The Bible as literature

[Diogenes]

That proves nothing at all.
Most 'mainline Christian denominations' don't even know the Gospel.
Yours clearly included.

Oh really? Going to the "you're not a real Christian" route now?

Obviously not. But there is a certain poster who presumes to state that anyone who even questions, let alone disagrees with his personal POV is not a scientist, no matter their accomplishments and credentials. That is pompous, ignorant and downright stupid. I am not trying to convince anyone here that the earth is old or young, that the Flood, the Fall and the Exodus occured or didn't. The majority seem to have their minds made up one way or the other. Personally, if there was any evidence presented that there was never a flood, that Genesis was all parable, and that Man evolved from rocks without any outside influence, it wouldn't alter my beliefs a bit, I have no ax to grind on that front. What I do object to, and have been pointing out the falaciousness of, is the claim that science and the scripture are incompatible. The lie that science has 'debunked Genesis'. Those who denigrate the Scripture claim 'Science says x' when what they mean is Scientists who agree with me say x. Hence the Galileo comparison. By MtLiaR's standards, he wasn't a scientist, since he went against the mainstream of scientific opinion of his day. Said opinion being enforced by repressive fanatics. Just as ID proponents, Creationists, and those who believe in inerrency of scripture (none of which are all inclusive) go against his obsessive belief system. Galleo was forced recant by threats of force, Popper by threats of becoming a 'non-scientist'. I would be just as against someone who said a belief in a young earth is a prerequisite for being a Christian as I am against ideological hacks saying that a belief in Darwinism is a prerequisite for being an intelligent human being. Just as I would defend Christianity from those who would presume to decide who is or isn't a Christian, here I am attempting to defend science from those who would use the word as a synonym for those who share there biases.

And even if nobody here gets it, I will continue to do so.

[poptart]

Dinosaus living with man is a very intereting topic.
I'm not going to post links here, but do your own search if you care to.
There is an abundance of interesting info on this topic.

Cave drawings from around the world of dinosaurs, dinosaurs interacting with people.
Pottery and other artifacts from various parts of the world decorated with art showing dinosaurs, dinosaurs and people together.
Clay dinosaur figurines found in many parts of the world.

How and why would such things be found .... ?



Dinosaur tracks and human tracks found together.
MANY 'dragon' legends and accounts from ancient times.
Centuries-old European logs of what areas had 'dangerous dragons' to be watched out for
Mokele - mbembe : living African dinosaur
Large 'peculiar' (to say the least) sea animal carcasses washed ashore
MANY sea 'monster' accounts and photographs from around the world .... loch ness perhaps the most famous, but hardly the only
Thunderbirds

Do your own search if you want to.

[PSUFAN]

poppy,

crucifixions happened every day. The torture depicted in the new testament, and realized in technicolor to the disturbing delight of RTS and his ilk, were nothing special.

Life's a bitch, then you die.

Try to be good to one another - that's my credo. That's moral, in my book.

I'm not into suffering for suffering's sake - that's just twisted.

[rozy]

The torture depicted in the new testament, and realized in technicolor to the disturbing delight of RTS and his ilk,

[poptart]

Btw, I don't care about that movie.
I just made mention of it to point out the sacrifice, and then expound on the necessity of the sacrifice.

Jesus didn't suffer for suffering's sake, and he didn't suffer for his own sake.

[PSUFAN]

Btw, I don't care about that movie.

BTW, what are you wearing now? You should try one of these hairshirts from FloridaFlagellants.com, only $643.95...you ASS

[The Whistle Is Screaming]

Yes, of course.
He is the new covenant.
So Mosaic Law, and the practices of the time of Christ's life, were no longer required once the Christ has come.

Wrong ...

And My servant David shall be king over them, and one shepherd shall be for them all, and they shall walk in My ordinances and observe My statutes and perform them.

My man Zeke say's quite the opposite of what you think and there's no amount of spinning you can do to change that. Of course, I know you will attempt to, because that's how you roll. ;-)

Let me hypothesize a little here …
Q - Why is it so critical for those who believe in Christ to not follow Jewish Law?
A - Because it keeps them from studying the Torah and Tanach.
Q - Why wouldn’t “they” want people to study Torah and Tanach?
A - Because if they did, they might find out that “they” have thrown their faith behind a false Moshiach and that would be a BIG bummer.

[poptart]

Sounds like a new Oliver Stone film plot, TWIS.


This could be a very long discussion, but I'm going to give a short answer.

