalms When I realized that they had debated to long, I told them this is unsatisfactory. So we will all go together to the Tabernacle of the Lord, we will assemble the degrees of the alter, and on whom the spirit of God descends, will tell us the order of the Book of Psalms. Everyone accepted this condition, so we went to the Tabernacle of the Lord. The son of Korah climbed the first degrees to the alter and spoke. But they did not say a word, and he stepped down. Asaph went in turn, and the Spirit of God descended upon him, convicting him, not the son of Korah should complete this task. Then I went, and the spirit of God descended upon me, and never left me. Until the point that I had the ends, and the recitation formulas for each of the fifteen degrees. The crowd cried with one voice, This prophecy must be attributed to David, and it is for him to write it. And I said No, each one should write each of his Psalms in his own name. And he (the son of Korah) fled to his own house because of what I said. Then I got up, and went to the mountain. I fasted and I spoke to God with humble prayers. And He came to me and gave me all the prophecies which the coming of Messiah. I wrote them down in this volume, and placed it in my library which is in the Capitol. ancient- scriptures.fandom.com/wiki/The_Book_Of_Nathan_The_Prophet
What is the book of Gad the seer? The book of Gad the seer is an ancient record of King David’s life and reign mentioned in 1 Chronicles 29:29: “Now the acts of King David, first and last, indeed they are written in the book of Samuel the seer, in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer” (NKJV). The book of Gad the seer was apparently written by Gad, a prophet who ministered during David’s life. Other translations name it “The Record of Gad the Seer” (NLT) or “the Chronicles of Gad the seer” (ESV). It was common for ancient kings to keep annals of their royal activities, and ancient prophets sometimes played a role in the compilation of these records or provided a divine perspective on historical events. Sections of Jeremiah and Isaiah provide examples of prophetic historical narrative, though the records kept by Gad may have been more straightforward and procedural. Either way, the chronicler knew of Gad’s work, commended it to his readers, and likely drew on it himself in the composition of 1 and 2 Chronicles. The biblical books of Kings and Chronicles reference numerous historical sources, citing them for support and using them to fill in gaps left by their selective narrative (1 Kings 11:41; 15:31; 2 Chronicles 13:22). The Cochin Jews in India possessed a pseudepigraphal work claiming to be written by Gad the seer, which was discovered in the 18th century. There is only one extant, relatively recent copy of this interesting manuscript, currently housed at the University of Cambridge. It contains supposed visions from God and stories about David and the people around him. Its original date of composition is a matter of debate, but the most common alternatives are either the first few centuries AD or the Middle Ages. The real book of Gad the seer is currently lost and will probably remain lost. The chronicler’s reference to other sources points to the historical authenticity of 1 and 2 Chronicles and should give Christians even greater confidence in the factual nature of the Old Testament. As John Thompson, an Old Testament scholar, concludes regarding 1 Chronicles 29:29, “The use of written records preserved by Samuel, Nathan the prophet, and Gad the seer may be a reference to material now found in the canonical books of Samuel and Kings. Whether or not that is the case, the point here is that the facts to which Chronicles bears witness are well attested and that in fact David did much more than is written here” (1 and 2 Chronicles, Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994, p. 200).
