Useful In A Pinch

[WeberHome]

-
Hello; and welcome to a home-spun compilation of information from the
Bible that comes in handy now and then for just about everybody.

NOTE: The compilation isn't plagiarized. I cobbled it together from 18 years
of experience on internet forums.

FYI: It is not my wish that this thread be either an ivory tower, or a
monologue, or a filibuster. I welcome, and encourage, any and all
comments, remarks, corrections, and/or suggestions.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[WeberHome]

-
The Difference Between The Old Testament And The New

This major division in the Bible is primarily editorial; viz: it's man-made
instead of God-made; but the division is pretty harmless and actually quite
useful.

In a nutshell:

1• The primary difference between the two testaments is their respective
atonement systems. The Old Testament's atonement system is based upon
animal sacrifices; while the New Testament's atonement system is based
upon a human sacrifice.

2• The Old Testament's high priesthood is captained by men subject to
death; while the New Testament's high priesthood is captained by a man
impervious to death.

3• The Old Testament reveals curses for people who disobey the Ten
Commandments; while the New Testament reveals an escape from those
curses.

4• The Old Testament is where we learn of the origin of the human race as
we know it; while the New Testament is where we learn of the termination of
the human race as we know it; along with the introduction of a new human
race about which we know comparatively little.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[Truster]

No comment.

 

[chrysostom]

the old testament is the letter of the law
ie ten commandments
and
the new testament is the spirit of the law
the two great commands

there is no difference in how they were saved
except
those before Jesus had to wait for Him to do what He did

 

[aikido7]

The Bible contains actual remembered history, oral tradition, interpretations (many different ones) of the sacred and holy, copies and corrections of those interpretations, metaphor, legends and myth.

Theology in the Bible is the meaning people placed over the factually correct evidence (evidence that anyone viewing the same thing would say).

Jesus died by crucifixion. This is what any observer, both faith-based and neutral, saw.

Jesus died for our sins was later theology placed over the actual crucifixion. And it was not the only theology that responds to his death on the cross.

 

[glorydaz]

The Bible contains actual remembered history, oral tradition, interpretations (many different ones) of the sacred and holy, copies and corrections of those interpretations, metaphor, legends and myth.

Theology in the Bible is the meaning people placed over the factually correct evidence (evidence that anyone viewing the same thing would say).

Jesus died by crucifixion. This is what any observer, both faith-based and neutral, saw.

Jesus died for our sins was later theology placed over the actual crucifixion. And it was not the only theology that responds to his death on the cross.

Why do you call yourself a Christian? :chew:

 

[aikido7]

Why do you call yourself a Christian? :chew:

Because I see God in Jesus.

Are you sure you don't want to just withdraw from this conversation?
You have said before that you are done with reading my posts.

What were you really trying to communicate when you said that?

 

[aikido7]

1• The primary difference between the two testaments is their respective[/FONT][/SIZE]
atonement systems. The Old Testament's atonement system is based upon
animal sacrifices; while the New Testament's atonement system is based
upon a human sacrifice.

Actually, both traditions are found in the Hebrew Bible (what we call the "Old" Testament). Jesus and John the Baptizer held to the older tradition of coming before God with repentance. Jesus pushed this envelope and included forgiveness of ourselves and others.

Jesus quoted the prophet Hosea when he said that God "desires mercy, not sacrifice." The pagan blood cult was the province of the priests who wanted to monopolize the temple to maintain their control. But archaeologists have discovered evidence of a mikvah, a ritual bath of purification. But apparently it was not a large one. It was dwarfed by the complex architecture that pointed to the spilling of blood on the altar. Nevertheless, we can clearly see an alternative available to all Jews during Jesus's time.

Remember Jesus's attack on the temple during his last days in Jerusalem (John's gospel has the incident happening at the very beginning of Jesus's mission). Because all four gospels mention this activity, we can be pretty sure it goes back to a real historical memory of the early Christian church.

If you read the Bible carefully from Genesis on, you can easily trace the development and uses of both traditions. The jealous God of justice who demands a blood sacrifice has to make peace with the God of mercy who demands contrition and forgiveness.

