Obtaining definitions

SteveB

Well-known member
In another op a poster made a statement that appears to be the crux of their "problem with what they say are false teachings of christianity.

So, based on other posts, from other ops, I'll be bringing together a clearer picture of what they've stated so far.

This won't be the only list in this op. There are other issues of concern to them as well.

1. Immortal soul
2. Hell
3. Trinity
4. Cross
5. Christmas
6. Easter
7. Nationalism
8. Rapture
9. Heaven
10. Omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
In another op a poster made a statement that appears to be the crux of their "problem with what they say are false teachings of christianity.

So, based on other posts, from other ops, I'll be bringing together a clearer picture of what they've stated so far.

This won't be the only list in this op. There are other issues of concern to them as well.

I wouldn't even know where to begin with SR's list. If I were to cite all the scriptural verses that DO deal with most of his topics (besides nationalism) I'd be here all night.
 
Last edited:

SteveB

Well-known member
I wouldn't even know where to begin with SR's list. If I were to cite all the scriptural verses that DO deal with most of his topics (besides nationalism) I'd be here all night.
Based on a long, and lengthy collection of discussions with other JW's over the years, the issues they're raising are all WTS/JW ideologies.

Because of this, I think it's extremely important to deal with them.

They're flat out stating that they are not jw. They don't want to be one, and don't like the ideas.

Yet they're assiduously focused on, and seemingly defending the veracity of those ideas.

So, as you're being really patient with them, and I'm clearly viewed as being brusque, and apparently quite terse, I'm thinking that this would be a lot more effective as a group thing.

Working through the list isn't a problem with me. It's the other stuff I'd like your help with.
You and a few other Jesus followers on here.
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
Based on a long, and lengthy collection of discussions with other JW's over the years, the issues they're raising are all WTS/JW ideologies.

Because of this, I think it's extremely important to deal with them.

They're flat out stating that they are not jw. They don't want to be one, and don't like the ideas.

Yet they're assiduously focused on, and seemingly defending the veracity of those ideas.

So, as you're being really patient with them, and I'm clearly viewed as being brusque, and apparently quite terse, I'm thinking that this would be a lot more effective as a group thing.

Working through the list isn't a problem with me. It's the other stuff I'd like your help with.
You and a few other Jesus followers on here.

But he's a strange one. His theological beliefs seem wholly negative. I don't know what he believes. I only know what he doesn't believe, and that is mostly the stuff on his list that you reiterate, stuff that with the exception of nationalism, I do believe and find scriptural. Now if his beef with Christmas, for example, is that it's not celebrated in the Bible, so what? There is certainly no biblical prohibition against celebrating the birth of Christ, a birth whose importance IS very biblical. Maybe Ebenezer Scrooge would fit right in with his theology.

All I can do is quote scripture in response to whatever he claims is not scriptural. He hates what he calls Bible thumping, but he's a Negative Bible Thumper, himself. Instead of proclaiming, "The Bible says this," He says, "The Bible does NOT say this." But we see he is mostly wrong about that, as for example his listing the cross and the immortality of the soul, supporting verses which abound.

You're doing a fine job dealing with him. But it may be hard to penetrate through that thick armor of iconoclasm that he has cultivated for himself. He's apparently not ashamed of the gospel, just ashamed of Christianity. But in my view they are one and the same. His beef is with Christendom, perhaps. He says it's with apostasy, but EVERY Christian is an apostate with him. It maybe sounds intriguing at first glance, but quickly becomes boring and shallow when examined in any detail, because there's nothing much to examine. You hit bottom early.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
But he's a strange one. His theological beliefs seem wholly negative. I don't know what he believes. I only know what he doesn't believe, and that is mostly the stuff on his list that you reiterate, stuff that with the exception of nationalism, I do believe and find scriptural. Now if his beef with Christmas, for example, is that it's not celebrated in the Bible, so what? There is certainly no biblical prohibition against celebrating the birth of Christ, a birth whose importance IS very biblical. Maybe Ebenezer Scrooge would fit right in with his theology.

All I can do is quote scripture in response to whatever he claims is not scriptural. He hates what he calls Bible thumping, but he's a Negative Bible Thumper, himself. Instead of proclaiming, "The Bible says this," He says, "The Bible does NOT say this." But we see he is mostly wrong about that, as for example his listing the cross and the immortality of the soul, supporting verses which abound.