Who Is the Prophet Iddo in the Bible? In ancient Israel and Judah, the prophets of God repeated God’s words to the people, guiding them in the way they should go. While a lesser-known prophet, Iddo’s presence and influence are seen through some of the most pivotal moments in redemption history. Which Books of the Bible Mention the Prophet Iddo? The prophet Iddo is particularly mentioned in the Old Testament’s historical and prophetic books. His name could have meant “lovely” or “God’s witness.” Up to seven people possibly had that name in the Old Testament. We will focus on the Iddo mentioned in association with the first few kings of Judah. The first mention of the prophet Iddo is in 1 Kings 4:14, where he is referred to as a prophet during the reign of King Solomon. Iddo’s prophetic ministry likely occurred during Solomon’s reign, a time of great prosperity and wisdom in Israel’s history. The prophet Iddo is mentioned several times in the book of 2 Chronicles, where his importance is further emphasized. In 2 Chronicles 9:29, it is stated that Iddo wrote a history or chronicle of King Solomon’s reign. This work is commonly known as the “Annals of Iddo the Seer” and is considered a valuable historical account of the period. 1 and 2 Kings and 1 and 2 Chronicles are compilations of other historical accounts—accounts referenced many times within Kings and Chronicles. The compilers took information from books written about these individual kings, and many of the books referenced were books written by God’s prophets, people like Iddo. This is clear evidence those writers viewed the writings of the prophets as authoritative historical accounts. In 2 Chronicles 12:15, the prophet Iddo is mentioned in connection with the reign of King Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, after the split between Israel and Judah. Iddo’s presence during this time indicates his prophetic activity spanned multiple generations and that he was a respected and influential figure in the royal court. 2 Chronicles 13:22 mentions Iddo’s involvement during the reign of Abijah, another king of Judah. Again, his continued presence and influence in the lives of successive kings highlight his significant role as a prophet during that era. Other prophets named Iddo are mentioned in later kings, such as Jehoshaphat, Uzziah, and Hezekiah. Still, if he were the same prophet at the time of Solomon and Rehoboam, he would have been well over a hundred years old, so it’s hard to say whether he was the same Iddo. What Kings Ruled When Iddo Was Prophet? The prophet Iddo lived during a significant period in the history of the Kingdom of Judah. He witnessed and prophesied during the reigns of several kings, each contributing to the kingdom’s spiritual and political landscape. While the exact duration of Iddo’s prophetic ministry is not specified in the Bible, the historical books provide insights into the reigns of the kings he served under. As mentioned earlier, Iddo’s prophetic ministry is believed to have begun during the reign of King Solomon, the son of King David. Solomon was renowned for his wisdom; his reign is considered a time of prominence for the Kingdom of Israel (1 Kings 4:29-34). Iddo’s presence during Solomon’s rule suggests that he witnessed the golden era of Israel’s united kingdom. After Solomon’s death, his son Rehoboam ascended to the throne. Iddo continued to serve as a prophet during Rehoboam’s reign, which marked the division of the kingdom into the Northern Kingdom of Israel and the Southern Kingdom of Judah due to political unrest (1 Kings 12:1-24). Iddo was also present during the reign of Abijah, the son of Rehoboam and the second king of Judah. Abijah’s reign was characterized by conflict with the Northern Kingdom, and Iddo’s prophetic ministry likely influenced the course of events during this turbulent time (2 Chronicles 13:1-22). Iddo served as a prophet during the reign of King Asa, the third king of Judah. Asa was known for his religious reforms and efforts to root out idolatry from the land (1 Kings 15:9-15). Iddo’s prophetic counsel might have shaped Asa’s dedication to God and his commitment to righteousness. Since Iddo wrote about the kings through Abijah (who had a brief reign), he likely lived into Asa’s long period as king. While the Bible does not provide an exhaustive list of all the kings during Iddo’s prophetic ministry, these accounts reveal that he witnessed and prophesied during a crucial period in Judah’s history. Throughout these reigns, Iddo remained a faithful servant of God, offering guidance, counsel, and prophecies to the kings and people of Judah. Is Iddo the Unnamed Prophet in 1 Kings 13? Scholars debate whether Iddo is the unnamed prophet in 1 Kings 13. The passage narrates a significant event involving two prophets—a younger one from Judah and an older one from Bethel. The story presents a cautionary tale obeying God’s commands and the consequences of deviating from them. In 1 Kings 13, a young prophet from Judah was sent by God to deliver a message to King Jeroboam of the Northern Kingdom of Israel. The prophet boldly delivered God’s word, foretelling the downfall of Jeroboam’s idolatrous altar and the dynasty of the house of Jeroboam (1 Kings 13:1- 3). As a sign of the prophecy’s fulfillment, the young prophet demonstrated a miraculous sign: the altar split apart, and the ashes spilled out. After delivering the message, God commanded the young prophet not to eat or drink anything in the region and to return home by a different route. However, an older prophet who lived in Bethel heard about the young prophet’s arrival and invited him to his house. The older prophet claimed an angel had told him to bring the young prophet back to eat and drink. Despite the direct command from God, the young prophet was deceived by the older prophet and agreed to go to his house (1 Kings 13:11-19).
