T1B

Ephesians 1:3
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath
blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ


Man was created uniquely (he is the only spiritual being) among all that God created - and given great spiritual blessings and authority, so long as he remain within God's Covenant.
Genesis 1:26-28, Genesis 2:17.

Man lost his necessary connection with God and became like a fish out of water.
The fish can flop and flail and try desperately to resolve his issue, but it can not work, his suffering will increase, and he will die.

This is man and it is heartbreaking to watch - because the solution is SO simple.

And because man is a spiritual being, he is capable of SUCH heinous actions.
We see it all the time.

And people are even often surprised by the actions of a person they thought they knew so well, saying, "I didn't imagine he would do ... such and such."

But it is the condition of man, because he has been spiritually captured by satan and is absolutely being driven into complete failure - eternally so.


Genesis 8:21
for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth


But God restores man to his created status, full of ALL spiritual blessings, of Genesis 1:26 -28 when he once again enters into God's Covenant.

The Covenant is Jesus Christ.

poptart wrote:and given great spiritual blessings and authority, so long as he remain within God's Covenant.
Genesis 1:26-28, Genesis 2:17.

that's what I love about "holy" books

a constant barrage of threats

Felix wrote:

poptart wrote:and given great spiritual blessings and authority, so long as he remain within God's Covenant.
Genesis 1:26-28, Genesis 2:17.

that's what I love about "holy" books

a constant barrage of threats

Of course there are. Organized religion exists to control and placate the masses.

The church I am part of sure doesn't exist to control and placate the masses.

Felix wrote:that's what I love about "holy" books

a constant barrage of threats

It's no threat.
It's just the reality.

The same as if you told your 5 yr old son that as long as he doesn't leave your fenced-in yard he'll be safe and secure.

poptart wrote:The church I am part of sure doesn't exist to control and placate the masses.

The hell it doesn't. Why else are there so many "thou shall not" statements in the bible?

There was a time when God was dealing with the Israelites with "Thou shall and Thou shall not" directives.

But now the Lord has come and everything is finished in Him.

Our Church recognizes that Jesus is the Christ.

poptart wrote:There was a time when God was dealing with the Israelites with "Thou shall and Thou shall not" directives. But now the Lord has come and everything is finished in Him. Our Church recognizes that Jesus is the Christ.

Good. Because I was going to do whatever the fuck I wanted to anyway.

poptart wrote: The same as if you told your 5 yr old son that as long as he doesn't leave your fenced-in yard he'll be safe and secure.

hardly-it's more the equivalent of a "father*" telling his child "do what I say or I'm going to torture you for the rest of eternity

*father being a metaphoric term simply because this mystical unseen being that you believe took four days to create the earth and snapped the rest of the entire universe into existence in less than the blink of an eye exists solely in your mind

Felix, perhaps your displeasure is misdirected.


There is a being who plants strange ideas in the minds of people.
He deceives people and lies to them.
So as to destroy them.


John 8:44
He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him.
When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Revelations 12:9
And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world:
he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

poptart wrote:Felix, perhaps your displeasure is misdirected.


There is a being who plants strange ideas in the minds of people.
He deceives people and lies to them.
So as to destroy them.

so what you're saying here is that this being you refer to as "god" created this being you refer to as "satan" (aka, devil, evil one, nick saban, etc.) in order to reek havoc on the world and tempt man into "sinning" so that this all powerful, all knowing, omnipotent being would be forced to cast these "sinners" into eternal torture for the inexorable crime of not believing in him, when the only proof he provides of his existence is through a book that expouses the idea that sacrificing your children to him, owning and beating slaves (in accordance with "his" specifications), and proposing the premise that bats are birds and rabbits chew cud?

is that what you're trying to peddle here?

as dins would say "fucking ponderous".....

Felix wrote:so what you're saying here ...

Those are all things you are saying, Felix.


When someone bumps around Skeptics Annotated (and other such sites) they get their head filled with SO many Bible ideas and applications that are utter nonsense and are easily put to bed with some of the most basic understanding of the Bible.

Just sad that people grab onto such nonsense and run with it.

The "It says birds as bats" and "rabbits chew their cud" tripe are prime examples.

Leviticus 11:19 lists a bat as a "fowl," yes.

And gues what?

Leviticus 11:20 calls insects "fowls."

Yes, because very simply, the Hebrew word owph which is used there can encompass anything that is a winged creature.

A grasshopper is an owph, or "fowl."

The Bible doesn't say that a bat is a bird, it says that it is a winged creature.

It is, right? lol


The rabbit chewing it's cud is similar.

