The case for Adam & Eve.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Well I'll be honest with you Rob, apart from a couple of cave sites in the Levant my knowledge of middle-eastern archaeology is pretty scant. And does it not seem to you that with our fundamentally different outlooks, any discussion on spiritual matters is likely to end in the same stale-mated position? That said, I have very much enjoyed this exch ...[text shortened]... s and would be delighted to compare memes with you again should we discover a fruitful subject.

wow, what a positive experience for me also, next time i visit Tottenham or North London ill take you for some authentic Punjabi food down near my favourite place on Green St 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
wow, what a positive experience for me also, next time i visit Tottenham or North London ill take you for some authentic Punjabi food down near my favourite place on Green St 🙂

I adore Punjabi food! Alas I don't get into London very often, but I may well make an exception for that. We can split a bottle of Lagavulin and get thrown out for d&d! Incidentally, have you ever tried Yamazaki or Penderyn malts? The Japanese one I thought was alright - haven't tried the Welsh one yet.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i did not state that the snake was symbolic, i stated that snakes don't talk.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Yes, you said so, but yet the one in the bible did. And if you think the bible is true, then either snakes does in fact talks or the bible is a fake. Which one is it?

Okay, your turn.

I hope you haven't forgot me, robbie.

My line of questions are really interesting, and I learn a lot of how you, other JWers, and christians in general think about these matters. It's about when to read in symbols, and when not to; when to treat the texts as letter-by-letter, and when not.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Evidence?

The Christians have been hood winking everyone for over
2,000 years without a shred of evidence. Just continual U-turns.
(for 1,600 of those years the Sun was meant to orbit the Earth.)

At least have the curtesy of giving me the same 2,000 years.
I'll supply evidence in 4010 when these space travellers appear again.
Resurrect their own dead and take off again.
(It's all in the Bible - read between the lines.)

I keep trying to tell them. So many bits of the bible coincide with ufo-lore.

Originally posted by menace71
Can't dismiss this chapter at all. Who is this suffering servant? Read the gospel accounts. It's speaking of the Christ. lastly Isaiah was written about 1000 years before these events occurred.

Manny

As I said, unless you are a believer, it is vague at best. In fact, it takes quite some interpretation to get even close to being accurate.

And this bit:
"He will see His offspring, ..."
Just doesn't fit at all. Jesus had offspring?

Also, a quick google search seems to tell me that Isaiah was written circa 700BC, yet you say "about 1000 years before". Was that creative rounding up on your part?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I hope you haven't forgot me, robbie.

My line of questions are really interesting, and I learn a lot of how you, other JWers, and christians in general think about these matters. It's about when to read in symbols, and when not to; when to treat the texts as letter-by-letter, and when not.

what can i say Fabian, there is no universal agreement among Christians. take for example the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, deucer, jaywill, raj and others hold that its literal, despite the fact that an examination of its contents proves otherwise. It is the same with the genesis account. We hold that it is literal because it was endorsed by Christ, Peter and by Paul, as not also a few other writers. Even so, simply because an account is to be viewed as literal does not mean that there are not figurative or symbolic elements in it, the Bible is full of types and archetypes.

Originally posted by twhitehead
As I said, unless you are a believer, it is vague at best. In fact, it takes quite some interpretation to get even close to being accurate.

And this bit:
"He will see His offspring, ..."
Just doesn't fit at all. Jesus had offspring?

Also, a quick google search seems to tell me that Isaiah was written circa 700BC, yet you say "about 1000 years before". Was that creative rounding up on your part?

yes Christ had children, not in a literal sense but in a spiritual sense. One needs to view these things spiritually otherwise you will never get the sense of it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what can i say Fabian, there is no universal agreement among Christians. take for example the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, deucer, jaywill, raj and others hold that its literal, despite the fact that an examination of its contents proves otherwise. It is the same with the genesis account. We hold that it is literal because it was endorsed ...[text shortened]... there are not figurative or symbolic elements in it, the Bible is full of types and archetypes.

I don't get this, you have to explain this paradox to me:

Genesis literary says that snakes talk. Revelation says that it is symbolically. So what is it? Snaks talks, or not? One part must be true and the other false, because it cannot be true both of them.