2 quick points:

1. In quick summary, The Mosaic Law represented an ethical code given by God to Israel to govern the nation until the coming of the Messiah


2nd, and most important point:

Jeremiah 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.


Christ (Messiah), the New Law, was to be be put in their inward parts, and written in their hearts.

The law is fulfilled when we take the Christ.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Sadly, this will probably be my last post on this thread for a bit, since the guys re-doing our roof accidentally knocked out our cable & RoadRunner, forcing us to use dialup (ugh) until Time Warner gets to us on "Sunday, between 8 and 12" and well, I really do have to start getting ready for the startup of school (just spent three hours setting up my classroom today).

[btw - I had no idea how slow dialup was until I upgraded to RR and then got knocked back down. This place loads slow as hell on dialup...]

Basically, my attitude about reconciling my faith (Christianity, for those who haven't figured it out - Episcopalian convert from Roman Catholicism) and science is that the Bible is inerrant in faith and morals, but cannot be taken literally for various reasons (internal contradictions, scientific & historical errors, use of allegory). I, and a good deal of Christendom (including most mainline denominations) have no problem with that.

I knew darned well going in that poptart and Dio were, due to their personal religious views, never going to be convinced by my arguments. One of the major problems debating religious fundamentalists is that the nature of their belief moves the debate into what they perceive as an attack on their faith. I've had this (and similar) debates with pop time and again over the years on various boards. We both know that we'll never convince the other, but I think he digs this as much as I do. Despite our theological differences, I think he's a good guy. Dio I've only "known" from this board, but he seems OK too, if a little daft at times. I don't take any of the sparring here seriously -I just enjoy the "go 'round" and hope that other folks got some enjoyment out of it.

I''ll still zip in to check others' posts and try to post when I can (weekends and school holidays, mostly).

Have fun all.

[poptart]

RACK Mike.
This is always interesting discussion.


TWIS, it is obviously my 'take' that Jesus fulfilled EVERY prophecy (except the ones to come).
What prophecy did He fail to fulfill ... ?

If you think he died for your sins, you're a fucking moron.

Dropping by in the 4th quarter, offering nothing constructive to the discussion, and calling people 'fucking morons' only pushes to light the distinct possibility that YOU are the fucking moron.

So why not take this short 5 question quiz and show yourself not to be said moron.

1. How do you explain the behavior of the apostles .... ? 11 of them died a martyrs' dead on the basis of 2 things: the resurrection of Christ, and their belief in him as the Son of God. They were tortured, flogged, and then suffered death by some of the cruelest methods known.

Peter - crucified
Andrew - crucified
Matthew - sword
John - natural
James, son of Alpheus - crucified
Philip - crucified
Simon - crucified
Thaddeus - killed by arrows
James, brother of Jesus - stoned
Thomas - spear thrust
Bartholemew - crucified
James, son of Zebedee - sword

Through history a lot of people have died for a lie, but they thought it was the truth. If the resurrection did not take place, these men knew it. Therefore these men not only did for a lie, but they KNEW it was a lie. Nobody would do that.

2. In the Big Bang, what exploded .... ? And where did it come from ... ?

3. How did life arise from non-life .... ?

4. When, where, why and how did life learn to reproduce itself .... ?

5. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.....) ..... ?

[RadioFan]

Do you know the Gospel ... ?

I know the four Gospels, yes, though probably not as well as I should in that I can't cite chapter and verse, verbatim from memory.


Btw, RACK Dio.

I understand where you guys are coming from in the sense that science is in no way the end-all, be-all, especially when it comes to spiritual matters.

And there's still way too many unanswered questions about the physical universe to draw any sort of "this is the way it is/happened, PERIOD" conclusion. That to me is as foolish as insisting that on Jan. 1, 8,000 B.C., God got busy and created the universe and the Earth, in six earth days. The only thing we have are ideas about how things may have happened, based on what we observe and tested results. We also have ancient books, written by men who didn't have the same concepts about the physical Earth and universe as we have now.

Obviously, God works in ways outside of physics.

[Diogenes]

Christ regarded the Old Testament as historically accurate, and the important people in it (Moses, Abraham, etc.) as real historical people, RF.
I've shown you a dozen examples of such, and there are MANY more.
Show me ONE time where he spoke of the Old Testament as not being historically accurate, or the important people in it as not real people.
I'll grab myself a Snickers.

