Total Posts:101|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Holy Puzzle

TheFogHorn
Posts: 183
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2012 5:28:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Nahum 1.5-6
The mountains quake at him, and the hills melt, and the earth is burned at his presence, yea, the world, and all that dwell therein. Who can stand before his indignation? and who can abide in the fierceness of his anger? his fury is poured out like fire, and the rocks are thrown down by him.

Who is 'him' because this is describing a volcano.

If this verse is describing Yahweh then can someone please find me a verse describing a volcano? While you're at it, please tell me the word for volcano in the Bible.
annanicole
Posts: 19,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2012 5:42:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/6/2012 5:28:51 PM, TheFogHorn wrote:
Nahum 1.5-6
The mountains quake at him, and the hills melt, and the earth is burned at his presence, yea, the world, and all that dwell therein. Who can stand before his indignation? and who can abide in the fierceness of his anger? his fury is poured out like fire, and the rocks are thrown down by him.

Who is 'him' because this is describing a volcano.

If this verse is describing Yahweh then can someone please find me a verse describing a volcano? While you're at it, please tell me the word for volcano in the Bible.

The passage is describing, in highly figurative and prophetic language, the overthrow of the Assyrians, and particularly of Ashur and Ninevah. The "Him" in the passage would indeed be God.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
baggins
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2012 5:47:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The meaning of Nahum 1 is quite obvious.

http://www.biblegateway.com...
The Holy Quran 29:19-20

See they not how Allah originates creation, then repeats it: truly that is easy for Allah.

Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things.
TheFogHorn
Posts: 183
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2012 6:03:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
According to Bible commentary...

fury is poured out like fire—like the liquid fire poured out of volcanoes in all directions (see Jeremiah 7:20).

rocks are thrown down—or, "are burnt asunder"; the usual effect of volcanic fire (Jeremiah 51:25, Jeremiah 51:56).

http://www.bibletools.org...

And more commentary....

his fury is poured out like fire; or like metal that is melted by fire, and poured out by the force of it; or like fire of lightning poured out of the heavens, which is quick, powerful, and penetrating, and there is no resisting it:

and the rocks are thrown down by him; by the Lord, by his wrath and fury; kingdoms that seemed as strong and immovable as rocks and mountains are thrown down; as such have been by the force of fire bursting from the midst of them, as Etna, Vesuvius, and others.

http://bible.cc...

And more....

Earthquakes and volcanoes are prominent in this verse.

http://www.studylight.org...

And more....

Alternately there may be in mind the powerful activity of a volcano, pouring its fiery lava on the earth, and cracking the rocks with its heat.

http://goodcommentaries.angelfire.com...

Verse 5, above, speaks of
earthquakes, volcano eruptions, and fire that falls from the heavens.

http://www.lovethelord.com...

There are many more but this should do it. Shouldn't it????
annanicole
Posts: 19,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2012 6:06:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/6/2012 6:03:56 PM, TheFogHorn wrote:
According to Bible commentary...

fury is poured out like fire—like the liquid fire poured out of volcanoes in all directions (see Jeremiah 7:20).

rocks are thrown down—or, "are burnt asunder"; the usual effect of volcanic fire (Jeremiah 51:25, Jeremiah 51:56).

http://www.bibletools.org...

And more commentary....

his fury is poured out like fire; or like metal that is melted by fire, and poured out by the force of it; or like fire of lightning poured out of the heavens, which is quick, powerful, and penetrating, and there is no resisting it:

and the rocks are thrown down by him; by the Lord, by his wrath and fury; kingdoms that seemed as strong and immovable as rocks and mountains are thrown down; as such have been by the force of fire bursting from the midst of them, as Etna, Vesuvius, and others.

http://bible.cc...

And more....

Earthquakes and volcanoes are prominent in this verse.

http://www.studylight.org...

And more....

Alternately there may be in mind the powerful activity of a volcano, pouring its fiery lava on the earth, and cracking the rocks with its heat.

http://goodcommentaries.angelfire.com...

Verse 5, above, speaks of
earthquakes, volcano eruptions, and fire that falls from the heavens.

http://www.lovethelord.com...

There are many more but this should do it. Shouldn't it????

So?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
TheFogHorn
Posts: 183
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2012 6:29:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/6/2012 6:06:06 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/6/2012 6:03:56 PM, TheFogHorn wrote:
According to Bible commentary...

fury is poured out like fire—like the liquid fire poured out of volcanoes in all directions (see Jeremiah 7:20).

rocks are thrown down—or, "are burnt asunder"; the usual effect of volcanic fire (Jeremiah 51:25, Jeremiah 51:56).

http://www.bibletools.org...