So says the man who says God is Satan and Jesus isn't God. You also said Jesus is Good. But Jesus said there is none good but God. Jesus was obviously referring to himself as well as the father. But you reject that and say you only believe Jesus's words. So according to you Jesus is Good but he says he isn't. Stick that in yur pipe. He actually says he is because he is God.
Proverbs 27:1 Context 1Boast not thyself of to morrow; for thou knowest not what a day may bring forth. 2Let another man praise thee, and not thine own mouth; a stranger, and not thine own lips. 3A stone is heavy, and the sand weighty; but a fool's wrath is heavier than them both. 4Wrath is cruel, and anger is outrageous; but who is able to stand before envy?
I like a lot of what Vivek says. He is very charismatic. He speaks much truth. But I don't know if I would trust a guy as president who worships this.
Yep, crickets. Jesus said "It is written..." so you go and quote the new testament to me. Was THAT written when Jesus said that? No. Only the Old Testament was written. Then you quote something about the dead being raise in Hoshea. Ok. Interesting. But is "He has struck us and He will bind up our wounds; after two days He will revive us, on the third day He will raise us up and we shall live in His Presence." the same as "This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." Nope. Not even close. Messiah? Repentance? Preaching to all the nations? Nope. Not there. It's about wounded being revived (it says wounded, not dead, but we'll pass there. Nothing about the Messiah). The other things you mentioned all have one thing in common: they're not in the Bible, so we don't know what they say. Could God not protect his word? Are we simply to imagine what books said? Meanwhile, we HAVE the Shroud of Turin, which is at least MENTIONED in the Gospels, and we have the healings at Lourdes, which have been recorded by the International Scientific Committee of medical doctors since the 1800s, but you won't acknowledge either one of them. Why do this?
It's not possible for people who don't believe the fairy tale version to believe it. That's true. God is. What's described in the Bible only sees God through a glass darkly. And it pollutes men's minds, because they cling to all of the dark and nasty aspects of it, while ignoring the noble aspects. The sabbath of debts and jubilee, anyone? Hell, even the ancient Jews didn't do it, and their God reproaches them for it and destroys them for it twice. So they come back together, reconstitute themselves...and then still don't do it. Men use the Bible as an excuse to do shitty things, and then use their interpretations of it to avoid doing the good things in it that God demanded. The religious make a very poor showing of themselves, and make one see their God as a fairy tale they follow. The real God is more powerful and consistent than that.
I find it fascinating that you cite to, and focus upon, ancient books that are not in the Bible. So, given this, what then do you make of the ancient books that we have, and that have always been in the Catholic Bible? Martin Luther called them "Apocrypha" and took them out of the Protestant Bible. He tried to take books out of the New Testament too - James and Revelation, at least - but the others around him would not agree to that. So, books we don't even have are cited by you as canonical, but books we DO have, also very ancient, and part of the Bible since the time the Bible was put together, are excluded, because Luther said so. And who was HE? Oh, yeah, he didn't like indulgences (I don't either), but he DID like the Virgin Mary, even believed in the Immaculate Conception. If he was wrong about that, how is it that you think he was right about the excluded books. Yeah. Fortunately for you, a KJV-Onliest, the "Apocrypha" ARE actually part of the King James Bible, original version. They're not in your version of it either though, are they. (Go look.) I certainly cannot comment on the content of books we don't have. We DO have the Book of Enoch, though. It's in the Ethiopian Canon, and preserved there. So, is THAT canon to you? It sounds like I'm ridiculing you, I'm not. What I am doing is pointing out a truth that I see front and center: you mock me for my "lack of faith", when I have very strong faith in God. But you equate that with belief in the letter-perfection of your particular version of the Bible...but when I show you Jesus stating a howling error, you cannot produce for me the text he quotes in your Bible (I would not have said it was not there if it was - I know my Bible), and you reach outside of your "perfect" Bible to books we don't even HAVE, while ignoring books we DO have, because some scholar (whom you otherwise derided in a message to me) says they were "canonical" at some time. The inconsistency of what you say contrasts with the consistency of what I have said for years. I don't make things up. Words mean things. And when Jesus says something explicit, ok, let's go find WHERE "It is written", and we don't find it, because IT ISN'T THERE. Then you accuse ME of a "lack of faith" because I have pointed out a TRUTH to you. To you, does "faith" mean simply IGNORING error? That is the lesson you appear to me to be trying to teach. "God wrote this!" "Ummm, where?" "Shut up, faithless!" That is singularly unpersuasive.
