10 Jan 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasRobbie, I'm glad we're agree on this.
This is a part of your religion?
And you will not claim it's scientific truth?
Okay, then I don't have anything against it.
You can believe whatever you want, as long it's your relgion.
But at the very moment you bring in science to back you up, you are wrong, dead wrong.
I'm glad you realize that religion and science never can mix!
10 Jan 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieTo be fair Rob, in the debate about The Flood i asked Galvo numerous times to cite the sources he was cutting and pasting from. I always cite my sources because that's the way it should be done.
i post many things and have very most excellent discussion with persons like Conrau, i simply state, i would like you to consider this article, or when i incorporate something from our literature you dont hear Conrau whinging about it, do you? or badwater, or even Rajk66 or Noobster, get over it. two greatest whingers in this regard are you and thinkofone, well you can whinge all you like.
I don't really see what your objection is here?!
10 Jan 10
5 edits
Originally posted by Proper Knobthat is because Galvo was citing from a third part source. We DO NOT consider our translation of the Bible or the literature that we produce as a third party source. its ours Noobster, we wrote it, we print it, we translate it, we finance it, we distribute it, unless of course you want us to cite ourselves. when there is a third party quoted in our literature we generally always cite the source, and i produce, for your consideration just one of many texts that have been posted, from our literature which confirms this, here was an article posted for Conraus perusal and comments,
To be fair Rob, in the debate about The Flood i asked Galvo numerous times to cite the sources he was cutting and pasting from. I always cite my sources because that's the way it should be done.
I don't really see what your objection is here?!
The Greek word monogenes is defined by lexicographers as “single of its kind, only,” or “the only member of a kin or kind.” (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 1889, p. 417; Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford, 1968, p. 1144) The term is used in describing the relation of both sons and daughters to their parents.
The Scriptures speak of “the only-begotten son” of a widow who lived in the city of Nain, of Jairus “only-begotten daughter,” and of a man’s “only-begotten” son whom Jesus cured of a demon. (Lu 7:11, 12; 8:41, 42; 9:38) The Greek Septuagint uses monogenes when speaking of Jephthahs daughter, concerning whom it is written: “Now she was absolutely the only child. Besides her he had neither son nor daughter.”—Jg 11:34.
The apostle John repeatedly describes the Lord Jesus Christ as the only-begotten Son of God. (Joh 1:14; 3:16, 18; 1Jo 4:9) This is not in reference to his human birth or to him as just the man Jesus. As the Logos, or Word, “this one was in the beginning with God,” even “before the world was.” (Joh 1:1, 2; 17:5, 24) At that time while in his prehuman state of existence, he is described as the “only-begotten Son” whom his Father sent “into the world.”—1Jo 4:9.
taken directly from the thread, immaculate conception
you will notice the third party references which have been cited, namely,
Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 1889
Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon
these are cited because they are third party references, therefore i shall state it again, WE DO NOT CITE OURSELVES BECAUSE WE ARE NOT A THIRD PARTY, OUR LITERATURE BELONGS TO US, IS PRINTED BY US, FINANCED BY US, TRANSLATED BY US AND DISTRIBUTED BY US! IT IS OURS!!!!!!!!!!!
10 Jan 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI know you may not consider the literature JW's produce as thrid party, but it clearly is. You didn't actually write it, and you didn't actually produce it. Do members of the Royal Society not source each others work, just because they're members of the same club? No, because that would be absurd.
that is because Galvo was citing from a third part source. We DO NOT consider our translation of the Bible or the literature that we produce as a third party source. its ours Noobster, we wrote it, we print it, we translate it, we finance it, we distribute it, unless of course you want us to cite ourselves. when there is a third party quoted in our ...[text shortened]... IS PRINTED BY US, FINANCED BY US, TRANSLATED BY US AND DISTRIBUTED BY US! IT IS OURS!!!!!!!!!!!
I think the real isue here is that you have been pulled up on this time and time again by different people, that any about turn now would be unthinkable for you to do.
10 Jan 10
2 edits
Originally posted by Proper Knobok fair enough, i understand your position, however we did produce it, we are all volunteers doing unpaid work, from the man in the factory to the person who delivers it to your door. There is no distinction Noobster. If you ever have cause to phone the branch office at the ridgeway in London, they do not answer watchtower and bible tract society, for that is merely a legal corporation, they answer Jehovahs witnesses, because we are one people, from Africa to Asia, from the volunteer mechanics to the graphic artists. You cannot state that this is from a third part, it is not true, and to prove it, which third part is it from? if you please. there is no need to do an about turn, i cite third party references as i have clearly shown you, AGAIN! the whingers can whinge all they like, bunch of pansies!
I know you may not consider the literature JW's produce as thrid party, but it clearly is. You didn't actually write it, and you didn't actually produce it. Do members of the Royal Society not source each others work, just because they're members of the same club? No, because that would be absurd.
I think the real isue here is that you have been pulle ...[text shortened]... time again by different people, that any about turn now would be unthinkable for you to do.
11 Jan 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhy someone with no knowledge of evolution, nor interest in evolution, is so against evolution is quite beyond me.
why someone with no knowledge of, nor interest in spirituality, should frequent the spirituality forum is quite beyond me.
11 Jan 10
Originally posted by wolfgang59There are some interpretations which state that there are two different stories because there were two different women. The woman from Genesis 1:27 was Lilith, who was Adam's first wife. As they were both created in the same manner she would not submit to Adam and ran away. So god made Adam a second wife, Eve, from Adam's rib.
But Genesis 1:27 says
[b]so God created man,
in his own image,
in the image of God
created he him;
male and female
created he them
(all this on the sixth day)
surely this implies that males and females were created at the same time and that the later story of eve coming from Adam's rib is a different account.
In Genes ...[text shortened]... n Genesis 2:22 (an indertiminate day but after the seventh day) God creates Eve.
TWO STORIES[/b]
11 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettSo by the bible, to have two women is okay?
There are some interpretations which state that there are two different stories because there were two different women. The woman from Genesis 1:27 was Lilith, who was Adam's first wife. As they were both created in the same manner she would not submit to Adam and ran away. So god made Adam a second wife, Eve, from Adam's rib.
(I'll tell my girlfriend about this!)
11 Jan 10
Originally posted by rwingettAnd what source have you for this?
Adam had two women by this interpretation, but not at the same time. He and Lilith had broken up by the time Eve was manufactured.
Is it according to the myth?
Is it written in an alternative bible?
(Btw, if I find any Lilith, then it's okay, my girlfriend said. I don't know any girl with that name.)
11 Jan 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasIt's a line of interpretation that is more common in Jewish circles, I believe. They, too, were trying to make sense of the contradictions in Genesis.
And what source have you for this?
Is it according to the myth?
Is it written in an alternative bible?
(Btw, if I find any Lilith, then it's okay, my girlfriend said. I don't know any girl with that name.)
11 Jan 10
Originally posted by rwingettSo inorder to make the contradiction to work, they invent new 'facts' to eliminate the errors inthe bible?
It's a line of interpretation that is more common in Jewish circles, I believe. They, too, were trying to make sense of the contradictions in Genesis.
Are christian fundamentalists using the 'jewish research' too? Seems like it...
11 Jan 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasI'm not sure that most Jewish people interpret the story literally, either with or without Lilith. So I don't think they view it as altering the 'facts' so much as they do as making it a better story. But I do not presume to speak for all of Judaism (or for any part of it, really).
So inorder to make the contradiction to work, they invent new 'facts' to eliminate the errors inthe bible?
Are christian fundamentalists using the 'jewish research' too? Seems like it...