You're doing a fine job dealing with him. But it may be hard to penetrate through that thick armor of iconoclasm that he has cultivated for himself. He's apparently not ashamed of the gospel, just ashamed of Christianity. But in my view they are one and the same. His beef is with Christendom, perhaps. He says it's with apostasy, but EVERY Christian is an apostate with him. It maybe sounds intriguing at first glance, but quickly becomes boring and shallow when examined in any detail, because there's nothing much to examine. You hit bottom early.
As I'd said before....

It's all based entirely on the watchtower society and the jehovah's witnesses.
His beefs, ideologies, etc.... they're classic jehovah's witness doctrine.
And he's so deeply invested in it, he's not showing any signs of backing off them.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
1. Immortal soul
Please explain what you think this is.
If you have any documentation that helps explain what you think it is, please provide it too.
Previously you mentioned dante's inferno and Milton.
Please elaborate.
3. Trinity
Please explain this too. The greater the details the better.
Is this simply a matter of the Greek word, stavros?
Please explain.
5. Christmas
Earlier you mentioned Dickens book, Christmas Carol. You then ran into the weeds, as it were, and began talking about trees, tammuz, etc...
Please develop the entire problem you're having here.
6. Easter
Please explain what the problem is here.
Is it the resurrection of Jesus or the history of the celebration of it, and the renaming of the day?
7. Nationalism
Please explain this. With the political ideas of today, this sounds like globalization. So the greater detail you can provide, the clearer the understanding of what you're talking about.
8. Rapture
What do you mean by the rapture?
It's an anglicized form of the Latin word out of the vulgate.

1Th 4:17 VulgClem Deinde nos, qui vivimus, qui relinquimur, simul rapiemur cum illis in nubibus obviam Christo in aëra, et sic semper cum Domino erimus.


So, are you talking about a specific issue, or just the fact that the word rapture isn't in the English translation of the bible?

It's actually from the Greek word, harpadzo. Meaning to snatch, or take by force.

So, please explain what you're having a problem with here.

9. Heaven
This too. What.... exactly.... is the problem here?

10. Omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence
These words, while pretty clear to me, have been so over used that I need clarification on what you think they mean.

So.... @Semmelweis Reflex , please work through each of these.

As there's a 10,000 character limit on posts, please feel free to break each item into it's own individual post.

This will go a long, long, long way to help us, and others understand your ideas and concerns/problems.

Thank you.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
Well, I suppose it's a good thing that I didn't think that the english translation of the bible was 100% accurate/inspired.

I think that the problem with that idea is that people don't seem to understand that when moving between languages, there are many words/ideas that exist in one language/culture that don't exist in another. So, translation from one language to another causes problems in communicating the idea. It winds up requiring more words to describe what took one word in the original language.

Eg.
In English, we use Love to describe so many different things.
I love my wife, I love my cat, I love my kids, I love my car, I love my parents, I love French fries, I love the colts, I love the night sky, etc....

In Greek, there are different words for each kind of love.

I was once told that the Greek language has 25 different words for the English word, love.
I'm presently acquainted with 4

Eros (sensual/sexual love)
Storge (parental love for children)
Phileo (friendship, brotherly love)
Agape (the love God has for us, and the kind of love we who follow Jesus are to have for other Jesus followers, husbands for wives, and those who hate and abuse us)




In my youth, while in elementary, junior high and high school, as well as in college, my teachers, and tutors constantly taught us that the English language is the most difficult language on earth.

So, yeah..... that English language bible isn't necessarily inspired..... I'm not bothered by this.

I do however think that it's important to note-- the Chicago statement of inerrancy is an important part of biblical knowledge and awareness.

https://www.etsjets.org/files/documents/Chicago_Statement.pdf
 

SteveB

Well-known member
I find it curious that you claimed to believe the bible is the inspired revelation of God to humans, but then pick and choose which items you accept and reject.

The atheists like to call this cherry-picking.

CARM Forums
SteveB


For Consideration of the Unbeliever: The Bible​

Jump to newWatch
[COLOR=rgb(236, 236, 249)]S[/COLOR]