And more commentary....

his fury is poured out like fire; or like metal that is melted by fire, and poured out by the force of it; or like fire of lightning poured out of the heavens, which is quick, powerful, and penetrating, and there is no resisting it:

and the rocks are thrown down by him; by the Lord, by his wrath and fury; kingdoms that seemed as strong and immovable as rocks and mountains are thrown down; as such have been by the force of fire bursting from the midst of them, as Etna, Vesuvius, and others.

http://bible.cc...

And more....

Earthquakes and volcanoes are prominent in this verse.

http://www.studylight.org...

And more....

Alternately there may be in mind the powerful activity of a volcano, pouring its fiery lava on the earth, and cracking the rocks with its heat.

http://goodcommentaries.angelfire.com...

Verse 5, above, speaks of
earthquakes, volcano eruptions, and fire that falls from the heavens.

http://www.lovethelord.com...

There are many more but this should do it. Shouldn't it????

So?

Please refer to my questions in my OP.
TheFogHorn
Posts: 183
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2012 6:34:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
annanicole

You said the 'him' in the verses DID describe Yahweh. That means we can replace the words him, he, etc for Yahweh....

Nahum 1.5-6
The mountains quake at Yahweh, and the hills melt, and the earth is burned at his presence, yea, the world, and all that dwell therein. Who can stand before Yahweh' indignation? and who can abide in the fierceness of Yahweh' anger? Yahweh's fury is poured out like fire, and the rocks are thrown down by him.

As it seems many Bible commenters recognise these verses as descriptors of volcanic activity, and if you are correct in that these verses also represent Yahweh, that means Yahweh was volcanic activity.

If you made a mistake and these verses do not represent Yahweh, please state what they represent.

If the Bible commenters are wrong and these verses do not describe volcanic activity, please show me verses in the Bible that do describe volcanic activity and also tell me what word the ancient Hebrews used to describe volcanoes.
annanicole
Posts: 19,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2012 6:44:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/6/2012 6:34:41 PM, TheFogHorn wrote:
annanicole

You said the 'him' in the verses DID describe Yahweh. That means we can replace the words him, he, etc for Yahweh....

Nahum 1.5-6
The mountains quake at Yahweh, and the hills melt, and the earth is burned at his presence, yea, the world, and all that dwell therein. Who can stand before Yahweh' indignation? and who can abide in the fierceness of Yahweh' anger? Yahweh's fury is poured out like fire, and the rocks are thrown down by him.

As it seems many Bible commenters recognise these verses as descriptors of volcanic activity, and if you are correct in that these verses also represent Yahweh, that means Yahweh was volcanic activity.

If you made a mistake and these verses do not represent Yahweh, please state what they represent.

If the Bible commenters are wrong and these verses do not describe volcanic activity, please show me verses in the Bible that do describe volcanic activity and also tell me what word the ancient Hebrews used to describe volcanoes.

"if you are correct in that these verses also represent Yahweh, that means Yahweh was volcanic activity. "

I think I said that the verses are highly figurative and prophetic in nature. You said "that means Yahweh was volcanic activity." No it doesn't. It means, "The mountains quake at Yahweh." It's figurative. It doesn't mean that God is a literal mountain or a literal volcano. As far as spending endless hours lookin' around for verses that describe volcanic activity, you do it.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
TheFogHorn
Posts: 183
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2012 6:53:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/6/2012 6:44:16 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/6/2012 6:34:41 PM, TheFogHorn wrote:
annanicole

You said the 'him' in the verses DID describe Yahweh. That means we can replace the words him, he, etc for Yahweh....

Nahum 1.5-6
The mountains quake at Yahweh, and the hills melt, and the earth is burned at his presence, yea, the world, and all that dwell therein. Who can stand before Yahweh' indignation? and who can abide in the fierceness of Yahweh' anger? Yahweh's fury is poured out like fire, and the rocks are thrown down by him.

As it seems many Bible commenters recognise these verses as descriptors of volcanic activity, and if you are correct in that these verses also represent Yahweh, that means Yahweh was volcanic activity.

If you made a mistake and these verses do not represent Yahweh, please state what they represent.

If the Bible commenters are wrong and these verses do not describe volcanic activity, please show me verses in the Bible that do describe volcanic activity and also tell me what word the ancient Hebrews used to describe volcanoes.

"if you are correct in that these verses also represent Yahweh, that means Yahweh was volcanic activity. "

I think I said that the verses are highly figurative and prophetic in nature. You said "that means Yahweh was volcanic activity." No it doesn't. It means, "The mountains quake at Yahweh." It's figurative. It doesn't mean that God is a literal mountain or a literal volcano. As far as spending endless hours lookin' around for verses that describe volcanic activity, you do it.