He regarded the Old Testament as REAL AS WRITTEN, and yet Mike and others (in their apparent infinite wisdom) have chosen to NOT to regard those events and some of the people as real.

Mike knows better than his alleged savior.

I find that sadly amusing.


Question for you and Mike:

When you sin, do you slaughter an animal as atonement ... ?

If not, why not ... ?

Good questions, wrong posters...

Yes, of course.
He is the new covenant.
So Mosaic Law, and the practices of the time of Christ's life, were no longer required once the Christ has come.

Wrong ...

And My servant David shall be king over them, and one shepherd shall be for them all, and they shall walk in My ordinances and observe My statutes and perform them.

My man Zeke say's quite the opposite of what you think and there's no amount of spinning you can do to change that. Of course, I know you will attempt to, because that's how you roll. ;-)

Let me hypothesize a little here …
Q - Why is it so critical for those who believe in Christ to not follow Jewish Law?
A - Because it keeps them from studying the Torah and Tanach.
Q - Why wouldn’t “they” want people to study Torah and Tanach?
A - Because if they did, they might find out that “they” have thrown their faith behind a false Moshiach and that would be a BIG bummer.

Enquiring minds want to know...

[poptart]

Welcome to TWIS Manor !!!!!

[The Whistle Is Screaming]

TWIS, it is obviously my 'take' that Jesus fulfilled EVERY prophecy (except the ones to come).
What prophecy did He fail to fulfill ... ?

Obviously, we Jews don't believe in the "2nd coming" (wouldn't this actually be his 3rd?) and the Messiah will fulfill all the prophecies in his lifetime.

First of all, he must be Jewish - "...you may appoint a king over you, whom the L-rd your G-d shall choose: one from among your brethren shall you set as king over you." (Deuteronomy 17:15)

OK, Jesus was Jewish, prophecy fulfilled.

He must be a member of the tribe of Judah - "The staff shall not depart from Judah, nor the sceptre from between his feet..." (Genesis 49:10)

If Jesus was the result of immaculate conception and your "tribe" is determined by your biological father, how can this prophecy have been fulfilled? I gotta go with prophecy not fulfilled.

He must be a direct male descendant of King David and King Solomon, his son - "And when your days (David) are fulfilled, and you shall sleep with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who shall issue from your bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will make firm the throne of his kingdom forever..." (2 Samuel 7:12 - 13)

I'm gonna say his geneolgy is in question like the previous prophecy, so I gotta go with prophecy not fulfilled.

btw - the "Messiah" is supposed to be a "regular" human being, not some kind of deity, anyone (meeting the criteria) has the potential to be the "Messiah".

He must gather the Jewish people from exile and return them to Israel -"And he shall set up a banner for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth." (Isaiah 11:12)

Are all the Jews of the world residing in Israel? No, so prophecy not fulfilled.

He must rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem - "...and I will set my sanctuary in their midst forever and my tabernacle shall be with them.." (Ezekiel 37:26 - 27)

No Temple in Jerusalem, prophacy not fulfilled.

He will rule at a time of world-wide peace - "...they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore." (Micah 4:3)

No explination needed, prophecy not fulfilled.

He will rule at a time when the Jewish people will observe G-d's commandments - "My servant David shall be king over them; and they shall all have one shepherd. They shall follow My ordinances and be careful to observe My statutes." (Ezekiel 37:24)

Uhhmmm, this one may be my fault, but non-the-less, prophecy not fulfilled

He will rule at a time when all people will come to acknowledge and serve one G-d - "And it shall come to pass that from one new moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before Me, says the L-rd" (Isaiah 66:23)

Again, no explination needed, prophecy not fulfilled.

If an individual fails to fulfill even one of these conditions, then he cannot be "The Messiah."



Lastly, on the topic of "Sacrifices", they haven't been done since the Temple in Jerusalem was destryed. Something about that being the only place "God" authorized them to be done. Since it doesn't exist, they can't be performed.

[The Whistle Is Screaming]

If Jesus was the result of immaculate conception and your "tribe" is determined by your biological father, how can this prophecy have been fulfilled? I gotta go with prophecy not fulfilled.

Unless, of course, membership in the tribe is determined by matrilineal descent. You know...like Jews?

To the question of "who is Jewish?", yes, it has historically been determined by matralineal decent, but "tribe affiliation" (which is the point being contended here), "priestly status", "royalty" etc. are all determined via patralineal decent.

[battery chucka' one]

Lemme have a stab at answering some of these.