You pointed this out, not I. Therefore you have the solution of this paradox, not I.
Please, hold on to this question until an answer is produed.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i suppose its the best you can do. if you have any comment on the details of the text, you might like to start there. Otherwise such a statement is unworthy to be considered.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
The biblical prochesies are much alike the prophecies of Nostradamus.
If biblical miracles work, then Nostradamus miracles work as well.
I deny both. You don't seem to.

The important part is - what is a prophecy.
Does the meteorogical Institution produce prophecies?
Did the million dollar winner of Keno a prophecy and won?
Did Nostradamus produce prophecies?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I don't get this, you have to explain this paradox to me:

Genesis literary says that snakes talk. Revelation says that it is symbolically. So what is it? Snaks talks, or not? One part must be true and the other false, because it cannot be true both of them.

You pointed this out, not I. Therefore you have the solution of this paradox, not I.
Please, hold on to this question until an answer is produed.

well you tell me, do snakes talk or do they not? if they do not, then what was the voice that Eve heard? it could not have literally been the snake talking, this is further backed up by the words of the book of revelation, which states that the original serpent was Satan, therefore using our powers of reason (remember that phrase, powers of reason, it comes in handy from time to time) we have reasoned that Satan must have in some manner tricked Eve into believing that the literal snake was talking when in fact it was really the 'voice', of Satan. This is now the third time that i have explained this to you, i will not do so again. Feel free to use your own powers of reason if you don't agree. There is no paradox, the matter is perfectly clear in my own mind.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
The important part is - what is a prophecy.
Does the meteorogical Institution produce prophecies?
Did the million dollar winner of Keno a prophecy and won?
Did Nostradamus produce prophecies?

PROPHECY
An inspired message; a revelation of divine will and purpose or the proclamation thereof. Prophecy may be an inspired moral teaching, an expression of a divine command or judgment, or a declaration of something to come. Prediction, or foretelling, is not the basic thought conveyed by the root verbs in the original languages (Hebrew, nava; Greek, propheteuo); yet it forms an outstanding feature of Bible prophecy.

dont know
dont know
dont care

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
PROPHECY
An inspired message; a revelation of divine will and purpose or the proclamation thereof. Prophecy may be an inspired moral teaching, an expression of a divine command or judgment, or a declaration of something to come. Prediction, or foretelling, is not the basic thought conveyed by the root verbs in the original languages (Hebrew, nava; G ...[text shortened]... teuo); yet it forms an outstanding feature of Bible prophecy.

dont know
dont know
dont care

Then I tell you to "be nice for gods sake and you will be happy". That's a prophecy and I am a prophet.

If not, then your definition is wrong.

Another definition, according to wikipedia is:
"understood in its strict sense, it means the foreknowledge of future events, though it may sometimes apply to past events of which there is no memory, and to present hidden things which cannot be known by the natural light of reason."
Meaning that the foretelling is its main part of a prophecy.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes Christ had children, not in a literal sense but in a spiritual sense. One needs to view these things spiritually otherwise you will never get the sense of it.

As I have now said twice, if you are not a believer, it is vague at best. It is no different from Nostradamus in that respect. Those who believe in Nostradamus's prophesies are also able to interpret them spiritually and 'get the sense of it' in a way that the rest of us don't.

As long as prophesy is subject to interpretation, and the interpretation is done after the fulfilling of the prophesy and with the desired fulfillment in mind, it ceases to become prophesy and is rather a case of tailored interpretation.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Then I tell you to "be nice for gods sake and you will be happy". That's a prophecy and I am a prophet.

If not, then your definition is wrong.

Another definition, according to wikipedia is:
"understood in its strict sense, it means the foreknowledge of future events, though it may sometimes apply to past events of which there is no memory, and to ...[text shortened]... the natural light of reason."
Meaning that the foretelling is its main part of a prophecy.

Lol, wikipedia, does it list the Biblical words? does it look at the original language? no, well its useless for discussing prophecy within a biblical context isn't it!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Lol, wikipedia, does it list the Biblical words? does it look at the original language? no, well its useless for discussing prophecy within a biblical context isn't it!

Wikipedia did of course not invent the the definition about 'prophecy', it just quoted it from christian sources. Do you by that mean that christian sources are wrong?

Relax, I am here to learn things. Don't you want to learn things?

(Do I always have to repeat my questions twice in order to have an answer?)
I tell you to "be nice for gods sake and you will be happy". That's a prophecy and I am a prophet.
If not, then your definition is wrong.