It's simply a matter of some boneheads trying to apply today's meaning of a word to something which was written in Hebrew at another time in history, and wasn't intended to be applied the way in which a "skeptic" today wants to try to apply it in order to attempt to discredit the Bible.

It's goofball stuff.

poptart wrote:
When someone bumps around Skeptics Annotated (and other such sites) they get their head filled with SO many Bible ideas and applications that are utter nonsense and are easily put to bed with some of the most basic understanding of the Bible.

I'd venture to say that I've read the bible as much as you have so my knowledge of what is said in the bible comes from my direct observations....

Just sad that people grab onto such nonsense and run with it.

The "It says birds as bats" and "rabbits chew their cud" tripe are prime examples.

those were simply examples of harmless idiocies.....your "holy" book is filled with lots of things that aren't quite so harmless.....e.g. parents sacrificing their children, your "god" wiping out entire civilizations simply because he was pissed, killing three thousand people for no other reason than they were worshipping an idol.....

Leviticus 11:19 lists a bat as a "fowl," yes.

And gues what?

Leviticus 11:20 calls insects "fowls."

Yes, because very simply, the Hebrew word owph which is used there can encompass anything that is a winged creature.

A grasshopper is an owph, or "fowl."

wow, stretch much?

The Bible doesn't say that a bat is a bird, it says that it is a winged creature.

I don't know which version of the bible your reading, but in the ones I've read it most certainly does

It's goofball stuff.

you're right, the bible is most certainly "goofball" stuff

Felix, this is the King James, Leviticus 11:13-20

[13] And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
[14] And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
[15] Every raven after his kind;
[16] And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
[17] And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
[18] And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
[19] And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.
[20] All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.


It lists the "fowls" -- eagle, ossifrage, ospray, vulture, kite, raven, owl, night hawk, cuckow, hawk, little owl, cormorant, great owl, swan, pelican, gier eagle, stork, heron, lapwing, bat, creeping things on all fours.

Yes, the bat is called a "fowl" - as are some INSECTS - v. 20, because the Hebrew word owph which is traslated to english as "fowl" can encompass anything that is a winged creature.

Owph was translated to english as fowl.
Other translations use the word bird.

It's nothing to make any issue of.

All it takes is a very basic look at the original Hebrew script to understand that they were NOT saying that a bat is a bird. lol

They were saying that a bat is a winged creature (owph) that the people were not to eat.

poptart wrote:
It lists the "fowls" -- eagle, ossifrage, ospray, vulture, kite, raven, owl, night hawk, cuckow, hawk, little owl, cormorant, great owl, swan, pelican, gier eagle, stork, heron, lapwing, bat, creeping things on all fours.

And the Lord did grin, and the people did feast upon the lambs, and sloths, and carp, and anchovies, and orangutans, and breakfast cereals, and fruit bats...

If King James thought that bats and insects and orangutans were birds, he must have been one dumb motherfucker.

He didn't think they were birds.
He thought they were all winged creatures.

People like Felix are prone to buying into the 100% fake idea that it says bats are birds.


And monkeys can only fly out of Mike Myers' butt.

so is that the original King James version-you know, the one where "gods" word has been edited, voted upon, re-edited, voted upon, re-edited, voted on, re-edited, voted on and then published?

poptart wrote: as are some INSECTS

and apparently, according to your book, insects have 4 legs

That would only be apparent if you didn't investigate at all.

I guess it's very much worth noting again that what was written in Hebrew - at an ancient time, in a different culture - translates into English with some wording that might not, at first look, express the same meaning to one of us that it did to them.

Could be a long answer (very long), but here is the short of it.

Leviticus 11:20-23
[21] All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.
[21] Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
[22] Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
[23] But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.

If you look at the HEBREW of this Scripture you can see that v.21 actually states that these "four legged" creatures have ... six ... legs.
Should I say that again?

The Hebrew of v.21 uses two words to differentiate between feet (regel) and legs (kera).
It says that there are insects which walk on four "feet" (which are the short front legs) and have two extra legs which are used for jumping.

Today we identify an insect's six appendeges ALL as legs.
At that time, however, they differentiated between the front four (which were "feet" to them) and the back two ("legs") which were used for leaping.

"Go on all fours" refers to what the front appendeges are doing - shuffling along.
What the rear legs do, sometimes leaping, is excluded from the meaning of "go on all fours".

That's the gist of it, Felix.

poptart wrote:

And monkeys can only fly out of Mike Myers' butt.

Wicked Witch of the West

( )

says you don't know WTF you're talking about.