You said, 'The "Him" in the passage would indeed be God.'

I posted several Bible commenters saying the verses respresented volcanic activity.

If you are debating the fact these verses desribe volcanic activity then you need to prove that to me by showing me some verses that DO represent volcanic activity. That way I can see that these are figurative and the ones you find are representative. If you are not prepared to back up your claim with that kind of evidence then you could at the very least tell me what word the Hebrews used to name volcanoes. What did they call volcanoes? Surely you can do that.
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2012 7:01:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
har ga'ash
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2012 7:03:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/6/2012 6:53:24 PM, TheFogHorn wrote:
At 8/6/2012 6:44:16 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/6/2012 6:34:41 PM, TheFogHorn wrote:
annanicole

You said the 'him' in the verses DID describe Yahweh. That means we can replace the words him, he, etc for Yahweh....

Nahum 1.5-6
The mountains quake at Yahweh, and the hills melt, and the earth is burned at his presence, yea, the world, and all that dwell therein. Who can stand before Yahweh' indignation? and who can abide in the fierceness of Yahweh' anger? Yahweh's fury is poured out like fire, and the rocks are thrown down by him.

As it seems many Bible commenters recognise these verses as descriptors of volcanic activity, and if you are correct in that these verses also represent Yahweh, that means Yahweh was volcanic activity.

If you made a mistake and these verses do not represent Yahweh, please state what they represent.

If the Bible commenters are wrong and these verses do not describe volcanic activity, please show me verses in the Bible that do describe volcanic activity and also tell me what word the ancient Hebrews used to describe volcanoes.

"if you are correct in that these verses also represent Yahweh, that means Yahweh was volcanic activity. "

I think I said that the verses are highly figurative and prophetic in nature. You said "that means Yahweh was volcanic activity." No it doesn't. It means, "The mountains quake at Yahweh." It's figurative. It doesn't mean that God is a literal mountain or a literal volcano. As far as spending endless hours lookin' around for verses that describe volcanic activity, you do it.

You said, 'The "Him" in the passage would indeed be God.'

I posted several Bible commenters saying the verses respresented volcanic activity.

If you are debating the fact these verses desribe volcanic activity then you need to prove that to me by showing me some verses that DO represent volcanic activity. That way I can see that these are figurative and the ones you find are representative. If you are not prepared to back up your claim with that kind of evidence then you could at the very least tell me what word the Hebrews used to name volcanoes. What did they call volcanoes? Surely you can do that.

Why would they use a different word for something if they were talking about it figuratively?

If I say 'He took off like a cheetah', I'm using the word 'cheetah', even though I'm not using it literally. It's still the same word.

Are you disputing the use of figurative language in the Bible?
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
annanicole
Posts: 19,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2012 7:26:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/6/2012 6:53:24 PM, TheFogHorn wrote:
At 8/6/2012 6:44:16 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/6/2012 6:34:41 PM, TheFogHorn wrote:
annanicole

You said the 'him' in the verses DID describe Yahweh. That means we can replace the words him, he, etc for Yahweh....

Nahum 1.5-6
The mountains quake at Yahweh, and the hills melt, and the earth is burned at his presence, yea, the world, and all that dwell therein. Who can stand before Yahweh' indignation? and who can abide in the fierceness of Yahweh' anger? Yahweh's fury is poured out like fire, and the rocks are thrown down by him.

As it seems many Bible commenters recognise these verses as descriptors of volcanic activity, and if you are correct in that these verses also represent Yahweh, that means Yahweh was volcanic activity.

If you made a mistake and these verses do not represent Yahweh, please state what they represent.

If the Bible commenters are wrong and these verses do not describe volcanic activity, please show me verses in the Bible that do describe volcanic activity and also tell me what word the ancient Hebrews used to describe volcanoes.

"if you are correct in that these verses also represent Yahweh, that means Yahweh was volcanic activity. "

I think I said that the verses are highly figurative and prophetic in nature. You said "that means Yahweh was volcanic activity." No it doesn't. It means, "The mountains quake at Yahweh." It's figurative. It doesn't mean that God is a literal mountain or a literal volcano. As far as spending endless hours lookin' around for verses that describe volcanic activity, you do it.

You said, 'The "Him" in the passage would indeed be God.'

Indeed I did. I'm saying that the Him in the passage is God.

I posted several Bible commenters saying the verses respresented volcanic activity.

If you are debating the fact these verses desribe volcanic activity then you need to prove that to me by showing me some verses that DO represent volcanic activity.

No, I'm not debating that.

That way I can see that these are figurative and the ones you find are representative.

If you are not prepared to back up your claim with that kind of evidence then you could at the very least tell me what word the Hebrews used to name volcanoes. What did they call volcanoes? Surely you can do that.