Semmelweis Reflex

Member​

Spoiler: Introduction

Spoiler: The Fallible Bible

Spoiler: The Bible Doesn't Always Tell the Truth
Snakes don't talk. The serpent didn't talk to Eve. The Bible says it did because Eve thought it did. The narrative was from her perspective. Donkeys also don't talk. An angel spoke with the voice of a man to make it appear as if the donkey was talking. Also in the case where it appears that "Samuel's" spirit is summoned by the witch of En-dor, it was demonic deception; where the cowardly scouts sent out came back and said the Nephilim were in the land. They lied out of fear. Sometimes the Bible even gives details of earlier events using references that didn't exist at that time. For example, at Genesis 3:24 the cherubs use a flaming blade of a sword to prevent Adam and Eve from returning. No such thing existed at that time. At Genesis 2:10-14 the geographical details of Eden are given with reference to one river "to the East of Assyria" when Assyria certainly didn't exist then. But it was familiar to the reader who was reading it much later. There are also spurious verses that don't appear in earlier manuscripts. They were obviously added later. For example, Mark 16:9-20; John 7:53-8:11; 1 John 5:4, 7.
In general, and definitely today, serpents don't talk. Outside the bible, I've never heard of a serpent talking.

Nor, outside of the bible have i heard of a donkey talking.

Two things that I think are being ignored about these things.

1- the bible is describing a history that humans today are not experienced in.

2- we read that Balaam's donkey had its mouth opened by God.

Num 22:28 WEB Yahweh opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, “What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?”

So, to claim that these things don't happen, is to claim that you don't actually know what you're talking about and deny the power of God to effect such things.

Do I know that it happened? Only in the way that I know God has done in my life exactly what he said he would by my believing him. Because YHVH has demonstrated himself faithful to his word in my own life, I have no problem whatsoever with him having been faithful to his word in times past.
We read elsewhere that YHVH doesn't change.

I have an historical document that describes a history that nobody alive today was present to observe.

In the bible, throughout the first five books, it's plainly stated that YHVH will do for Israel something that he hasn't done before, and not for any other people throughout the world.

So, if you're going to claim that you know better, and God didn't actually do what he said he did, you're placing yourself in the same position as the serpent in the garden, when he asked Eve--

Has God REALLY said?

You may have no problem whatsoever with this, but it doesn't make you appear more intelligent than anyone else. It does however make you foolish.
 

Semmelweis Reflex

Active member
Immortal Soul

Please explain what you think this is.
If you have any documentation that helps explain what you think it is, please provide it too.

Throughout this entire series, or thread, I'm going to give a relatively brief answer in my own words from what I have learned over the years followed by some documentation. It's going to be a closing argument. You supply your own closing argument and we are done. No rebuttals as far as I'm concerned. It's up to the jury to decide for themselves. I can confidently say from experience that no matter what they think about the soul they won't change their mind. I'm not going to go on for 2 years and 32 pages.

The immortal soul is a pagan concept. Soul comes from a root word which means to bind. Superstitious pagan peoples would bind the hands and feet upon burial to prevent the dead from harming the living. The word evolved into a similar meaning always associated with large bodies of water (the sea) for the same reason. It was thought that the immortal souls were confined in large bodies of water, preventing them from bothering the living.

When translating the Bible from the Hebrew and Greek to English the word soul would be problematic due to it's pagan roots. However, it was the closest word we had. The Hebrew nephesh and the Greek psykhe are the Biblical terms translated into soul. The Hebrew word comes from a root that literally means "breather." The Greek word has a similar meaning. It means life and all that involves. A living being. That can be somewhat complicated by the usual obstacles, like variation in the the use of the word. Greek philosophers or modern day psychiatrists use the Greek word psykhe corresponds to the Hebrew word nephesh (nefesh, etc.)

The soul, according to the Bible, that is, nephesh or psykhe, is mortal, destructible.

Compare translations Ezekiel 18:4: "Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul who sins, he shall die." (WEB)

Compare translations Matthew 10:28: "Don't be afraid of those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul. Rather, fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna." (WEB)

Sources
Soul: Wikipedia
Soul: Watchtower
Etymology: Sea and bind

References: Provided by the Watchtower

Journal of Biblical Literature (Vol. XVI, p. 30): “Soul in English usage at the present time conveys usually a very different meaning from נפש [ne′phesh] in Hebrew, and it is easy for the incautious reader to misinterpret.”

The New York Times, October 12, 1962: H. M. Orlinsky of Hebrew Union College states regarding nefesh: “Other translators have interpreted it to mean ‘soul,’ which is completely inaccurate. The Bible does not say we have a soul. ‘Nefesh’ is the person himself, his need for food, the very blood in his veins, his being.”

