recently I asked two questions, hoping to gague the average person's awareness of the Bible and all of the glorious subject matter therein:\n\nDefine GOD.\nand\nIs it possible that GOD and Allah are the same guy.\n\nNow I have one more question, which might not be the last that I'd better ask before I have to go do laundry, and that question is, "What does it mean to take the Lord's name in vein?" I had to read the King James version as well as the New International Verssion in order to make sure that my theory was as accurate as possible. What I found after reading the Ten Commandments in both formats only further fueled my suspision that the average person, believer or otherwise, does not truly understand a totally understandable work.\n\nSo, please, by all means, share with me your insights.
126896
Not "in vein" but "in vain".  In other words, don't call on the name of God in jest or pointlessly.
111132
"Exodus 33: 'evil tidings' from LORD? Moses talked face to face with LORD, but only saw 'back' parts of LORD?"\n\nAre you trying to reconcile Exodus 33 with the Kabbalistic concept of Qlippoth?\n\nWhile its quite normal in most mythological systems for deities to tell humans that they won't survive gazing upon the deity's awesome visage, Qlippoth does make an interesting question here.  Perhaps the suggestion would be that while we try to look YHVH in the face, we are unable to really conceive of it and can only glimpse the "back", the Qlippoth, ie the stuff we don't like so much.  Interesting how akin it is to the way children think of their parents when they're young. Maybe someday humans will mature and be able to see YHVH in a more wholistic fashion.\n\n"Could there be two LORDS to consider, sort out, if there's also mention of the LORD of 'LORDS'?"\n\nIn the translation I'm looking at right now, I don't see the phrase "Lord of Lords" used in Ex 33.  However, when it does come up its referring to one or both of two things: The supremacy of YHVH in the pre-Abrahamic Judaic pantheon (before Abraham made his covenant with YHVH, the Jews were polytheistic and YHVH was one deity among many), and/or the supremacy of YHVH as a heavenly Lord to earthly Lords.\n\n"Which 'things' are an 'allegory' and 'mystery'."\n\nThere's no allegory in this chapter.  And, for me at least, the Bible in its entirety can be understood as a Mystery if one chooses to see it that way.\n\n"Why did story of Noah's Ark mention God and LORD, who notably gave Noah contradicting commandments?"\n\nThe commands aren't really contradictory: They don't "undo" each other.  So its not like there are two entities here giving opposite commands to Noah and using him as a pawn in some secret hidden war.  God doesn't say "save the animals" only to have Lord come back and say "don't save the animals."  There's just a confusion over number, which I consider being a result of bad editing - something that's bound to happen when a text is scribed, re-scribed, redacted, translated, etc. ad nauseum over the course of roughly 6000 years.
292609
what is the reference of this verse. i want to read the whole thing before it and after it, not just picking a verse from the middel\n\nbut you are correct. we all are brother of blood, we should remain in peace with each other regardless what governments do. we all worship One God.
626549
Nice book. (If you’re a sadist)\n\n\n(edit)\nWhy would the old testament be in the book if this god decided to change his cruel, voilent and hatefull ways. Then you shouldn't present the old testament to me. If I tell you "Hey man, here is the word or GOD, the creator of all the universe! He is all-knowing, all-powerful and all-present!!!! ..But why then is there a part in his word that doesn't apply to our time?? I thought he is all-present which would mean his word will be timeless.
377627
A person needs to read this passage very carefully, and it really helps to read it in the Hebrew. The three men are never actually identified as God. A number of Jewish rabbis have noticed the same thing. It is *first* said that Abraham was sitting in his tent and had a vision of God, *then* he opened his eyes and saw three men. While Moses's narative style sometimes has an overview of events, and then more details, it's hard to say if that's what's happening here or not. In fact, it's almost funny to read if you take the stance that these three were angels in the last half of Genesis, because it has Abraham speaking to the angel that remained behind, and calling him "Adoni" (Lord) but never YHVH. But the one to reply is always YHVY and never Adoni. Also, in Genesis 18:22, it says that the men Abraham was speaking with turned and left, but Abraham stayed and pleaded with the LORD.\n\nBut even if you take the stance that one, or even all three, of these "angels" were in fact God Almighty, there is nothing to keep God Almighty as a spirit from creating a body and animating it himself. St. Augustine gets into that kind of an idea  little bit in one of his 15 books on the Trinity, I don't remember which off the top of my head.