Go on the record. Do you think the verses that you cite in Nahum are absolutely literal?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
TheFogHorn
Posts: 183
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2012 7:34:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Yes, I think they are literal and I also think the Hebrews thought in a different way to you. They thought their god was on top of the mountain, appearing as a fire, and orchestrating the volcanic goings on. They thought their god lived on the top of the volcano, amongst the clouds (heavens), shooting out his balls of brimstone )his fiery wrath), pouring out his rivers of fire (lava rivers), outstretching his arm (earthquake), etc. He is described as having hair like wool and nostrils with smoke pouring out of them. The ancient Hebrews did not know the lava came from inside the volcano. They assumed, at first, that volcanoes were just mountains and the lava and brimstone were products of some divine entity that could only have landed on the mountain as no-one saw anyone run up. Fire has always been seen as supernatural and this was the ultimate supernatural type of fire.
annanicole
Posts: 19,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2012 7:41:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/6/2012 7:34:37 PM, TheFogHorn wrote:
Yes, I think they are literal and I also think the Hebrews thought in a different way to you. They thought their god was on top of the mountain, appearing as a fire, and orchestrating the volcanic goings on. They thought their god lived on the top of the volcano, amongst the clouds (heavens), shooting out his balls of brimstone )his fiery wrath), pouring out his rivers of fire (lava rivers), outstretching his arm (earthquake), etc. He is described as having hair like wool and nostrils with smoke pouring out of them. The ancient Hebrews did not know the lava came from inside the volcano. They assumed, at first, that volcanoes were just mountains and the lava and brimstone were products of some divine entity that could only have landed on the mountain as no-one saw anyone run up. Fire has always been seen as supernatural and this was the ultimate supernatural type of fire.

Well, apparently some of the ancient Hebrews made a few mistakes on the nature of God, huh? Why do you make the same ones? What evidence do you have that the verses are literal?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
TheFogHorn
Posts: 183
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2012 7:42:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/6/2012 7:41:34 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/6/2012 7:34:37 PM, TheFogHorn wrote:
Yes, I think they are literal and I also think the Hebrews thought in a different way to you. They thought their god was on top of the mountain, appearing as a fire, and orchestrating the volcanic goings on. They thought their god lived on the top of the volcano, amongst the clouds (heavens), shooting out his balls of brimstone )his fiery wrath), pouring out his rivers of fire (lava rivers), outstretching his arm (earthquake), etc. He is described as having hair like wool and nostrils with smoke pouring out of them. The ancient Hebrews did not know the lava came from inside the volcano. They assumed, at first, that volcanoes were just mountains and the lava and brimstone were products of some divine entity that could only have landed on the mountain as no-one saw anyone run up. Fire has always been seen as supernatural and this was the ultimate supernatural type of fire.

Well, apparently some of the ancient Hebrews made a few mistakes on the nature of God, huh? Why do you make the same ones? What evidence do you have that the verses are literal?

Why do I make the same ones?
annanicole
Posts: 19,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2012 7:45:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/6/2012 7:42:50 PM, TheFogHorn wrote:
At 8/6/2012 7:41:34 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/6/2012 7:34:37 PM, TheFogHorn wrote:
Yes, I think they are literal and I also think the Hebrews thought in a different way to you. They thought their god was on top of the mountain, appearing as a fire, and orchestrating the volcanic goings on. They thought their god lived on the top of the volcano, amongst the clouds (heavens), shooting out his balls of brimstone )his fiery wrath), pouring out his rivers of fire (lava rivers), outstretching his arm (earthquake), etc. He is described as having hair like wool and nostrils with smoke pouring out of them. The ancient Hebrews did not know the lava came from inside the volcano. They assumed, at first, that volcanoes were just mountains and the lava and brimstone were products of some divine entity that could only have landed on the mountain as no-one saw anyone run up. Fire has always been seen as supernatural and this was the ultimate supernatural type of fire.

Well, apparently some of the ancient Hebrews made a few mistakes on the nature of God, huh? Why do you make the same ones? What evidence do you have that the verses are literal?

Why do I make the same ones?