In my view they are still different traditions that describe a God that makes sense to the different groups. Just as we do, they needed a God that believed what they believed and made sense to them.

 

[glorydaz]

Are you sure you don't want to just withdraw from this conversation?

Quite sure. If I wanted to withdraw I would have, and wouldn't be here to read this, would I? :chuckle:

You have said before that you are done with reading my posts.

There you go playing fast and loose with someone's words, again.

What were you really trying to communicate when you said that?

It was a question. You know what those are, don't you?

 

[WeberHome]

-
Creation's Light

In the April 2014 edition of Discover magazine, astrophysicist/cosmologist
Avi Loeb states that the Bible attributes the appearance of stars and galaxies
to the divine proclamation "Let there be light". Is Mr. Loeb's statement
correct? No; of course not. God created light on the very first day of
creation; while luminous celestial objects weren't created until the fourth.

The Bible is notoriously concise in some places; especially in it's story of the
creation of light. Well; the creation of light was a very, very intricate
process.

First God had to create particulate matter, and along with those particles
their specific properties, including mass. Then He had to invent natural laws
to govern how matter behaves in combination with and/or in the presence
of, other kinds of matter in order to generate photons.

The same laws that make it possible for matter to generate photons also
make other conditions possible too; e.g. fire, wind, water, ice, soil, rain, life,
centrifugal force, thermodynamics, fusion, dark energy, gravity, atoms,
organic molecules, magnetism, radiation, high energy X-rays and gamma
rays, temperature, pressure, force, inertia, sound, friction, and electricity; et
al. So the creation of light was a pretty big deal; yet Genesis scarcely gives
its origin passing mention.

†. Gen 1:1-2 . .The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the
surface of the deep

That statement reveals the cosmos' condition prior to the creation of light;
and no mystery there because sans the natural laws that make light
possible, the cosmos' particulate matter would never have coalesced into
something coherent.

2Cor 4:6 verifies that light wasn't introduced into the cosmos from outside in
order to dispel the darkness and brighten things up a bit; but rather, it
radiated out of the cosmos from inside-- from itself --indicating that the
cosmos was created to be self-illuminating by means of the various
interactions of the matter that God made for it; including, but not limited to,
the Higgs Boson.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[Bradley D]

[QUOTE1• The primary difference between the two testaments is their respective
atonement systems. The Old Testament's atonement system is based upon
animal sacrifices; while the New Testament's atonement system is based
upon a human sacrifice.][/QUOTE]

The idea of OT sacrifice of animal for sins was that innocent blood was being spilt for the sins of Israel/individual. It lose its meaning. The NT was that the Son of God Jesus gave His life for our sins. The ultimate sacrifice that finished the animal sacrifices.

 

[Danoh]

-
The Difference Between The Old Testament And The New

This major division in the Bible is primarily editorial; viz: it's man-made
instead of God-made; but the division is pretty harmless and actually quite
useful.

In a nutshell:

1• The primary difference between the two testaments is their respective
atonement systems. The Old Testament's atonement system is based upon
animal sacrifices; while the New Testament's atonement system is based
upon a human sacrifice.

2• The Old Testament's high priesthood is captained by men subject to
death; while the New Testament's high priesthood is captained by a man
impervious to death.

3• The Old Testament reveals curses for people who disobey the Ten
Commandments; while the New Testament reveals an escape from those
curses.

4• The Old Testament is where we learn of the origin of the human race as
we know it; while the New Testament is where we learn of the termination of
the human race as we know it; along with the introduction of a new human
race about which we know comparatively little.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Both the OT and the NT concern that which was prophesied, Acts 3:21.

And then there is that was not prophesied - the Mystery, hid in God, Eph. 3:9.

 

[aikido7]

Quite sure. If I wanted to withdraw I would have, and wouldn't be here to read this, would I? :chuckle:

Poor glorydaze. Poor, poor glorydaze.

There you go playing fast and loose with someone's words, again.