Yes, Jesus said he isn't God, only the Father is. And he said that only God is good. Ok. That's not a contradiction. He also says that he was sent by God, to bring God's message. That message is good, and Jesus is a faithful servant, so yes, Jesus says things that are good, and they come from God, so they are good. You love to insult me every other post. It smells of desperation to me. You could just, you know, ask me to explain myself, like a civil human being would. But nope, you have to bray at me like a jackass. Ok. You keep doing you. And I'll keep on responding to you with knowledge, though I get progressively less polite the more I am treated with contempt by a braying jackass. I could be persuaded with reason and fact. You've presented some facts, but they don't prove the point you're trying to make. For example, the fact that these ancient books were mentioned is interesting. But to assert that they contained whatever is missing from the Bible, that's just making things up, and it shows the lack of perfection of the Bible, which you have said is preserved by God and is letter perfect. It's clearly NOT perfectly preserved by God if Jesus says something that cannot be found anywhere in it, and you have to go to lost books and claim those as the sources. That's actually pretty devastating to your argument about perfection, as any objective person would see. But then you just get mad and start hurling insults at me. In olden times, your church would have burned me as a heretic. But you can't do that anymore, because you have become weaker and weaker with time. Calling me names annoys me - given the time I have spent with you presenting you things, I certainly don't deserve that. As I've said, you COULD ask me politely what I mean. But you just hurl insults like thunderbolts. That's not very...Christian...or at any rate it's not very Jesus like. You like to say I am satanic. You appear to me to be much moreso than I am. I ask questions about the accuracy of the book. There is no doubt in my mind about God - my doubt is that this book properly describes him. You ascribe what I say to satan and hurl at me. Ok. Maybe it were best if we just stopped this, then. If you cannot speak to me with proper respect, why should I keep trying. I'm not going to descend into the gutter with you and start screaming "Fuckwad!" at you, and the like. That's poor manners, and I'm not really that angry, just tired of the insults, and sad that we cannot ever get past them.
Luke would have had access to those books. So maybe that is what he was quoting from Maybe I'll study some more and get back with you on it. For more examples. But you cannot really rule out that it was in one of the "lost" books. There would be no other reason for him to write it is written, unless he had read it somewhere. You just brought this to my attention yesterday. So those are my initial thoughts. You are a good sport I will give you that. You ask hard questions.
I certainly cannot rule out one of those lost books. But the fact that to make what Jesus said true requires looking at lost things proves my point about the Bible NOT being complete and NOT being the sole source. What Jesus says there about "It is written..." CANNOT be verified, and certainly is NOT true by what is written IN THE BIBLE. You have to reach outside of the Bible to make it work. I have no problem with that. I do it with the Shroud of Turin, the Lourdes Healings, the Incorrupt Bodies of Saints, and NDEs. These things all demonstrate the power of God, whom I know to exist by direct personal experience. But these very things you completely deny because they are NOT in the Bible - and you do so by casting aspersions onto my character for bringing them up. Ok, then, I am going to hold you to exactly the same standard. If it's not in the Bible and I cite to it, you reject it, call it satanic, and call ME satanic for doing that. Ok. Well, then don't do it yourself. Either stick to the four corners of the Bible OR accept extra-Biblical things. Do not cite to extra-Biblical things we can't even look at to argue your case, but then don't call things we physically have, can look at, and SEE the miracles "satanic" because they are not in the Bible. You don't get to do it both ways. Note, please, that I HAVE been sticking to the four corners of the Bible, to show its contradictions. I cited Jesus, where he said something that cannot be demonstrated by the Bible. In fact, what he said is contrary to what's in the Bible: what he said is there is not, in fact, there AT ALL. Now, MAYBE what he said IS written in some text we don't have. Ok. But don't pretend that's the Bible. It's NOT. Which MEANS that the Bible itself is NOT a complete self-authenticating record. It is NOT what people assert it is in that regard.
