The Improbability of God

[MHz]

Can you com up with the same meaning by using a Hebrew dictionary?
Using old french to define a word that is from another language is not the best way to be as accurate as possible, it is a great way to find a definition that suits your purpose though.

 

[petros]

SirJP the majority is Vedic but only biblical religions repress and demonize the serpent of the Kundalini. This was the gnosis given to Eve in the garden when she had her first organism without shame opening her third eye which we now know is the pineal gland.

 

[petros]

Can you com up with the same meaning by using a Hebrew dictionary?
Using old french to define a word that is from another language is not the best way to be as accurate as possible, it is a great way to find a definition that suits your purpose though.

There is no need. The Septuagint is very accurate in it's translation of the Hebrew. Words will make more sense to you when you know the difference between a synonym and antonym. ;-)

 

[MHz]

There is no need. The Septuagint is very accurate in it's translation of the Hebrew. Words will make more sense to you when you know the difference between a synonym and antonym. ;-)

Then why not go by what they actually say?
28 And God blessed them, saying, Increase and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the seas and flying creatures of heaven, and all the cattle and all the earth, and all the reptiles that creep on the earth.
Genesis

 

[petros]

Then why not go by what they actually say?
28 And God blessed them, saying, Increase and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the seas and flying creatures of heaven, and all the cattle and all the earth, and all the reptiles that creep on the earth.
Genesis

Genesis...Generations of Isis a mother goddess.
2:14 And the third river is Tigris, this is that which flows forth over against the Assyrians. I assume these Assyrians were A&E's neighbours Cain was scared ****less of when he declares "surly they (Assyrians) will get me." Who did you think was going to get him?

By the way going from Greek to English is where the Bible loses it's Septuagint accuracy. English being a meat grinder language had no option but use the French word replenish because English lacked a word for refilling or restocking in this definition of the very precise language of Greek.

 

[petros]

more of there being "others"

Genesis 3:14 If thou castest me out this day from the face of the earth, and I shall be hidden from thy presence, and I shall be groaning and trembling upon the earth, then it will be that any one that finds me shall slay me. 15 And the Lord God said to him, Not so, any one that slays Cain shall suffer seven-fold vengeance; and the Lord God set a mark upon Cain that no one that found him might slay him. 16

Who was going to slay him? Who are these any ones he refers to?

 

[MHz]

Those were given as landmarks, they are areas that would called by those names at a future date.
We aren't told how old he was, what we are told is that Adam and Eve had more than those two children, one might assume that is who he was referring to.
Chapter 5
4 And the days of Adam, which he lived after his begetting Seth, were seven hundred years; and he begot sons and daughters.

 

[petros]

Another reference of "knowledge" being sex.

3:17 And Cain knew his wife, and having conceived she bore Enoch. Meaning he used the knowledge given to his mom by his Kudalini serpent dad so he could have children too.

 

[petros]

Adam and Eve were the first to figure out that having sex made kids. This is the "knowledge" they talk about.

From this point on the Bible unarguably goes off into being the story of a geneology which further shores up that these two start a race or a bloodline.

 

[MHz]

It stands to reason that the 1st two people that lived had to be the 1st ones to have kids.

 

[MHz]

resorted to personal insults (as I expected you eventually would, a religious extremist normally does that. But you held out longer than I expected.)

I found that tiny bit of information to be helpful in which verse applies to the (then) current subject. It turns out it isn't important by itself so the verse about getting married after having a divorce applies, it is adultery. That isn't a really, really big deal unless you are still doing it when the last call for entering the new city comes along.
It isn't a threat to real marriage because there will never be any natural children.
Since it is not husband and wife neither is sub-servant. Under OT Law some things might be difficult to sort out but that doesn't apply so no verses. Under NT Law the way a wife is treated is no different that a stranger. When acting as a couple in public the rule about the wife being quiet while the man speaks mite actually be more efficient than both talking while doing business.

Now if you find that offensive....whatever....the verses are there if they say something else to you so be it.