Mamma? MAH-MAHHHH! Chucky never tells me what he’s really talking about when he uses descriptions like “fast and loose” and “someone’s words” !!!

He doesn’t know that those judgements are vague enough to drive a Mac truck through and don’t say anything.

Help me, Mamma!

It was a question. You know what those are, don't you?

Ouch! Now where did THAT anger come from?
Do you think I “made” you angry?
Do you really want to give me that infinite power over you?

I hope next time you fling a post like that my way you pay attention to the answer and get back to me with your REAL thoughts.

Seems reasonable to me.

 

[glorydaz]

Poor glorydaze. Poor, poor glorydaze.






Mamma? MAH-MAHHHH! Chucky never tells me what he’s really talking about when he uses descriptions like “fast and loose” and “someone’s words” !!!

He doesn’t know that those judgements are vague enough to drive a Mac truck through and don’t say anything.

Help me, Mamma!






Ouch! Now where did THAT anger come from?
Do you think I “made” you angry?
Do you really want to give me that infinite power over you?

I hope next time you fling a post like that my way you pay attention to the answer and get back to me with your REAL thoughts.

Seems reasonable to me.

And these are the kinds of nuts being attracted to TOL these days. I think he/she is someone's old "roommate", and his MASK has been removed for our viewing "pleasure". He's got the "Poor poor poor" thang down pat and his WHINING is fit for any jammie party the girly boys might ever hope to throw. I'm thinking they've been smoking some ganja, too. :think:

 

[patrick jane]

And these are the kinds of nuts being attracted to TOL these days. I think he/she is someone's old "roommate", and his MASK has been removed for our viewing "pleasure". He's got the "Poor poor poor" thang down pat and his WHINING is fit for any jammie party the girly boys might ever hope to throw. I'm thinking they've been smoking some ganja, too. :think:

Who's the hippy ? I haven't heard the word ganja since the Cheech and Chong movies

 

[glorydaz]

Who's the hippy ? I haven't heard the word ganja since the Cheech and Chong movies

Stop following me around. :down:

 

[patrick jane]

Stop following me around. :down:

you referred to me :duh:

 

[WeberHome]

-
The Length Of A Creation Day

†. Gen 1:5b . . And there was evening and there was morning, a first Day.

In accordance with a normal, strict chronological sequence; evening and
morning would indicate overnight; viz: a day of creation would take place
entirely in the dark; which fails to comply with the definitions of Day given at
Gen 1:4-5a and Gen 1:14-18.

Seeing as how it says evening and morning instead of evening to morning,
then we're not really looking at a chronological sequence but merely the
Am/Pm portions of daytime because evening and morning is all the same as
morning and evening.

In other words: morning represents the hours of daylight between sunup
and high noon, while evening represents the hours of daylight between high
noon and sunset.

NOTE: I suspect that God did His work of creation during what is defined as
daytime rather than what is defined as nighttime in order to convey the idea
that His work was a work of light as opposed to a work of darkness. That
makes sense to me seeing as how there were no actual mornings and
afternoons till the fourth day. I also suspect that Christ rose from the dead
during daytime instead of nighttime in order to convey the very same idea.

Now, just exactly how long were the days of creation? Well; according to
Gen 1:24-31, God created humans and all land animals on the sixth day;
which has to include dinosaurs because on no other day did God create land
animals but the sixth.

Hard-core Bible thumpers insist the days of creation were 24-hour calendar
days in length; but scientific dating methods have easily proven that
dinosaurs preceded human life by several million years. So then, in my
estimation, the days of creation should be taken to represent epochs of
indeterminable length rather than 24-hour calendar days.

That's not an unreasonable estimation; for example:

"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were
created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven." (Gen 2:4)

The Hebrew word for "day" in that verse is yowm (yome) which is the very
same word for each of the six days of God's creation labors. Since yowm in
Gen 2:4 refers to a period of time obviously much longer than a 24-hour
calendar day; it justifies suggesting that each of the six days of creation
were longer than 24 hours apiece too. In other words: yowm is ambiguous
and not all that easy to interpret sometimes.