Absolutely. "Yes, I think they are literal and I also think the Hebrews thought in a different way to you." So both you and a few bowlegged Jews made the same mistake. The passages in Nahum cannot be literal.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
TheFogHorn
Posts: 183
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2012 7:54:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/6/2012 7:45:00 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/6/2012 7:42:50 PM, TheFogHorn wrote:
At 8/6/2012 7:41:34 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/6/2012 7:34:37 PM, TheFogHorn wrote:
Yes, I think they are literal and I also think the Hebrews thought in a different way to you. They thought their god was on top of the mountain, appearing as a fire, and orchestrating the volcanic goings on. They thought their god lived on the top of the volcano, amongst the clouds (heavens), shooting out his balls of brimstone )his fiery wrath), pouring out his rivers of fire (lava rivers), outstretching his arm (earthquake), etc. He is described as having hair like wool and nostrils with smoke pouring out of them. The ancient Hebrews did not know the lava came from inside the volcano. They assumed, at first, that volcanoes were just mountains and the lava and brimstone were products of some divine entity that could only have landed on the mountain as no-one saw anyone run up. Fire has always been seen as supernatural and this was the ultimate supernatural type of fire.

Well, apparently some of the ancient Hebrews made a few mistakes on the nature of God, huh? Why do you make the same ones? What evidence do you have that the verses are literal?

Why do I make the same ones?

Absolutely. "Yes, I think they are literal and I also think the Hebrews thought in a different way to you." So both you and a few bowlegged Jews made the same mistake. The passages in Nahum cannot be literal.

??? I don't think you quite understand the point of the thread. The ancient Hebrews used the correct descriptors for what they were seeing (fire, smoke, brimstone, noise, rivers of fire, etc) but they made the mistake of thinking the volcano was divine, set up camp and worshipped it and made lots of blood sacrifices to appease it.

I am not about to set off to Iceland to throw a few chickens into a caldera.

You somehow magic up lots of weird and wonderful explanations for these verses and convince yourself they are just figurative. Oh.....so, figeratively speaking, your god had rivers of fire coming from before him and smoke coming out of his nostrils? Does that honestly make sense to you? Is it more logical to believe the verses were figurative or literal? Is it more likely the ancient Hebrews mistakenly believed volcanoes were divine (as would have been the norm in the volcanic holy land back then) or that they used terms that fit volcanoes to describe their very real non-volcano god? Were these ancient Hebrews far more intelligent than everyone else who resided in the volcanic holy land, and therefore didn't see volcanoes in the way that would have been the norm?
annanicole
Posts: 19,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2012 8:53:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/6/2012 7:54:22 PM, TheFogHorn wrote:
At 8/6/2012 7:45:00 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/6/2012 7:42:50 PM, TheFogHorn wrote:
At 8/6/2012 7:41:34 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/6/2012 7:34:37 PM, TheFogHorn wrote:
Yes, I think they are literal and I also think the Hebrews thought in a different way to you. They thought their god was on top of the mountain, appearing as a fire, and orchestrating the volcanic goings on. They thought their god lived on the top of the volcano, amongst the clouds (heavens), shooting out his balls of brimstone )his fiery wrath), pouring out his rivers of fire (lava rivers), outstretching his arm (earthquake), etc. He is described as having hair like wool and nostrils with smoke pouring out of them. The ancient Hebrews did not know the lava came from inside the volcano. They assumed, at first, that volcanoes were just mountains and the lava and brimstone were products of some divine entity that could only have landed on the mountain as no-one saw anyone run up. Fire has always been seen as supernatural and this was the ultimate supernatural type of fire.

Well, apparently some of the ancient Hebrews made a few mistakes on the nature of God, huh? Why do you make the same ones? What evidence do you have that the verses are literal?

Why do I make the same ones?

Absolutely. "Yes, I think they are literal and I also think the Hebrews thought in a different way to you." So both you and a few bowlegged Jews made the same mistake. The passages in Nahum cannot be literal.

??? I don't think you quite understand the point of the thread. The ancient Hebrews used the correct descriptors for what they were seeing (fire, smoke, brimstone, noise, rivers of fire, etc) but they made the mistake of thinking the volcano was divine, set up camp and worshipped it and made lots of blood sacrifices to appease it.

No, they weren't "seeing" it in the first place. It is a prophesy given in figurative language as many others were.


You somehow magic up lots of weird and wonderful explanations for these verses and convince yourself they are just figurative.

Weird and wonderful? It beats thinking the Jews as a whole actually believed that God was sittin' on top of a volcano - with absolutely no evidence of the assertion. If they believed it then, why don't they believe it now?

Oh.....so, figeratively speaking, your god had rivers of fire coming from before him and smoke coming out of his nostrils? Does that honestly make sense to you?

Absolutely. The Old Testament especially abounds with types and figures. "He was led as a sheep to slaughter." The eunuch asked Philip if the prophet was referring to himself (Isaiah) or some other. Philip interpreted the prophesy and said it was fulfilled in Jesus. Same difference. Jesus wasn't a literal sheep, nor was God ever a literal volcano.

Is it more logical to believe the verses were figurative or literal?

Figurative. My opinion - and it's only my opinion - is that it would take a theological moron (not a moron in general - just a theological one) to think otherwise.