TWIS, it is obviously my 'take' that Jesus fulfilled EVERY prophecy (except the ones to come).
What prophecy did He fail to fulfill ... ?

Obviously, we Jews don't believe in the "2nd coming" (wouldn't this actually be his 3rd?) and the Messiah will fulfill all the prophecies in his lifetime.

First of all, he must be Jewish - "...you may appoint a king over you, whom the L-rd your G-d shall choose: one from among your brethren shall you set as king over you." (Deuteronomy 17:15)

OK, Jesus was Jewish, prophecy fulfilled.

True. Nice concession.

He must be a member of the tribe of Judah - "The staff shall not depart from Judah, nor the sceptre from between his feet..." (Genesis 49:10)

If Jesus was the result of immaculate conception and your "tribe" is determined by your biological father, how can this prophecy have been fulfilled? I gotta go with prophecy not fulfilled.

How does God refer to the Jewish people? Doesn't He refer to them, quite often, as MY people? Therefore, perhaps He counts Himself as one of them. By your criteria, prophecy fulfilled.

He must be a direct male descendant of King David and King Solomon, his son - "And when your days (David) are fulfilled, and you shall sleep with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who shall issue from your bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will make firm the throne of his kingdom forever..." (2 Samuel 7:12 - 13)

I'm gonna say his geneolgy is in question like the previous prophecy, so I gotta go with prophecy not fulfilled.

How is it in question? Too vague. You need to elaborate more. For now, debate on this is up in the air. I, however, accept it as fulfilled. You may further discussion on this one if you come up with some evidence.

btw - the "Messiah" is supposed to be a "regular" human being, not some kind of deity, anyone (meeting the criteria) has the potential to be the "Messiah".

He tired. He wept. He died. He was God in human form.

He must gather the Jewish people from exile and return them to Israel -"And he shall set up a banner for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth." (Isaiah 11:12)

Are all the Jews of the world residing in Israel? No, so prophecy not fulfilled.

They will before His second coming. Also, is there no nation of Israel now? Prophecy fulfilled.

He must rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem - "...and I will set my sanctuary in their midst forever and my tabernacle shall be with them.." (Ezekiel 37:26 - 27)

No Temple in Jerusalem, prophacy not fulfilled.

There was a temple at Christ's time. Before Christ, God resided in the temple. The tearing of the curtain signified that the temple was no longer necessary and there was a new covenant ushered in where we could have a personal relationship with God. Prophecy fulfilled.

He will rule at a time of world-wide peace - "...they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore." (Micah 4:3)

No explination needed, prophecy not fulfilled.

Need to do more research on this. Is this a prophecy for the millenial kingdom? I'll get back to you on this one.

He will rule at a time when the Jewish people will observe G-d's commandments - "My servant David shall be king over them; and they shall all have one shepherd. They shall follow My ordinances and be careful to observe My statutes." (Ezekiel 37:24)

Uhhmmm, this one may be my fault, but non-the-less, prophecy not fulfilled

Again, I'll get back to you on this one. Hold decision before we decide for one or the other.

He will rule at a time when all people will come to acknowledge and serve one G-d - "And it shall come to pass that from one new moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before Me, says the L-rd" (Isaiah 66:23)

Again, no explination needed, prophecy not fulfilled.

Again, need to see the context for this. Will get back to you on it.

If an individual fails to fulfill even one of these conditions, then he cannot be "The Messiah."



Lastly, on the topic of "Sacrifices", they haven't been done since the Temple in Jerusalem was destryed. Something about that being the only place "God" authorized them to be done. Since it doesn't exist, they can't be performed.

Absolutely not true. Throughout the OT, sacrifices were often performed outside of the temple. That was the place where God lived. After Christ, the temple was unnecessary because of the new covenant; hence it's destruction.

Like I said, I'll get back to you on some of these. Please give me approx. 24 hrs. ;)

[battery chucka' one]

Okay, I consulted a Bible and may now intelligently answer the three points I left untouched in my last post.

1. Micah 4:3-Micah 4:1 starts 'And it will come about in the last days...' This is an end times prophecy (floating oracle with Isaiah, actually) and is referring to the millenial kingdom which is yet to come.

-Prophecy can't be fulfilled until the end of the world. No judgement on it not being fulfilled can be cast, as yet.

2. Ezekiel 37:24-The 'valley of dry bones' referred to in the beginning of this chapter refers to Israels rebirth as a nation. Don't really think it concerned the Messiah at all, actually. Was about the Jewish state.