Ok, then, I am going to hold you to exactly the same standard. If it's not in the Bible and I cite to it, you reject it, call it satanic, and call ME satanic for doing that. On the Shroud. I said it might or might not be true. It is fun being a contractor arguing against a trained lawyer. :)
The Bible mentions them in the verses I sited. So they did exist. It says in historical terms that those texts were there around the time of Jesus and the Apostles.
I never called the Shroud of Turnin Satanic. I said it might be true or a forgery. I mentioned radio carbon dating. I haven't studied it in detail. But it seems it was dated in a manner which would say it wasn't in the Biblical time frame. I'm not saying that because some radio carbon dating says something that makes it true. But that seems to be your belief. Feel free to correct me or anything I said here if I am wrong.
That is kind of fair enough. Except you do the same thing in my view. I don't think I have ever used the words you are satanic. I don't even claim you are going to hell. For all I know you are saved. I don't think you have to be absolutely correct on everything to be saved. Besides doesn't the Bible teach not to claim to know if someone is saved or not. That is a paraphrase. Also thanks for the time and thought you put into your posts. It is very considerate of you. Time is precious. Thanks again for your time.
Not for what you are asserting. Yeah, those texts exists. They talked about "the wars of the Lord". Ok. But did they explicitly say that there would be a Messiah, who would come, be killed, rise in three days, and convert the world starting at Jerusalem? There is no way - no possible way - one can assert that any of them said that. Sure, the books EXISTED, but they are not PART OF the Bible. They are referenced in the Bible. Jude mentions the book of Enoch by name. Is THAT in the Bible, then? We HAVE that whole book. IS IT part of the Bible because Jude mentioned it in the Bible and highly praised it? Does the fact that Jesus appears to have quoted it in several places make it also "The Bible"? Yes or no? If yes, then the KJV is not a complete Bible, because Enoch is not there - so the claims made specifically about the KJV being IT are not true. If no, if the claims about the KJV being IT are true, then these other books are NOT Biblical, by definition. They're MENTIONED, like Enoch, and that may make them inspirational, if we could read them (We CAN read Enoch, and I'm glad it's NOT in the Bible, because I can square Genesis with the world, but Enoch? It reads like a pagan myth of gods and demigods, and a flat world, etc. If THAT were in the KJV, the flat world that has wind coming from angels at the "corners" and the sun and moon that pass out of doors overhead and go into doors on the other side would break the whole idea of the KJV being literally true...unless KJV-Onliests became flat earthers. But Enoch ISN'T in the KJV, so you don't have to become a flat-earther, and I don't have to give up any hope of rectifying the Bible with physical reality. I HAVE done that with Genesis 1, but doors in the sky above a world with corners? No. That's either "poetry" that cannot be taken literally, or it's just ridiculous. Fortunately I'm not Ethiopian Orthodox, because they have always had Enoch in their canon. That these external texts existed is interesting. But their contents are not in the Bible, and if Jesus meant "Scripture" when he said "It is written", then these books are NOT Scripture to a KJV Onliest. And anyway, given their age and their subject matter, they are unlikely to have that reference to the Messiah that Jesus quoted anyway.
The radio carbon dating has been shown to have been on a medieval patch on the edge of the cloth, damaged by a fire. Two other dating techniques have shown it to be first century. It's companion facecloth came to Spain the 600s.