Be happy this is as short as it is.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Ephesians:
5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Could it be any clearer? The order of importance is god, Christ, the church, husbands, and wives, and the husband is in charge of the wife. Wives are second class people, subject to their husbands. And there are other texts suggesting an unmarried woman is even lower, has no value at all, and is subject to her father and brothers. You aren't going to sell that idea in the modern world.

Try rewording it, just replacing husband or husbands with wife or wives, and vice versa:

Husbands, submit yourselves unto your own wives, as unto the Lord. For the wife is the head of the husband, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the husbands be to their own wives in every thing.

How does that make you feel?

 

[MHz]

Ephesians:
5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Could it be any clearer? The order of importance is god, Christ, the church, husbands, and wives, and the husband is in charge of the wife.
Wives are second class people, subject to their husbands. And there are other texts suggesting an unmarried woman is even lower, has no value at all, and is subject to her father and brothers. You aren't going to sell that idea in the modern world.

It is be a bit clearer when you include more to the list]
Almighty God, Holy Ghost, Jesus Christ, Husbands , Wives, Sons/Daughters
I would have to see your list to determine if why the same type of relationship results a second-class person. Christ's promises to the ones that are the Church seems to be anything but second class. Yes a divorced or widowed woman is not as fortunate as a first-bride. A man divorced from the Church is in a hell of a place, that is totally lower than the blushing bride.
It isn't for sale, it is a wedding gift from above. For the record the actual bride to Christ is just one human woman, the ones who are related to her (all Eve's children as she is a daughter of Israel's first Anointed Priest

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Ephesians:
5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Could it be any clearer? The order of importance is god, Christ, the church, husbands, and wives, and the husband is in charge of the wife. Wives are second class people, subject to their husbands. And there are other texts suggesting an unmarried woman is even lower, has no value at all, and is subject to her father and brothers. You aren't going to sell that idea in the modern world.

Try rewording it, just replacing husband or husbands with wife or wives, and vice versa:

Husbands, submit yourselves unto your own wives, as unto the Lord. For the wife is the head of the husband, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the husbands be to their own wives in every thing.

How does that make you feel?

You nailed it, Dexter. As I said in one of my posts, the attitude of Bible (and Christian fanatics) towards women can be summed up as: Husband: Master, Wife: Servant.

And can one really expect anything else form a 2000 year old book, written to reflect the customs and mores of those days?

And what did the writers have to draw upon? The two dominant religions at that time were Hinduism (which was really the world religion in those days) and Zoroastrianism (which was dominant in the Middle East, the area where Christianity originated).

Now, I don’t know much about Zoroastrianism, but I know Hinduism is absolutely vicious towards women. Christianity drew upon Hinduism for many of its tenets (I personally think that Christians got the concept of Trinity, Second Coming from Hinduism), so why not also draw upon Hinduism’s contempt for women?

Actually Christian attitude towards women may represent a sort of advance in women’s position. After all to say that woman is man’s servant, man is woman’s master is quite an advance from saying that man is woman’s God.

So it may well be that Christian position towards women was a progressive position in those days. But the problem is, that is where the matters froze with Fundamentalists, with fanatics.

The world has moved on in the past 2000 years, but not the Christian fanatics (or the Muslim fanatics). To them, man is the master, woman is the servant, and that is that.

 

[Scott Free]

I really can't understand how I ever believed this religion crap.

It was like being in a fog.

It's quite embarrassing actually.

 

[eanassir]

From where in the Quran is this stated that women are subhuman?

Where it says that one man is equal to two women. Or where it says it is OK for a man to beat his wife. It clearly implies that a woman’s worth is half that of man’s worth, that women are subhuman.

Women rights in the Quran – 3​

The woman as a witness in the court of justice:

God – be exalted – said in the Quran 2: 282​

وَاسْتَشْهِدُواْ شَهِيدَيْنِ من رِّجَالِكُمْ فَإِن لَّمْ يَكُونَا رَجُلَيْنِ فَرَجُلٌ وَامْرَأَتَانِ مِمَّن تَرْضَوْنَ مِنَ الشُّهَدَاء أَن تَضِلَّ إْحْدَاهُمَا فَتُذَكِّرَ إِحْدَاهُمَا الأُخْرَى​

The explanation:
(And call in to witness two witnesses, out of your men; or if the two be not men, then one man and two women, such witnesses as you approve of; that if one of the two women errs, the other will 'remind and admonish' her.)

