Faith and belief + BKB babbling about free will (Split from "Mormon Church" thread)

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I highlighted the part that shows my distinction. It says that the desire to satisfy personal needs without regard to moral consquences of fulfiling those desires is yetzer ra. Therefore, you cannot claim the desire for shelter in all instances derives from it as there are instances in which one desires shelter in regards to the moral consequnces.

As for the idea that G-d created yetzer ra, I won't object to it immediately, but I need to see evidence from the Tanakh, not Jewish tradition or Talmud, for this concept.

Well, I guess I don't know what to tell you then. G-d must not be the creator of everything then. I decline to worship any such G-d.

I'd note you seem perfectly willing to accept "christian traditions"

Um, do you really think a common dictionary is going to provide the Biblical definition of the principle of righteousness. Sure it gives us a definition of how many use it in everyday language, but that does not mean it gives the Biblican definition of it.

Well, if we haven't a common language, I don't see why we're talking.

 

[muffler dragon]

You missed the last part of what I said. Although the mediator and sacrifice was present for Cain to access, it didn't matter as he did not repent.

How do you know that Cain didn't repent? Accepting a disciplinary action does not mean that one does not repent for their actions.

Please undestand that when I say a sacrifice and a mediator is necessary, I do not think those two alone are all that is necessary. I agree 100% with the Jewish rabbis who say repentence needs to occur! My argument based upon the Scriptures is that something else must also occur after repentence because the penalty/consequence for the sin must still occur for justice to exist.

Forgive me for my dismissal of the emboldened. These same Jewish rabbis also dismiss your necessity of a mediator. Like I said before, I guess it's when it agrees with your POV.

 

[buckeyegrad]

And yet, they wrote in Latin..... not hebrew.

Actually, it was Greek.

Of course, I'm not sure what that has to do with them being or not being Jewish. After all, are you implying a Jew in the United States today failes to express his Jewishness if he write in English?

 

[muffler dragon]

I am open to an explanation of the Hebrew from the rabbi. In fact, I would very much welcome it. Of course, when Muffler originally raised this subject several weeks ago, after my own study of the Hebrew, I went to two individuals I know, one who speaks modern Hebrew and one who read biblical Hebrew and they confirmed what I found.

Which doesn't take into account the consistency as displayed from the commentary by Radak and Rambam. Curious?

 

[buckeyegrad]

I'd note you seem perfectly willing to accept "christian traditions"

Like what? I don't celebrate Easter or Christmas. I don't go to service on Sunday. I accept the theologies of Christians only to the point of where they remain grounded in the Bible and only the Bible.

 

[muffler dragon]

Well, I guess I don't know what to tell you then. G-d must not be the creator of everything then. I decline to worship any such G-d.

FWIW,

Isaiah 45
6. In order that they know from the shining of the sun and from the west that there is no one besides Me; I am the Lord and there is no other.

7. Who forms light and creates darkness, Who makes peace and creates evil; I am the Lord, Who makes all these.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Like what? I don't celebrate Easter or Christmas. I don't go to service on Sunday. I accept the theologies of Christians only to the point of where they remain grounded in the Bible and only the Bible.

What I was meaning was something more in line with accepting christian traditions such as the concept that Jesus was in the same body but different. I guess I'd concede that's not a "tradition."

My point re: Greek (I said Latin) and not Hebrew was regarding the errors inherent in translation.

I found it interesting this AM, I was reading the introduction to my JPS Tanakh which tackles the issue of interpretation and typos quite directly and openly, compared with the belief that the Bible as read today is what was written then.

 

[muffler dragon]

I found it interesting this AM, I was reading the introduction to my JPS Tanakh which tackles the issue of interpretation and typos quite directly and openly, compared with the belief that the Bible as read today is what was written then.

Does your JPS translation say anything about being based on the KJV?

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Does your JPS translation say anything about being based on the KJV?

I'll have to get back to you on that. I don't recall it saying that, though I do recall it addressing KJV in some context. I'll let ya know later when I'm home and can check.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

It would appear that this JPS is derived in the following manner:

Moses - Joshua - Elders - Prophets ...

For the textual transmission:

Aaron ben Moses Ben-Asher (Tiberias, c. 930 CE)
Samuel ben Jacob (Egypt, 1010 CE)
Recent editions of the Leningrad codex
Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS)

Intended audience: Study Bible, for exploration of masoretic Hebrew text, not for worship.

Also included in the preface (1999 edition (above)) is the preface to the 1985 Edition which begins in pertinent part:

This translation of Tanakh, the Holy Scriptures, produced by the Jewish Publication Society, was made directly from the traditional Hebrew text into the idiom of modern English

Perhaps the following translation of the opening lines of Genesis will provide illustration of this editions origins:

When G-d began to create heaven and earth - the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from G-d sweeping over the water - G-d said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.

Which of course, differs from the KJV:

1In the beginning G-d created the heaven and the earth.
2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of G-d moved upon the face of the waters.
3And G-d said, Let there be light: and there was light.

and the New KJV

1 In the beginning G-d created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was[a] on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of G-d was hovering over the face of the waters.

I hope that is helpful.

 

[Buckin' A]

I have not read one bit of this thread, but I can assure you that BKB is the devil himself.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I have not read one bit of this thread, but I can assure you that BKB is the devil himself.

Sometimes a pitchfork is just a pitchfork. :p

 

[Best Buckeye]

Mammaries

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Why wait? Why is your conception of G-d so slow to act? Why is that OK? Seems to me, your answer would have to be, because on a "G-d scale of time" it doesn't matter when He acts.

If that's true, none of this matters... we're all saved anyway...

Electing to believe in Jesus or not makes no difference.. he either died for my sins, or he did not. Even if people are as pathetic as Christianity assumes they are, we all reach the same conclusion.... which is why I try to suggest (or at least remind myself) that Christianity is NOT without value of any kind. There is nothing but Truth... Subjectivity... objectivity.... its all the same thing.

Equally true, there is nothing bu Lies, subjectivity.. objectivity... it's all the same thing.

I have corrected my post from the last page.... I omitted the word not.

 

[DGADBTWSOM]

Immediately thought of BKB:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knG4vqc9qz0]YouTube - Dilbert: Office Philosophy Video[/ame]