167085
An observation -- you are clearly arguing that Gen 2:17 is contradicted by what follows.   But don't you find it just a bit odd that the writer (or editor), who clearly is presenting God's words as TRUE, would in such a short span contradict his own story and not even recognize it??   Couldn't it be that, as obvious as it seems to you, there is something going on here that you are unaware of?\n\nIn fact, God's threat IS carried out, and swiftly.  The language he uses is found several other times in the Old Testment, esp. of kings pronouncing sentence or warning that the death sentence will most certainly follow if the person disobeys.\n\nExamples: (using ESV; I ordinarily use NIV, but this was closer to hand on my computer!)\n\nGenesis 20:7)\nNow then, return the man's wife, for he is a prophet, so that he will pray for you, and you shall live. But if you do not return her, know that you shall surely die, you, and all who are yours." \n\nExodus 10:28)\nThen Pharaoh said to him, "Get away from me; take care never to see my face again, for on the day you see my face you shall die."\n\nby Saul:  1 Samuel 14:44,   20:31,  22:16\n\nSolomon's warning to Shimei, in which he puts Shimei under oath, on pain of death, not to leave Jerusalem\n\n1Ki 2:37)  \nFor on the day you go out and cross the brook Kidron, know for certain that you shall die. Your blood shall be on your own head." \n\nAnd when Shimei violates the oath\n1Ki 2:42)  \nThe king sent and summoned Shimei and said to him, "Did I not make you swear by the LORD and solemnly warn you, saying, 'Know for certain that on the day you go out and go to any place whatever, you shall die'? And you said to me, 'What you say is good; I will obey.' \n\nThe point of all these is the DEATH SENTENCE will surely follow. (Solomon even speaks of "the day when", but clearly it is not the day that the violation occurs, but when Solomon apprehends him.)\n\nAnd the sentence DID follow in Genesis -- God pronounces sentence in Genesis 3:17-9:\n\nAnd to Adam he said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, 'You shall not eat of it,' cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. \nBy the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return." \n\nNow there IS indeed a delay in the 'final execution' of this sentence, but as God as said, it most surely does happen -- he passes sentence, and Adam DOES die.   In fact, the genealogy of Genesis 5 makes a great point of this, for it ends each entry (with the notable exception of Enoch, who "walked with God") with "and he DIED". \n\nBut there is something more immediate.\n\nYou note the reference to the tree of life, and others comment that if man had eaten from it he would live, which 'proves' what God had said wasn't true.  But God did NOT say the sentence would be automatic --as if the fruit was POISON.  Rather, he would pronounce SENTENCE, that HE would carry out.   His BLOCKING the way to the tree of life is PART of God carrying out thesentence!   Thus man CANNOT eat of it and will, instead, die.\n\nThere's even more to it than that.   Some have suggested that Adam "died spiritually" that day.  There is something to this, but again it fails to see that the DEATH sentence was something GOD was passing and seeing to the carrying out of.   So, what did God do THAT DAY?   He CAST Adam & Eve OUT of the Garden (in which the tree of life was found!),  from the special place of HIS presence...  into a place of hardship and ultimately death. \n\nThe rest of the OT builds on this picture -- that 'real life' is living i
664664
HAHA I can see what your getting at. This isnt a battle that you can win. Neither can I. I'm christian but a relaxed one. People have their opinions and who am i to tell them different. I dont beleive everything I hear. I beleive things that i know however. And I dont know for sure that a god even exist. I guess thats the whole concept to a religious faith alone. People tend to take the bible TOO literal. Then things begin getting mixed up. I am a scientist as well, some things in the bible just dont make sense. But if you read a book that offered a way for you to live in a sunny nice beach, and youve lived in the projects all of your life...and all you had to do has follow the books teaching...would you take it? I'm sure you see what i'm getting at as well.
664674
The problem is, you are assuming in your "if there is a God" case that you know what to do to "serve" Him.  But you don't have any basis to know that.  If you are talking about some generic God, there are infinitely many possibilities for how to "serve" Him (assuming He even needs serving).  On the other hand, if you are postulating a very specific God that you have heard about from other people or a book, then you have created a false dichotomy; there aren't just two possibilities (no God versus the God of the Bible), but rather infinitely many (God of the Bible, God of the Koran, God of a book that no one wrote yet, etc.).  So if you "serve" one of them (whatever that means), you are neglecting to serve others.\n\nSo we are back to figuring out what you believe, and going with that.  I guess if you believe in no God, you could still pick one of the infinitely many possibilities of God to "serve," but that seems awfully arbitrary, and your odds of guessing right seem so infinitesimally small that it seems hardly worth the random guess.