The interpretation:
>> (And call in to witness) concerning the debt, and [to be written] in the document,
>> (two witnesses, out of your men) that are Muslims,
>> (or if the two be not men) available for witness,
>> (then one man and two women) give witness,
>> (such witnesses as you approve of) i.e. accepted by the creditor, and approved by the judge,

The reason for assigning two women to give witness:

>> (that if one of the two women errs) It means: God assigned two of women; so that if one of the two women errs concerning the truth, so that it may conceal the testimony or witness for any reason, then in that case:
>> (the other will 'remind and admonish' her) It means: the one that gives the testimony or witness will remind the other woman who has not admitted the witness, admonish her and remind her of God's punishment and chastisement in case she will conceal the testimony and deny the right of the creditor who lent the sum of money.

quranandhebrewbible.t35.com​

 

[eanassir]

Repeated and deleted.

 

[eanassir]

Quoting SirJosephPorter
From where in the Quran is this stated that women are subhuman?

"Where it says that one man is equal to two women. Or where it says it is OK for a man to beat his wife. It clearly implies that a woman’s worth is half that of man’s worth, that women are subhuman."



God – be glorified – did not say in the Quran, that "one man equals two women",
and never is there in the Quran that "women are subhuman",
but there are some instances where woman is different from man, and has some rights or circumstances different form him.​

​

​

One of them (concerning the inheritance share of the woman) is that was explained in the post #129 , and the other (concerning the witnessing at court) has been explained in the previous post #176.​

And it is evident that woman has some differences from man (anatomical, physiological, psychological, social ...etc); and this cannot be denied by any reasonable man, unless he has some purpose and takes the way of antagonizing God and His Quran.​

This is in the Quran 3: 36 , where God – be exalted – mentioned the prayer of Ann the grandmother of Jesus, when she gave birth to Mary, and saw she was a female (while she vowed to give what is in her womb to serve in the House of God at Jerusalem):​

فَلَمَّا وَضَعَتْهَا قَالَتْ رَبِّ إِنِّي وَضَعْتُهَا أُنثَى وَاللّهُ أَعْلَمُ بِمَا وَضَعَتْ وَلَيْسَ الذَّكَرُ كَالأُنثَى وَإِنِّي سَمَّيْتُهَا مَرْيَمَ وِإِنِّي أُعِيذُهَا بِكَ وَذُرِّيَّتَهَا مِنَ الشَّيْطَانِ الرَّجِيمِ​

The explanation:
(When she [Ann] was delivered, she said: "My Lord! I am delivered of a female [: Mary]"–– God knew very well what she was delivered of –– "; a male is not like a female; I have named her Mary, and I commend her and her progeny to Your protection from Satan, the 'rejected and cursed'.")
------------------------------------------------------------------​

That is because the female needs special care and supervision.
To this no honest and noble one may object and deny.​

And it is narrated that Prophet Mohammed – salam be to him – said:
"None may honor women but only the noble and gentleman; and none may insult and abase them but only the rascal and lowly." ​

By God's will I shall come to the other points of their objections.​

quranandhebrewbible.t35.com​

 

[petros]

It stands to reason that the 1st two people that lived had to be the 1st ones to have kids.

That weren't Assyrians?

 

[MHz]

I really can't understand how I ever believed this religion crap.

It was like being in a fog.

It's quite embarrassing actually.

So why did you drop out, the book or the people?
Still if you like twists and turns and all sorts of weird sub-plots the Bible's fulfull all those things and a few more. The trick is in a conflict the book is always right. If man could follow that one instruction, love thy neighbor as you love yourself, there would be no need for Christ to return. Since the Church is just as cruel to others, and even more so at times, coming back is not an option if death itself is to die, the world in general intentionally keeps feeding it at present. Bad manners isn't the onle threat to man's extinction, a rock big enough to cause an air blast that would take out an area the size of James Bay just whizzed by yesterday or the day before. From what I hear it was twice the distance as our highest sat. Something like that might take people's minds off war for awhile but it would result in more deaths that the wars would have taken.