Another useful hint as to the length of the days of creation is located in the
sixth chapter of Genesis where Noah is instructed to coat the interior and
exterior of his ark with a substance the Bible calls "pitch". The Hebrew word
is kopher (ko'-fer) which indicates a material called bitumen: a naturally
occurring kind of asphalt formed from the remains of ancient, microscopic
algae (diatoms) and other once-living things. In order for bitumen to be
available in Noah's day, the organisms from whence it was formed had to
have existed on the earth several thousands of years before him.

So then, why can't Bible thumpers accept a six-epoch explanation? Because
they're hung up on the expression "evening and morning".

The interesting thing is: there were no physical evenings and mornings till
the fourth day when the sun was created and brought on line. So I suggest
that the expression "evening and morning" is simply a convenient way to
indicate the simultaneous wrap of one epoch and the beginning of another;
and even more important, evening and morning indicate periods of light
only, rather than periods of light and darkness together. In other words:
none of God's creative activity was done in the dark. I think that is very
significant.

Anyway; this "day" thing has been a chronic problem for just about
everybody who takes Genesis seriously. It's typically assumed that the days
of creation consisted of twenty-four hours apiece; so we end up stumped
when trying to figure out how to cope with the 4.5 billion-year age of the
earth, and factor in the various eras, e.g. Triassic, Jurassic, Mesozoic,
Cenozoic, Cretaceous, etc, plus the ice ages and the mass extinction events.
It just never seems to occur to us that it might be okay in some cases to go
ahead and think outside the box. When we do that-- when we allow
ourselves to think outside the box --that's when we begin to really
appreciate the contributions science has made towards providing modern
men a window into the Earth's amazing past.

Galileo believed that science and religion are allies rather than enemies--
two different languages telling the same story. In other words: science and
religion compliment each other-- science answers questions that religion
doesn't answer, and religion answers questions that science cannot answer;
viz: science and religion are not enemies; no, to the contrary, science and
religion assist each other in their respective quests to get to the bottom of
some of the cosmos' greatest mysteries.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[glorydaz]

And these are the kinds of nuts being attracted to TOL these days. I think he/she is someone's old "roommate", and his MASK has been removed for our viewing "pleasure". He's got the "Poor poor poor" thang down pat and his WHINING is fit for any jammie party the girly boys might ever hope to throw. I'm thinking they've been smoking some ganja, too. :think:

you referred to me :duh:

Oh, which are you?

1. "nuts"
2. "roommate"
3. "poor thang"
4. "girly boy"
5. "mask"

Or was it the "whining" and "jammie party" that you identified with most? Let me know and I'll make sure I never use those words again on this forum....lest you get your tender feelings hurt.

 

[WeberHome]

-
Day And Night

†. Gen 1:4b-5a . . God separated the light from the darkness. God called the
light Day, and the darkness He called Night.

Day and Night simply label two distinct physical conditions-- the absence of
light, and/or the absence of darkness. Labeling those physical conditions
may seem like a superfluous detail, but when analyzing crucifixion week in
the New Testament, it's essential to keep those physical conditions separate
in regards to Christ's burial and resurrection.

†. Gen 1:14 . . God said: Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to
distinguish Day from Night

On the first day; God defined Day as a condition of light; and defined Night
as a condition of darkness. Here, it's further defined that Day, as pertains to
life on Earth, is when the sun is up; and Night is when the sun is down and
apparently Christ concurred.

These definitions occur so early in the Bible that they easily escape the
memories of Bible students as they slip into the reflexive habit of always
thinking of Days as 24-hour events. That's okay for calendars but can lead
to gross misunderstandings when interpreting biblical schedules, predictions,
and/or chronologies.

†. Gen 1:15-18a . . God made the two great lights, the greater light to
dominate the day and the lesser light to dominate the night, and the stars.
And God set them in the expanse of the sky to shine upon the earth, to
dominate the day and the night, and to distinguish light from darkness.

For the third time in Genesis, "day" is defined as when the sun is up, and
"night" is defined as when the sun is down. Plus: night is further clarified as
when the stars are out; and yet people still don't think God means it.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=