Is it more likely the ancient Hebrews mistakenly believed volcanoes were divine (as would have been the norm in the volcanic holy land back then) or that they used terms that fit volcanoes to describe their very real non-volcano god?

Neither. Is there a 3rd choice? How about they used familiar metaphors to variously describe the goodness and severity, the mercy and the justice of God.

Were these ancient Hebrews far more intelligent than everyone else who resided in the volcanic holy land, and therefore didn't see volcanoes in the way that would have been the norm?

Who knows?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
TheFogHorn
Posts: 183
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2012 9:02:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
'No, they weren't "seeing" it in the first place. It is a prophesy given in figurative language as many others were.'

How would you know that? It says in the Bible your god looked like a fire on the top of a mountain. Why do you know believe them? Does it say in the Bible that everything must be taken figuratively? If not, what makes you view everything figuratively?

Hebrews 12:29 for our "God is a consuming fire."

That's how the ancient Hebrews could best describe their god. Why turn him into anything other than a consuming fire? Does it say in the Bible that this verse should not be taken literally? If not, on whose authority are changing the meaning?
TheFogHorn
Posts: 183
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2012 9:07:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Exodus 24:17 To the Israelites the glory of the LORD looked like a consuming fire on top of the mountain.

2 Samuel 22:9 Smoke rose from his nostrils; consuming fire came from his mouth, burning coals blazed out of it.

Psalm 97:3 Fire goes before him and consumes his foes on every side.

Numbers 16.35 And fire came out from the LORD and consumed the 250 men who were offering the incense.

Numbers 11:1 Now the people complained about their hardships in the hearing of the LORD, and when he heard them his anger was aroused. Then fire from the LORD burned among them and consumed some of the outskirts of the camp.

What could possibly be the figurative explanations for these???

What makes any of you assume these are prophecies? These verses talk of things that actually happened. Don't turn them into anything bigger.
annanicole
Posts: 19,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2012 9:14:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/6/2012 9:02:53 PM, TheFogHorn wrote:
'No, they weren't "seeing" it in the first place. It is a prophesy given in figurative language as many others were.'

How would you know that? It says in the Bible your god looked like a fire on the top of a mountain. Why do you know believe them? Does it say in the Bible that everything must be taken figuratively? If not, what makes you view everything figuratively?

Hebrews 12:29 for our "God is a consuming fire."

That's how the ancient Hebrews could best describe their god. Why turn him into anything other than a consuming fire? Does it say in the Bible that this verse should not be taken literally? If not, on whose authority are changing the meaning?

Haha.

"Hebrews 12:29 for our "God is a consuming fire."
That's how the ancient Hebrews could best describe their god. "

The book of Hebrews was written TO Hebrews, silly - not by them. It was not written anciently either, was it? So it wasn't written by any ancient Hebrews, period. It was written by a Christian, presumed to be the Apostle Paul. I don't know exactly what you are, but your post is neither "holy" nor a "puzzle" at all, and you demonstrate a smatterer's knowledge of the Bible in the first place.

I thought you were actually leading up to something, but about the best I get out of it is that you think ancient Hebrews believed God to be riding side-straddle of volcano. I asked, "What's changed? Why don't they believe it now?" You don't know.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
TheFogHorn
Posts: 183
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2012 9:26:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Do you always call people silly morons when you don't agree with them?

Obviously I have offended you. Religion is an integral source of narcissim to the faithful and anyone who tries to pull the rug from under it is deemed a threat to the narcissistic supply. The faithful then act out in rage and retribution, often blurting out insults and using condescending names to ridicule the offending person in an attempt to protect the source of narcissism. This is due to 'group narcissim' but it is made worse when the follower in question is particularly narcissistic themselves, adding personal narcissism to the already wrathful mix.
annanicole
Posts: 19,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2012 10:50:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/6/2012 9:26:55 PM, TheFogHorn wrote:
Do you always call people silly morons when you don't agree with them?

Obviously I have offended you. Religion is an integral source of narcissim to the faithful and anyone who tries to pull the rug from under it is deemed a threat to the narcissistic supply. The faithful then act out in rage and retribution, often blurting out insults and using condescending names to ridicule the offending person in an attempt to protect the source of narcissism. This is due to 'group narcissim' but it is made worse when the follower in question is particularly narcissistic themselves, adding personal narcissism to the already wrathful mix.