Ok. Well, if I AM insulting, or have been, I am sorry for it and I'll just stop. I get irritated by the tone of the challenges. It's not that I am trying to undermine the Bible, or anything. I believe there is divine inspiration there. But then I come to things that are just plain awful, like certain of the laws of God in the Torah. They are so MORALLY offensive that I cannot accept that God wants that of us, and if he DID, I'm not going to do that - I am disgusted he would ask. Killing rape victims and taking virgins as sex slaves is pretty damned barbaric, as is burning witches. It seems outright Satanic. Did God REALLY say that? My best answer is "Maybe he did, but those laws were for a very primitive, barbaric people, and they were actually BETTER than the prevailing barbarism all around, which included all of those things, plus slaughtering your kids as offerings to the gods." And also there is the problem of Jesus changing all those laws. He said he was not ABOLISHING the law, and there is a lot in the law that is good - like the forgiveness of debt - but Jesus definitely DOES overthrow the food laws, and the law of killing adulteresses, and similar laws - really barbaric ones. He presents a much more civilized view for a more civilized age, though not WHOLLY civilized, since it DID kill him and almost all of his disciples. Jesus appears to have directly defied what Yahweh said in Deuteronomy, and SHOULD have been killed under that law. Is that REALLY what God wants? And the 6000 year old earth, in which I see the dinosaur bones. Really? So instead of rejecting it all, as the atheists do, and throwing it on the dungheap, I said "Wait a minute, is this REALLY what it says?" So I looked at the Greek, and at the Hebrew. I don't have to speak the ancient Hebrew language fluently to be able to study and read key words, and for Genesis, the hieroglyphs. And I discover, to my amazement, that no, God DID NOT SAY "forever". The conflict that IS there in the medieval English translations actually IS NOT THERE in the Hebrew. For God said "ha olam" and "ha olam va ed", "to the horizon", "to the indistinct", and "to the horizon after the horizon". And that ain't forever. What? "To the forever after forever"? Please. No, it means "until we don't know when", and "for a long time". Ok. Well, it was a long time from the Torah to Jesus, but then Jesus came and amended the barbarism that God allowed for utterly barbaric creatures, and made the law BETTER. He could do that, because he was the son of God, and Moses NEVER SAID that the law was the law FOREVER - he only said, led by God, "to a distant time". That time came with Jesus, now we're under the law of Jesus. Sure, Jesus referred back to the Torah, and upheld much of it, and those parts he changed fulfilled it, completed it. BUT he COULDN'T DO THAT if the laws given by Moses were "forever", like the Bible says they were, in English. And that's my point. The Bible says that in English, but it does NOT say that in the Hebrew. The Hebrew permits what happened, the English, translated 1600 and 3400 years later, does not. The English is simply wrong - it is misleading. And virtually all of my heartburn with Protestants is that they insist on the FOREVER of the English, because THAT makes God a monster. But I look into the text and I see God as reasonable, working with man as we are. Very barbaric in a barbaric age, whom God renders much less so with his laws, and then good with what Jesus gave us, though the barbarians of HIS age killed him, transforming him into something that changed the world. THAT is my point. That has always been my point. And Genesis? In the Hebrew scriptures, read on the surface and with the hieroglyphs, well that DOES show what actually happened, as described by science, and it IS very sophisticated - so much so that it literally shows the authorship of God. I try to show this, to Christians, and they call me a heathen because I do not take the English of 1611 literally. But how CAN I, given that that same English suggests by "forever" that the Jewish authorities were RIGHT to kill Jesus for blasphemy? I do not seek to destroy the Bible - I'm not an atheist nor even an agnostic. Nor am I seeking to change the Bible because "I want to sin", one the of accusations hurled against me. No, what I am doing is UPLIFTING the Bible against the medieval minds that are afraid of modernity