-There is a nation of Israel and it was populated by many Jews from around the earth. Prophecy fulfilled.

3. Isaiah 66:23-God says 'Heaven is my throne, earth my footstool'. This is future prophecy about the millenial kingdom. It's to show that the temple wasn't necessary and that the Jewish people were placing way too much emphasis on it.

-Prophecy fulfilled.

Christ loves you. Have a nice day. :)

[poptart]

He must be a member of the tribe of Judah - "The staff shall not depart from Judah, nor the sceptre from between his feet..." (Genesis 49:10)

If Jesus was the result of immaculate conception and your "tribe" is determined by your biological father, how can this prophecy have been fulfilled? I gotta go with prophecy not fulfilled.

He must be a direct male descendant of King David and King Solomon, his son - "And when your days (David) are fulfilled, and you shall sleep with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who shall issue from your bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will make firm the throne of his kingdom forever..." (2 Samuel 7:12 - 13)

If a person does not understand Genesis 3:15 they don't understand the Bible.

In the Bible, absolutely without exception, offspring are said to have come from a man's seed, however in this ONE verse (God Himself speaking), we are told of a future offspring which will come from a WOMAN's seed.

This is a very curious thing, no .... ?

So let's look a little closer at Genesis 3:15.
The stage is that man has just sinned.
God curses the serpent, and then He says to the serpent, "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." (Genesis 3:15)

God had previously told man that if he ate of the forbidden tree he would surely die.
Man ate, and so man is DEAD.
Adam was a DEAD man walking at that point.
So is man's seed somehow going to save man, be a savior ... ??
No freaking way, man.
Dead, dead, dead, DEAD !!!!!!!!

So God says He will send the SEED OF THE WOMAN.
Women don't have seed.
Did God goof ... ?
Of course not.
DIVINE pregnancy.

Salvation is of the Lord.
Man can't do squat.

Genesis 3:15 is speaking of God' impregnating Mary and her giving birth to the One who would crush satan.

The Man, Jesus' family line appropritately follows the prophecied line ...... up to His father Joseph.


TWIS, we've actually discussed your other points previously, so I'm just going to leave them alone.

[The Whistle Is Screaming]

mv,
Why do you think we wear yarmulkes? To cover the bruise. ;-)

pop,
I disagree with your analysis of G 3:15 and the lack of context that you place on it. As for the rest, yes we've discussed it and we'll simply have to agree to disagree (along with your obsession of G 3:15).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


1
Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which HaShem G-d had made. And he said unto the woman: 'Yea, hath G-d said: Ye shall not eat of any tree of the garden?'
2
And the woman said unto the serpent: 'Of the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat;
3
but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, G-d hath said: Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.'
4
And the serpent said unto the woman: 'Ye shall not surely die;
5
for G-d doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as G-d, knowing good and evil.'

6
And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat; and she gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat.
7
And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig-leaves together, and made themselves girdles.
8
And they heard the voice of HaShem G-d walking in the garden toward the cool of the day; and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of HaShem G-d amongst the trees of the garden.

9
And HaShem G-d called unto the man, and said unto him: 'Where art thou?'
10
And he said: 'I heard Thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.'

11
And He said: 'Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?'
12
And the man said: 'The woman whom Thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.'
13
And HaShem G-d said unto the woman: 'What is this thou hast done?' And the woman said: 'The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.'

14
And HaShem G-d said unto the serpent: 'Because thou hast done this, cursed art thou from among all cattle, and from among all beasts of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.
15
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; they shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise their heel.'

16
Unto the woman He said: 'I will greatly multiply thy pain and thy travail; in pain thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.'

17
And unto Adam He said: 'Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying: Thou shalt not eat of it; cursed is the ground for thy sake; in toil shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life.
18
Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field.
19
In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken; for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.'

20
And the man called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

21
And HaShem G-d made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins, and clothed them.

22
And HaShem G-d said: 'Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.'
23
Therefore HaShem G-d sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
24
So He drove out the man; and He placed at the east of the garden of Eden the cherubim, and the flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way to the tree of life.

[rozy]

15
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; they shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise their heel.'