No, I'm not offended. I simply watched you delve deeper and deeper into a ridiculous position, and of course, the door is now opened for your rant. I do not discuss science as it relates to religion, mainly because I am ignorant of science. Nor should you discuss the Bible because you are simply ignorant on the subject. That's no great crime. We're both ignorant on particular subjects, apparently. Your post simply happened to deal with your particular area of ignorance. You can, if you want, post a topic on science, and I assure that I'll appear just as uninformed.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
TheFogHorn
Posts: 183
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2012 12:09:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/6/2012 10:50:17 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/6/2012 9:26:55 PM, TheFogHorn wrote:
Do you always call people silly morons when you don't agree with them?

Obviously I have offended you. Religion is an integral source of narcissim to the faithful and anyone who tries to pull the rug from under it is deemed a threat to the narcissistic supply. The faithful then act out in rage and retribution, often blurting out insults and using condescending names to ridicule the offending person in an attempt to protect the source of narcissism. This is due to 'group narcissim' but it is made worse when the follower in question is particularly narcissistic themselves, adding personal narcissism to the already wrathful mix.

No, I'm not offended. I simply watched you delve deeper and deeper into a ridiculous position, and of course, the door is now opened for your rant. I do not discuss science as it relates to religion, mainly because I am ignorant of science. Nor should you discuss the Bible because you are simply ignorant on the subject. That's no great crime. We're both ignorant on particular subjects, apparently. Your post simply happened to deal with your particular area of ignorance. You can, if you want, post a topic on science, and I assure that I'll appear just as uninformed.

Wow! There's no stopping you now is there? Now I'm ranting (pot calling kettle black) and I'm ignorant? Well, time will confirm whether it is in fact me who understands your religion or whether it is you.

Instead of shooting your mouth off, how about doing something constructive? Seeing as you are the knowledgeable one on the subject of Yahweh, please tell me why the word 'pele' was replaced with the word 'wonder'. I'm so stupid I just don't know you see and I need you to tell me. Call me silly ignorant moron if you like......I can't help it.
annanicole
Posts: 19,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2012 12:19:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/7/2012 12:09:35 AM, TheFogHorn wrote:
At 8/6/2012 10:50:17 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/6/2012 9:26:55 PM, TheFogHorn wrote:
Do you always call people silly morons when you don't agree with them?

Obviously I have offended you. Religion is an integral source of narcissim to the faithful and anyone who tries to pull the rug from under it is deemed a threat to the narcissistic supply. The faithful then act out in rage and retribution, often blurting out insults and using condescending names to ridicule the offending person in an attempt to protect the source of narcissism. This is due to 'group narcissim' but it is made worse when the follower in question is particularly narcissistic themselves, adding personal narcissism to the already wrathful mix.

No, I'm not offended. I simply watched you delve deeper and deeper into a ridiculous position, and of course, the door is now opened for your rant. I do not discuss science as it relates to religion, mainly because I am ignorant of science. Nor should you discuss the Bible because you are simply ignorant on the subject. That's no great crime. We're both ignorant on particular subjects, apparently. Your post simply happened to deal with your particular area of ignorance. You can, if you want, post a topic on science, and I assure that I'll appear just as uninformed.

Wow! There's no stopping you now is there? Now I'm ranting (pot calling kettle black) and I'm ignorant? Well, time will confirm whether it is in fact me who understands your religion or whether it is you.

Instead of shooting your mouth off, how about doing something constructive? Seeing as you are the knowledgeable one on the subject of Yahweh, please tell me why the word 'pele' was replaced with the word 'wonder'. I'm so stupid I just don't know you see and I need you to tell me. Call me silly ignorant moron if you like......I can't help it.

I never called you that. I said you are ignorant on Biblical topics - and ya are. Anyone who implies that the Book of Hebrews was written anciently by the Jews or that it even teaches Jewish doctrines is assuredly ignorant. In fact, Hebrews repudiates Jewish teachings. I also said I'm about as ignorant on science. You probably know much more on that subject than I do.

The word 'pele' was never replaced with the word 'wonder' that I know of. Not once. Someone might have translated 'pele' as 'wonder' and correctly so, just as people translate 'gar' as 'for' and 'eis' as 'unto' from Greek. I'll leave it to you to provide us all with the specific non-translational 'replacement' to which you prefer.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
TheFogHorn
Posts: 183
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2012 12:23:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/7/2012 12:19:01 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/7/2012 12:09:35 AM, TheFogHorn wrote:
At 8/6/2012 10:50:17 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/6/2012 9:26:55 PM, TheFogHorn wrote:
Do you always call people silly morons when you don't agree with them?

Obviously I have offended you. Religion is an integral source of narcissim to the faithful and anyone who tries to pull the rug from under it is deemed a threat to the narcissistic supply. The faithful then act out in rage and retribution, often blurting out insults and using condescending names to ridicule the offending person in an attempt to protect the source of narcissism. This is due to 'group narcissim' but it is made worse when the follower in question is particularly narcissistic themselves, adding personal narcissism to the already wrathful mix.