and science. Actually, the Bible STANDS with modern science in terms of the origins - thought not with the Young Earthers - the text really doesn't say that, and that's a GOOD thing, because if it DID, then it would be wrong. The actual Hebrew, read deeply and carefully, without jamming down medieval English on top of the Hebrew, allows for exactly what science said happened. That's IN the Bible. And given that it was written thousands of years ago, it CAN'T be - but it is. And THAT proves that God inspired it directly. THAT is what I am doing, trying to show the Truth of what is there. Against me are the atheists, who says (wrongly) it's all crap. And the religionists. The Catholics say "fine", but that's not important. What's important is what they say is important. Whatever. And the hard core fundamentalist Protestants? They scream that I am wrong, because I assault their medieval English translation. But I HAVE TO, because if IT were true, Jesus was a blasphemer. But since it's NOT true, thank God!, and the Hebrew is much sharper than that, I need to say so. This makes people mad, because I'm breaking their idol. Yes, I guess I am, but this doesn't break the Bible. It means that understanding it requires more work than just pointing at a specific translation. A great translation COULD avoid these issues, but that hasn't been made yet. If I won the lottery, I would commission it, and boy what I commissioned would be THOROUGH. Anyway, that is where I am actually come from. I am no atheist nor an agnostic. I am deeply educated in natural science, and I think the evidence indicates that that's what happened. And when I read Genesis, CAREFULLY, not on the surface, applying the true meaning of the words, and reading the underlying hieroglyphs, I find a fractal of such complexity, and accuracy!, that it openly proves God - there is no way that ancient men could have written this unaided, and for the phonetic overlay work hand in glove with the pictographic letters themselves. I have no desire to kill the Bible, or the Church, for that matter. But I can't look the other way when what is asserted about the Bible is wrong, and I can't ignore crimes and horrors committed by people I like, and those people have to own up to it, both is the interpretations and the crimes, because otherwise the Church is destroyed and faith in God is weakened. And that's a tragedy, because God is real.
#2. To: All (#1)
#3. To: A K A Stone (#1)
#4. To: A K A Stone (#2)
#5. To: All (#4)
#6. To: Vicomte13 (#3)
People do it because of a logic tree they have built up.
#7. To: A K A Stone (#6)
#8. To: Vicomte13 (#5)
(Edited)
#9. To: Mudboy Slim (#8)
#10. To: Vicomte13 (#7)
#11. To: A K A Stone (#6)
(Edited)
#12. To: A K A Stone (#10)
#13. To: Vicomte13 (#0)
#14. To: A K A Stone (#13)
#15. To: All (#14)
#16. To: Vicomte13 (#15)
#17. To: Vicomte13 (#15)
It is not possible for me
#18. To: Vicomte13 (#15)
#19. To: Vicomte13 (#15)
#20. To: Vicomte13 (#15)
#21. To: Vicomte13 (#15)
#22. To: Vicomte13 (#15)
The Bible is shot through with these contradictions.
#23. To: Vicomte13 (#0)
I have exhaustively read the Bible in English, Middle English and French, and have studies portions of it Latin, Koine Greek and Ancient Hebrew, including reading the ancient Hebrew pictographs.
#24. To: Vicomte13, mudboy slim (#5)
#25. To: A K A Stone (#16)
#26. To: A K A Stone (#17)
#27. To: A K A Stone (#19)
#28. To: A K A Stone (#22)
(Edited)
#29. To: Vicomte13 (#25)
#30. To: A K A Stone (#29)
(Edited)
#31. To: Vicomte13 (#30)
But these very things you completely deny because they are NOT in the Bible - and you do so by casting aspersions onto my character for bringing them up.
#32. To: Vicomte13 (#30)
But these very things you completely deny because they are NOT in the Bible
#33. To: Vicomte13 (#30)
can look at, and SEE the miracles "satanic" because they are not in the Bible.
#34. To: Vicomte13 (#28)
But you can't do that anymore, because you have become weaker and weaker with time. Calling me names annoys me - given the time I have spent with you presenting you things, I certainly don't deserve that. As I've said, you COULD ask me politely what I mean. But you just hurl insults like thunderbolts. That's not very...Christian...or at any rate it's not very Jesus like.
#35. To: A K A Stone (#32)
#36. To: A K A Stone (#33)
#37. To: A K A Stone (#34)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]