307362
Delightfull!Teasing the "believers" is such a pleasant diversion. I see they are the only ones answering your question, so permit me to offer a change of pace.Lets see now,could it be the christian god?Perhaps allah?The jewish one? I give up,surely such a barbarous,murderous misanthrope would not be considered a god?No?
183468
As a seeker of the truth and a student of life, and after many years of observation,\nResearch and comparative study, it appears to me that people often base their beliefs and judgments\nOn weak, sandy foundations. Rather than on the solid foundations of rock that Jesus recommended.\nConcerning the topic at hand, I have noticed some major differences between what is\ncommonly and officially understood about god in Christianity, and what the Bible itself states!\nIn this booklet, I would like to share with you-out of love and concern what I have noticed and\nLearned through my continuous journey of research, analysis, and study.\nThe intent of this work is to honestly and sincerely present the truth that I found, not to\nHurt the feelings of anyone.\nNow let us turn to discuss some issues and questions concerning the nature of god In Christianity,\nnamely the trinity and divinity of Jesus.\nJesus said "Seek the truth and the truth will set you free"\nIs God one or three?\nIs Jesus God or part of God?\nWhat do you think??\nWhat is your answer??\nLet us get the answer from the Bible:\nOne came and said unto him, Good Master, what good\nThing shall I do. That I may have eternal life? And he(Jesus)\nSaid unto him, why callest thou me good*? There is none good\nBut one, that is, God. But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the\nCommandments.\n(Matthew 19:16-17)\n\n*Why callest thou me good? Or in modern English " why do you call me good "we\nWould not find this wording and meaning in some Bible! This text is found in king James\nVersion. Don`t take my word for it! Chick your Bible!\nSeveral questions can be asked about the above verses. Some of the more intuitive ones are:\n>"why do you call me good?" why did Jesus question his own goodness?\n>Jesus emphatically stated that "there is none good but one, that is, God"\nWhy did he refer to the one God as the " good" one only?\n>Why did he exclude himself from being good, if he were God?\n>Jesus explicitly pointed out that " if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments."\nWhy didn`t Jesus command the questioner to believe in him (Jesus) as God in order\nTo enter into eternal life?\n>Based on Jesus` testimony, Isn`t keeping the commandments enough for getting\nEternal life?\nNow, let us re-read verses of Matthew (19:16-17) as stated in King James\nVersion and the same verses as reported in the New International Version\nOf the HOLY BIBLE.\nPDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com\nOne came and said unto . him, Good Master, what good\nThing shall I do. That I may have eternal life? And he\nSaid unto him, why callest thou me good? There is none good\nBut one, that is, God.\n(in king James version)\n.Now a man came up to Jesus and asked "Teacher, what\ngood thing must I do to get eternal life?"\n"why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied.\n"there is only one who is good. If you want to enter life,\nobey the commandments."\n(in the new international version) .\nTo make is easy to compare, here are Jesus` two different questions:\nAccording to King James version (KJV), in simple English, Jesus asked:\n*Why do you CALL ME GOOD?\nBut, according to the New International Version (NIV), Jesus said:\n*Why do you ASK ME ABOUT WHAT IS GOOD?\nPlease honestly camper between Jesus` question in the King James Version and\nHis questions in the New International Version. Do they have the same\nMeaning? Can they both be correct?\nGoing back to the critical question, Is Jesus God?, I think that if Jesus\nWere God or part of God, his logical response would be to approve of what the\nQuestioner called him (i.e., "Good Master").\nSound reasoning and plain logic tell us that God is good. And if Jesus were\nGod or part of God (part of the Trinity) he MUST BE GOOD! Don`t\nyou agree?\nPresumably, some of the possible, expected response that Jesus cold utter in r
668225
Another pick and chose from your part eh? Why don't you believe the bible as whole instead of picking and choosing verses that you think justifies the violent works of your faith? That's too hypocritical to get some bible verse yet deny the rest. This isn't a prophecy, this is a form of praise. Did you analyze this verse yourself, it talks about Israel, are you an israelite? Jesus is the KIng of Zion no other else.