New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967, Vol. XIII, p. 467): “Nepes [ne′phesh] is a term of far greater extension than our ‘soul,’ signifying life (Ex 21.23; Dt 19.21) and its various vital manifestations: breathing (Gn 35.18; Jb 41.13[21]), blood [Gn 9.4; Dt 12.23; Ps 140(141).8], desire (2 Sm 3.21; Prv 23.2). The soul in the O[ld] T[estament] means not a part of man, but the whole man—man as a living being. Similarly, in the N[ew] T[estament] it signifies human life: the life of an individual, conscious subject (Mt 2.20; 6.25; Lk 12.22-23; 14.26; Jn 10.11, 15, 17; 13.37).”

The New American Bible Glossary of Biblical Theology Terms (pp. 27, 28): “In the New Testament, to ‘save one’s soul’ (Mk 8:35) does not mean to save some ‘spiritual’ part of man, as opposed to his ‘body’ (in the Platonic sense) but the whole person with emphasis on the fact that the person is living, desiring, loving and willing, etc., in addition to being concrete and physical.”

Koehler and Baumgartner’s Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros (Leiden, 1958, p. 627) on nephesh: “the breathing substance, making man a[nd] animal living beings Gn 1, 20, the soul (strictly distinct from the greek notion of soul) the seat of which is the blood Gn 9, 4f Lv 17, 11 Dt 12, 23: (249 X) . . . soul = living being, individual, person.”

New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Vol. XIII, pp. 449, 450: “There is no dichotomy [division] of body and soul in the O[ld] T[estament]. The Israelite saw things concretely, in their totality, and thus he considered men as persons and not as composites. The term nepeš [ne′phesh], though translated by our word soul, never means soul as distinct from the body or the individual person. . . . The term [psy‧khe′] is the N[ew] T[estament] word corresponding with nepeš. It can mean the principle of life, life itself, or the living being.”

The New Encyclopædia Britannica (1976), Macropædia, Vol. 15, p. 152: “The Hebrew term for ‘soul’ (nefesh, that which breathes) was used by Moses . . . , signifying an ‘animated being’ and applicable equally to nonhuman beings. . . . New Testament usage of psychē (‘soul’) was comparable to nefesh.”

The Jewish Encyclopedia (1910), Vol. VI, p. 564: “The belief that the soul continues its existence after the dissolution of the body is a matter of philosophical or theological speculation rather than of simple faith, and is accordingly nowhere expressly taught in Holy Scripture.”

New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Vol. XIII, pp. 452, 454: “The Christian concept of a spiritual soul created by God and infused into the body at conception to make man a living whole is the fruit of a long development in Christian philosophy. Only with Origen [died c. 254 C.E.] in the East and St. Augustine [died 430 C.E.] in the West was the soul established as a spiritual substance and a philosophical concept formed of its nature. . . . His [Augustine’s] doctrine . . . owed much (including some shortcomings) to Neoplatonism.”

Dictionnaire Encyclopédique de la Bible (Valence, France; 1935), edited by Alexandre Westphal, Vol. 2, p. 557: “The concept of immortality is a product of Greek thinking, whereas the hope of a resurrection belongs to Jewish thought. . . . Following Alexander’s conquests Judaism gradually absorbed Greek concepts.”

The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria (Boston, 1898), M. Jastrow, Jr., p. 556: “The problem of immortality, we have seen, engaged the serious attention of the Babylonian theologians. . . . Neither the people nor the leaders of religious thought ever faced the possibility of the total annihilation of what once was called into existence. Death was a passage to another kind of life.”

Plato’s “Phaedo,” Secs. 64, 105, as published in Great Books of the Western World (1952), edited by R. M. Hutchins, Vol. 7, pp. 223, 245, 246: “Do we believe that there is such a thing as death? . . . Is it not the separation of soul and body? And to be dead is the completion of this; when the soul exists in herself, and is released from the body and the body is released from the soul, what is this but death? . . . And does the soul admit of death? No. Then the soul is immortal? Yes.”

Presbyterian Life, May 1, 1970, p. 35: “Immortality of the soul is a Greek notion formed in ancient mystery cults and elaborated by the philosopher Plato.”

Phaedo, 80, D, E; 81, A: Plato, quoting Socrates: "The soul, . . . if it departs pure, dragging with it nothing of the body, . . . goes away into that which is like itself, into the invisible, divine, immortal, and wise, and when it arrives there it is happy, freed from error and folly and fear . . . and all the other human ills, and . . . lives in truth through all after time with the gods."

