|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 9:21 am
back to topic. The church is figuratively referred to as The bride of Christ. also, actually the ancient Hebrews were known to keep their wives better than almost all of the people at that time. The church was referred to as the bride of Christ because that would create the image of a better family than if we were adopted because the man is supposed to be the head or the leader of the family. That in no way means that the woman is any less important than the man. Right nearby I says that there is neither male nor female or Jew or Greek or slave or free in God's eyes. It just makes a place for each person to be able to used their best for God's work. And that would mean that Jesus is the leader of the Church.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 1:22 pm
Card_King1 King Robert Silvermyst That's just one of the many hypocritial things that exist in the bible, Something I think alot of people don't see or understand is that the bible was written by humans, not by God, and that it was originally written in Hebrew. Through many centuries of translations, many things have been altered and mis-translated. For instance, and even some Jewish Rabi's will atest to this, it was not the Red Sea that Moses passed through, but the Sea of Reeds which lies at the Nile Delta which was actually a marshland. And it was not hundreds of thousands of unarmed slaves, but a few thousand, and many of them were armed. Plus it has been proven by archeology and science that the first born son of Ramses II, the pharoah of the Exodus, was killed in his early to mid 30's by the backside of a sword to the back of the head at the Sea of Reeds, not killed as a child by the hand of God as our bibles claim. I'm not saying everything in the Bible is wrong, but one shouldn't think that it is perfect Than how to you attest to the fact of a large amount of chariot wheels and other parts being found in the red sea? and how do you attest to the fact that when the dead sea scrolls where found that there were no major translational differences or differences in doctrine? Please don't pass on information that was told to you orally. It doesn't matter who it is. Individuals make much more mistakes that a large amount of people. The bible doesn't say which pharaoh was killed in the red sea. If even if one was. It just says his army was annihilated. This information was not passed 'orally'. This information has come from several archiologists findings, studies and with scientific testing, carbon dating of the chariots found in the Sea of Reeds. i am merely stating that which has scientific backing. So please, don't try to write it off as this being something with no backing behind it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 4:28 pm
Unfortunately, you haven't done your homework. None if this has been "proven" at all. At the most its mere hypothesis. There is no real evidence to show that the Israelites passed through the sea of reeds rather than the actual red sea. Egyptian records record the massacre of thousands upon thousands of Hebrew infants (Its not found all over the place for obvious reasons but It has been found in some records). What would Pharaoh fear so that he would try and control the population of just a few thousand slaves when he had the most powerful army of his time? To say first off archeology doesn't even know if Ramses II was even Pharaoh for the exodus. This claim is further defeated because it is a well known fact that Egyptian records are very poor during times of natural disasters or a won battle by a rival. (Comparing Egyptian and Hittite Records) Ramses II also had almost 100 Children meaning 50-60 sons. We don't even know who the first born son of Ramses II was for sure. You really need to check your sources so people like me don't have to do your work for you.
Benjamin
EDIT: Takes foot out of mouth. I'm very sorry It was stupid of me to be so disrespectful. I know I have made a ton of mistakes. God forgives I hope you will too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 12:31 am
King Robert Silvermyst That's just one of the many hypocritial things that exist in the bible, Something I think alot of people don't see or understand is that the bible was written by humans, not by God, and that it was originally written in Hebrew. Through many centuries of translations, many things have been altered and mis-translated. For instance, and even some Jewish Rabi's will atest to this, it was not the Red Sea that Moses passed through, but the Sea of Reeds which lies at the Nile Delta which was actually a marshland. And it was not hundreds of thousands of unarmed slaves, but a few thousand, and many of them were armed. Plus it has been proven by archeology and science that the first born son of Ramses II, the pharoah of the Exodus, was killed in his early to mid 30's by the backside of a sword to the back of the head at the Sea of Reeds, not killed as a child by the hand of God as our bibles claim. I'm not saying everything in the Bible is wrong, but one shouldn't think that it is perfect I certainy do not think that the bible is in any way a perfect, word for word truth. It was written by man, not god himself. still, it does state many lessons by which I think god wants us all to learn. Card_King1 Than how to you attest to the fact of a large amount of chariot wheels and other parts being found in the red sea? and how do you attest to the fact that when the dead sea scrolls where found that there were no major translational differences or differences in doctrine? Please don't pass on information that was told to you orally. It doesn't matter who it is. Individuals make much more mistakes that a large amount of people. The bible doesn't say which pharaoh was killed in the red sea. If even if one was. It just says his army was annihilated. do you honestly think that the moses events are the only times chariots would have been anywhere near the red sea? come on...... also, I would appreciate it if you would not be putting down other peoples evedence like that. the whole "individuals make more mistakes" thing..... it is merly your own view, not nessisarily fact. personally I go the other way and say that majoritys of people tend to belive what general stories they are told to be true. "a person is smart. people are too easily influenced by what they are told. It sounds to me like this guys sources are fairly factual, having come from archaeologists and such. you know, the people who actually go out there and find this stuff out instead of going with what everyone tells them......... anyway, yes it is going off topic, and thus you should debate this elseware. but again, card, please try to be a little more respectful to other peoples points of view, for this thread is not the only instance I have seen you doing this........
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 2:27 pm
I would like to make a formal apology to King Robert Silvermyst. It was stupid of me to talk the way I did. I wasn't in a right state of mind at that time. I also need to apologize to everyone else too. That was a very un-Christlike post. I have hurt my witness for Christ and I have hurt Him to act like that in his name. I pray that you can forgive me for this.
Benjamin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 2:48 pm
*looks down* well im a daughter u.... ur a michael jackson
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 2:28 am
Card_King1 I would like to make a formal apology to King Robert Silvermyst. It was stupid of me to talk the way I did. I wasn't in a right state of mind at that time. I also need to apologize to everyone else too. That was a very un-Christlike post. I have hurt my witness for Christ and I have hurt Him to act like that in his name. I pray that you can forgive me for this. Benjamin glad to hear it. one reason I like coming here to discuss is because the people here, though differing in view (anywhere from evangelist to athiest!!!!), tend to be pretty respectful of one another. I certainy hope that you can continue to do the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 2:29 am
Star_of_the_future *looks down* well im a daughter u.... ur a michael jackson *moon walks over "yes, what of it?" LOL
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:44 am
no it doesn't mean that we are all daughters. they mean that jesus was gods only child (blood related). or thats how i see it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 12:16 am
meleny7 no it doesn't mean that we are all daughters. they mean that jesus was gods only child (blood related). or thats how i see it. but... wouldnt that mean god would have to have blood? and if so, he would be killable, and thus non-imortal. im pretty sure he IS imortal. ah, but this goes off into a whole other discussion intirly.........
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