383099
Isn't this quite disingenuous? If the verse were talking about a way of identifying a living human being, then perhaps you'd have a point, though a very strained one at that.\n\nBut, isn't this verse about whether one has a body or not in paradise? And isn't it saying that the body is, effectively, put back together, from the head to the tips of the toes..... or fingers?\n\nYou've taken words and then forced them on to something that is utterly non-applicable. Isn't that a sin?
175332
Wow! Talk about strange answers!!!!!\nBelow find a link to our website where you can learn a lot about us.\nIt is true that many condem us for our work for and with God.\nWe are followers of Christ/Jesus , Jehovah's son. We do as he requested us to do, educate people according to his father's teachings. We carry God's name, not his title 'God' is a title, as is Lord.\nIf you have an older King James Bible, you will find God's name at Psalms 83 verse 18.\nAlso you can find in Isahiah 43 verses 10 through 12 where he gave us his name to use.\nWe are the only religon that is authorized to carry God's name. Click on the link below for additional information and any help you wish.
537494
Yeah, there is a scripture that says something like "I am a jealous God" (not exact quote) and I have no idea what exactly it was referring to, but it was not our supreme being saying he was jealous.  Geez Louise!  Whomever wrote that surely wasn't quoting God.  God is all love and I would imagine in a constant state of bliss.  Can you really imagine him being angry or jealous.   I don't care what Sunday School teaches, that's just silly!
378625
Do you notice that Jesus first tells the man that all he need do is keep the commandments?  But the man carries on, feeling that it won't be enough for some reason (even though Jesus just said it would)?  He feels he's still lacking.  Jesus tells him what he must do 'to be perfect'.  Not what he must do to gain eternal life.  I don't know about you, but, I have too many other people in my life to take care of to be 'perfect'.  Even as much as I admire Jesus.
626267
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. \nI have learned a great deal from you, and I try to share that knowledge \nwith as many people as I can. \nI do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other specific \nBiblical laws and how to follow them.\n\na) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a \npleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. \nThey claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?\n\nb) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in \nExodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price \nfor her?\n\nc) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her \nperiod of menstrual uncleanness (Lev.15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? \nI have tried asking, but most women take offense. If I come into contact with \na woman who is menstruating and she doesn't tell me until afterwards, must I \nkill her immediately or can I just beat her?\n\nd) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, \nprovided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims\nthat this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? \nWhy can't I own Canadians?\n\ne) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 \nclearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill \nhim myself? Also, is Sabbath on Saturday as Seventh Day Adventists \n(Christians, like us...or are they?) or is it on Sunday as Baptists and \nsome other faiths agree? I am beset by not knowing who to kill and when \nto kill them...please clarify this for me.\n\nf) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination\n (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality (Lev. 18:22). \nI don't agree. I'm also confused about how homosexuality can be an abomination \nwhen Jonathan and David were married in the Bible (1 Samuel 18:1, 3 - 4). \nHere, I'll quote it - "And it came to pass, when he had made an end of \nspeaking unto Saul that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David \nand Jonathan loved him as his own soul. Then Jonathan and David made a \ncovenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself\nof the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even \nto his sword and to his bow and to his girdle." and also Ruth's relationship \nwith Naomi is suspect, (Ruth 1:16-17) "And Ruth said to Naomi, Entreat me not \nto leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, \nI will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, \nand thy God my God: Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: \nthe Lord do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part three and me.\n" Can you settle this?\n\ng) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a \ndefect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my \nvision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?\n\nh) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around \ntheir temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27 and even \nthough 1st Cor. 11:4-6 says that it is a shame upon a man to have long hair. \nHow should they die?\n\ni) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me \nunclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? Also, since it is \nstrictly forbidden to "eat neither fat nor blood" in Lev. 3:17 & Lev. 19:26, \ndoes that mean that I must be a vegetarian and must I smite those who choose \nto eat meat?\n\nj) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different \ncrops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two \ndifferent kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse \nand blaspheme a lot. Is i
153180
You've stated just a few reasons why I ended up asking the question, "Is it possible that the Christian God and the Muslim God(Yahweh and Allah) are the same entity as Satan? The character flaws exhibited by the religious "good gods" can be lined up point for point with the understood character flaws of "Satan". One of the most sadistic stories I've ever read has got to be the story of God telling Abraham to sacrifice his own son and then, "Oh, sorry just testing". You don't get any more cruel or mind-controlling than that.