Also see

Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, revised by H. Jones, 1968, pp. 2026, 2027; Donnegan’s New Greek and English Lexicon, 1836, p. 1404
 

SteveB

Well-known member
Immortal Soul



Throughout this entire series, or thread, I'm going to give a relatively brief answer in my own words from what I have learned over the years followed by some documentation. It's going to be a closing argument. You supply your own closing argument and we are done. No rebuttals as far as I'm concerned. It's up to the jury to decide for themselves. I can confidently say from experience that no matter what they think about the soul they won't change their mind. I'm not going to go on for 2 years and 32 pages.

The immortal soul is a pagan concept. Soul comes from a root word which means to bind. Superstitious pagan peoples would bind the hands and feet upon burial to prevent the dead from harming the living. The word evolved into a similar meaning always associated with large bodies of water (the sea) for the same reason. It was thought that the immortal souls were confined in large bodies of water, preventing them from bothering the living.

When translating the Bible from the Hebrew and Greek to English the word soul would be problematic due to it's pagan roots. However, it was the closest word we had. The Hebrew nephesh and the Greek psykhe are the Biblical terms translated into soul. The Hebrew word comes from a root that literally means "breather." The Greek word has a similar meaning. It means life and all that involves. A living being. That can be somewhat complicated by the usual obstacles, like variation in the the use of the word. Greek philosophers or modern day psychiatrists use the Greek word psykhe corresponds to the Hebrew word nephesh (nefesh, etc.)

The soul, according to the Bible, that is, nephesh or psykhe, is mortal, destructible.

Compare translations Ezekiel 18:4: "Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul who sins, he shall die." (WEB)

Compare translations Matthew 10:28: "Don't be afraid of those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul. Rather, fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna." (WEB)

Sources
Soul: Wikipedia
Soul: Watchtower
Etymology: Sea and bind

References: Provided by the Watchtower

Journal of Biblical Literature (Vol. XVI, p. 30): “Soul in English usage at the present time conveys usually a very different meaning from נפש [ne′phesh] in Hebrew, and it is easy for the incautious reader to misinterpret.”

The New York Times, October 12, 1962: H. M. Orlinsky of Hebrew Union College states regarding nefesh: “Other translators have interpreted it to mean ‘soul,’ which is completely inaccurate. The Bible does not say we have a soul. ‘Nefesh’ is the person himself, his need for food, the very blood in his veins, his being.”

New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967, Vol. XIII, p. 467): “Nepes [ne′phesh] is a term of far greater extension than our ‘soul,’ signifying life (Ex 21.23; Dt 19.21) and its various vital manifestations: breathing (Gn 35.18; Jb 41.13[21]), blood [Gn 9.4; Dt 12.23; Ps 140(141).8], desire (2 Sm 3.21; Prv 23.2). The soul in the O[ld] T[estament] means not a part of man, but the whole man—man as a living being. Similarly, in the N[ew] T[estament] it signifies human life: the life of an individual, conscious subject (Mt 2.20; 6.25; Lk 12.22-23; 14.26; Jn 10.11, 15, 17; 13.37).”

The New American Bible Glossary of Biblical Theology Terms (pp. 27, 28): “In the New Testament, to ‘save one’s soul’ (Mk 8:35) does not mean to save some ‘spiritual’ part of man, as opposed to his ‘body’ (in the Platonic sense) but the whole person with emphasis on the fact that the person is living, desiring, loving and willing, etc., in addition to being concrete and physical.”

Koehler and Baumgartner’s Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros (Leiden, 1958, p. 627) on nephesh: “the breathing substance, making man a[nd] animal living beings Gn 1, 20, the soul (strictly distinct from the greek notion of soul) the seat of which is the blood Gn 9, 4f Lv 17, 11 Dt 12, 23: (249 X) . . . soul = living being, individual, person.”

New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Vol. XIII, pp. 449, 450: “There is no dichotomy [division] of body and soul in the O[ld] T[estament]. The Israelite saw things concretely, in their totality, and thus he considered men as persons and not as composites. The term nepeš [ne′phesh], though translated by our word soul, never means soul as distinct from the body or the individual person. . . . The term [psy‧khe′] is the N[ew] T[estament] word corresponding with nepeš. It can mean the principle of life, life itself, or the living being.”

The New Encyclopædia Britannica (1976), Macropædia, Vol. 15, p. 152: “The Hebrew term for ‘soul’ (nefesh, that which breathes) was used by Moses . . . , signifying an ‘animated being’ and applicable equally to nonhuman beings. . . . New Testament usage of psychē (‘soul’) was comparable to nefesh.”