3 [15] He will strike . . . at his heel: since the antecedent for he and his is the collective noun offspring, i.e., all the descendants of the woman, a more exact rendering of the sacred writer's words would be, "They will strike . . . at their heels." However, later theology saw in this passage more than unending hostility between snakes and men. The serpent was regarded as the devil (Wisdom 2:24; John 8:44; Rev 12:9; 20:2), whose eventual defeat seems implied in the contrast between head and heel. Because "the Son of God appeared that he might destroy the works of the devil" (1 John 3:8), the passage can be understood as the first promise of a Redeemer for fallen mankind. The woman's offspring then is primarily Jesus Christ.

http://jakeporter.wordpress.com/2006/05 ... nesis-315/

http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseact ... VerseID/71

http://biblescripture.net/First.html <real good one

[The Whistle Is Screaming]

Here's another source (of course it's the one I prefer)
http://hareidi.org/bible/bible.htm

I've brought the subject of "translation" up before with pop, but he dismisses it completely. Unfortunately, it is a HUGE issue with regards to interpretation of the OT/Torah/Tanach and cannot be ignored. It is especially critical when people dismantle particular passages and specific words to "prove" their arguement. It is a tactic that missionaries use (I'm not accusing anyone here of being a missionary) to "convert" people.

Anyway, I disagree with your dismantling of G 3:15 (shocking) and ignoring the passeges around it. These verses (all together) are about the punishment God gave to all those involved with ripping apples from his favorite tree. It is not Messianic in nature.

If I have to deconstruct it though ...

"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman" God speaking to man that he is putting enmity (hostility, hatred, animosity, etc) between "man" and "woman", this is why we fight like cat's and dog's and have make-up sex.

The results of make-up sex ... "and between thy seed and her seed" between "man's seed" and "womans seed"

"they shall bruise thy head" the offspring you create will hurt your head. Children for all their blessings make your life difficult at times.

"and thou shalt bruise their heel." you as a parent, are condemned to discipline your offspring, hurt them for their own good no matter how bad it makes you feel.

[Ang]

Wow, I've never heard that Genesis verse as an explanation of discord in families and the discipline of kids. I've usually heard it as a prophecy that the seed of a woman (Jesus) will hurt the serpent and finally kill his power, or at the very least go against the bloodlines that are usually along the male geneology. Going along the fathers lines don't make a bit of difference if you believe that Mary had the baby Jesus without benefit of male human seed and at least one Gospel traces her line, so that explains the enmity between the man's seed and the woman's seed. Kind of fits more into the cultural context of the time, and why it was important from day one in the prophecies that the Christ would come from a situation and a person that was not generally respected or "king-like". His beginning was the embodiment of the life that was his to live as the Messiah that changed basically...everything that anyone had known to that point.

And at the danger of sounding really silly...for years I thought that the term "immaculate conception" referred to the conception of Christ. I found out only a few years ago that the term is basically a strictly Catholic term and refers to the conception of Mary. That she was special from the get-go and was immaculately concieved to be a pure mother of the Messiah. Not sure if any scriptual context backs that up (have heard references both ways and don't see a clear interpretaton either way), but it was good to finally figure out what the term really means :).

[poptart]

And at the danger of sounding really silly...for years I thought that the term "immaculate conception" referred to the conception of Christ.

I always thought it meant Franco was running free down the sideline and a brick was getting ready to go through my tv screen.

[battery chucka' one]

And at the danger of sounding really silly...for years I thought that the term "immaculate conception" referred to the conception of Christ.

I always thought it meant Franco was running free down the sideline and a brick was getting ready to go through my tv screen.

But who touched it first? ;)

Actually, I recently went, with my fiancee, to a Catholic chapel where they seemed to celebrate and revere BOTH Mary and Joseph. It said that their family, along with Christ, was a model for others to emulate. However, I and her both agreed that this wasn't the case. After all, how many people have God as their child? I really don't agree with the reverence given to Mary and the earthly parents of Christ. I'm saved by Grace. All I did is accept the gift. And that's all I ever could do to achieve reward after my death.

[SunCoastSooner]

In the Bible, absolutely without exception, offspring are said to have come from a man's seed, however in this ONE verse (God Himself speaking), we are told of a future offspring which will come from a WOMAN's seed.

This is a very curious thing, no .... ?

So let's look a little closer at Genesis 3:15.
The stage is that man has just sinned.
God curses the serpent, and then He says to the serpent, "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." (Genesis 3:15)

Mary was a Levite and not of the Tribe of Judah. You negate his decendance from David if you trace his seed from Mary.

[poptart]

Jesus rightfully legal 'father' in human eyes was Joseph, who came from the tribe of Judah.