No, I'm not offended. I simply watched you delve deeper and deeper into a ridiculous position, and of course, the door is now opened for your rant. I do not discuss science as it relates to religion, mainly because I am ignorant of science. Nor should you discuss the Bible because you are simply ignorant on the subject. That's no great crime. We're both ignorant on particular subjects, apparently. Your post simply happened to deal with your particular area of ignorance. You can, if you want, post a topic on science, and I assure that I'll appear just as uninformed.

Wow! There's no stopping you now is there? Now I'm ranting (pot calling kettle black) and I'm ignorant? Well, time will confirm whether it is in fact me who understands your religion or whether it is you.

Instead of shooting your mouth off, how about doing something constructive? Seeing as you are the knowledgeable one on the subject of Yahweh, please tell me why the word 'pele' was replaced with the word 'wonder'. I'm so stupid I just don't know you see and I need you to tell me. Call me silly ignorant moron if you like......I can't help it.

I never called you that. I said you are ignorant on Biblical topics - and ya are. Anyone who implies that the Book of Hebrews was written anciently by the Jews or that it even teaches Jewish doctrines is assuredly ignorant. In fact, Hebrews repudiates Jewish teachings. I also said I'm about as ignorant on science. You probably know much more on that subject than I do.

The word 'pele' was never replaced with the word 'wonder' that I know of. Not once. Someone might have translated 'pele' as 'wonder' and correctly so, just as people translate 'gar' as 'for' and 'eis' as 'unto' from Greek. I'll leave it to you to provide us all with the specific non-translational 'replacement' to which you prefer.

'You probably know much more on that subject than I do.'

Are you trying to flatter me? I often find the pendulum swings from insults to flattery. How about just being normal.
annanicole
Posts: 19,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2012 12:27:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
OK

"I never called you that. I said you are ignorant on Biblical topics - and ya are. Anyone who implies that the Book of Hebrews was written anciently by the Jews or that it even teaches Jewish doctrines is assuredly ignorant on the Bible. In fact, Hebrews repudiates Jewish teachings.

I also said I'm about as ignorant on science. You probably know much more on that subject than I do. <-- I take back those last 2 sentences.

Now. Why in the world would you simply assert, for no reason that I can see, that the book of Hebrews is in any way a statement of Jewish beliefs? There ya go.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
TheFogHorn
Posts: 183
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2012 12:42:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/7/2012 12:27:47 AM, annanicole wrote:
OK

"I never called you that. I said you are ignorant on Biblical topics - and ya are. Anyone who implies that the Book of Hebrews was written anciently by the Jews or that it even teaches Jewish doctrines is assuredly ignorant on the Bible. In fact, Hebrews repudiates Jewish teachings.

I also said I'm about as ignorant on science. You probably know much more on that subject than I do. <-- I take back those last 2 sentences.

Now. Why in the world would you simply assert, for no reason that I can see, that the book of Hebrews is in any way a statement of Jewish beliefs? There ya go.

Funny that you home in on that one verse, 'for our god is a consuming fire'.

Are you trying to say that your god is not a consuming fire? Is Hebrews wrong? Is the Bible a pack of lies?

How about some earlier verses....

Isaiah 30:27 See, the Name of the LORD comes from afar, with burning anger and dense clouds of smoke; his lips are full of wrath, and his tongue is a consuming fire.

Ezekiel 22:31 So I will pour out my wrath on them and consume them with my fiery anger, bringing down on their own heads all they have done, declares the Sovereign LORD.

Lamentations 4:11 The LORD has given full vent to his wrath; he has poured out his fierce anger. He kindled a fire in Zion that consumed her foundations.

Exodus 19:18 18 And mount Si'nai was altogether on a smoke, because the LORD descended upon it in fire.

PSA 18:8 There went up a smoke out of his nostrils, and fire out of his mouth devoured: coals were kindled by it.

Numbers 16:35 And there came out a fire from the LORD, and consumed the two hundred and fifty men that offered incense.

Or maybe I already posted all those. You must have missed them.
annanicole
Posts: 19,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2012 12:51:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
"Funny that you home in on that one verse, 'for our god is a consuming fire'.

Are you trying to say that your god is not a consuming fire? Is Hebrews wrong? Is the Bible a pack of lies?"

I'm trying to say that your assertion that the Book of Hebrews was written by ancient Hebrews, outlines the beliefs of ancient Hebrews, or even concerns ancient Hebrews in any way other than to repudiate Judaism is blatantly incorrect and belies a shallow knowledge. I've never even seen anyone assert such a thing; therefore, I call for any proof that you can offer off of the top of your head. That's why. Have at it.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."