The Jewish Encyclopedia (1910), Vol. VI, p. 564: “The belief that the soul continues its existence after the dissolution of the body is a matter of philosophical or theological speculation rather than of simple faith, and is accordingly nowhere expressly taught in Holy Scripture.”

New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Vol. XIII, pp. 452, 454: “The Christian concept of a spiritual soul created by God and infused into the body at conception to make man a living whole is the fruit of a long development in Christian philosophy. Only with Origen [died c. 254 C.E.] in the East and St. Augustine [died 430 C.E.] in the West was the soul established as a spiritual substance and a philosophical concept formed of its nature. . . . His [Augustine’s] doctrine . . . owed much (including some shortcomings) to Neoplatonism.”

Dictionnaire Encyclopédique de la Bible (Valence, France; 1935), edited by Alexandre Westphal, Vol. 2, p. 557: “The concept of immortality is a product of Greek thinking, whereas the hope of a resurrection belongs to Jewish thought. . . . Following Alexander’s conquests Judaism gradually absorbed Greek concepts.”

The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria (Boston, 1898), M. Jastrow, Jr., p. 556: “The problem of immortality, we have seen, engaged the serious attention of the Babylonian theologians. . . . Neither the people nor the leaders of religious thought ever faced the possibility of the total annihilation of what once was called into existence. Death was a passage to another kind of life.”

Plato’s “Phaedo,” Secs. 64, 105, as published in Great Books of the Western World (1952), edited by R. M. Hutchins, Vol. 7, pp. 223, 245, 246: “Do we believe that there is such a thing as death? . . . Is it not the separation of soul and body? And to be dead is the completion of this; when the soul exists in herself, and is released from the body and the body is released from the soul, what is this but death? . . . And does the soul admit of death? No. Then the soul is immortal? Yes.”

Presbyterian Life, May 1, 1970, p. 35: “Immortality of the soul is a Greek notion formed in ancient mystery cults and elaborated by the philosopher Plato.”

Phaedo, 80, D, E; 81, A: Plato, quoting Socrates: "The soul, . . . if it departs pure, dragging with it nothing of the body, . . . goes away into that which is like itself, into the invisible, divine, immortal, and wise, and when it arrives there it is happy, freed from error and folly and fear . . . and all the other human ills, and . . . lives in truth through all after time with the gods."

Also see

Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, revised by H. Jones, 1968, pp. 2026, 2027; Donnegan’s New Greek and English Lexicon, 1836, p. 1404
Ok.
This is indeed an impressive collection of articles and resources for the writings of ancient ideas....
Since you clearly don't want to actually learn anything that doesn't agree with your above documentation, I'll simply state that all of these statements, and documents, ideas, etc....

They remind me of what Jesus quoted out of Isaiah 29


Isa 29:13-14 WEB 13 The Lord said, “Because this people draws near with their mouth and honors me with their lips, but they have removed their heart far from me, and their fear of me is a commandment of men which has been taught; 14 therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvelous work among this people, even a marvelous work and a wonder; and the wisdom of their wise men will perish, and the understanding of their prudent men will be hidden.”



It's curious how you provide Greek, Babylonian, and other cultures beliefs regarding the eternal, and completely disregard the bible and its descriptions for each item.

Congratulations !

You have epitomized what Isaiah and Jesus said.

You've become so utterly entrenched in the teachings and doctrines of men that you have completely missed Jesus.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
Well I'll dispose of one straightaway. Momma said...

...Birthdays.

Yer nekkid on yer birthday, so youins are all of da debil.
Yeah....

I never did understand why the WTS/JW hated celebrating the arrivals of their children.
It seems that it takes a special kind of malice to want to not rejoice, and celebrate the arrival of a child into the world, and then to deliberately ignore reminding them of their value each year.
 

Semmelweis Reflex

Active member
Yep.
How old did you think we were?
I remember when his show started. My mom liked watching it.

I don't remember what year it started. I remember having only 4 or 5 channels and it was on when I played hooky from school. I remember about '78 when Cher was on there and I stayed home because Gene Simmons was going to be on.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
I don't remember what year it started. I remember having only 4 or 5 channels and it was on when I played hooky from school. I remember about '78 when Cher was on there and I stayed home because Gene Simmons was going to be on.

It started in 62. I remember it in the latter part of the first half of the 60's, so, perhaps 64-65.
So.... yes, actually..... we are old.... ER.... Not old.... YET..... but ER....

I wasn't really into Cher or Kiss. So, by that time, I was out, on my own, and had more important things to do.
 
Top