After being agnostic for many years (I spent 3 1/2 years with Baha'i Faith people before that) I began to seriously ponder existence of God. Then from the infinite depths of my subconscious I had a revelation that 'God does not exist'. Revelation can come via one's subconscious; a Divine source then perhaps for a theist/believer. Inspirational thoughts can happen when one ponders something long and hard enough
This post was edited by Kittigate at October 12, 2017 3:36 PM MDT
Though I could be wrong, I don't believe saying Oh MY God would typically qualify as taking His name in vain. In the Bible bringing dishonor on God’s name was done by failing to perform an oath or vow taken in His name. The man or woman who used God’s name to legitimize his or her oath, and then broke his or her promise, would indicate his or her lack of reverence for God as well as a lack of fear of His holy retribution. Oh My God is usually a phrase uttered from a sense of amazement, shock, fear, anger, or happiness and not necessarily a specific attempt at using His name in vain. At least in my experience with people.
Q "When someone says "Oh my God" are they saying the Lord's name in vain?"
I think saying the Lord's name in vain is interpreted and taken quite seriously by Jews. They're afraid to even type God. It is almost always typed as G-d.
I agree, it is taken seriously by the Jews. As far as them writing G-D instead of God, some do. What I find interesting though is in the Torah I have here, the word God is spelled out and the name Hashem is used interchangeably with God and sometimes used alone. Elohim and several other names/attributes of GOD are also used and spelled out. It's odd that many Jews today don't spell out God completely but their Torah does. Perhaps something was either lost or added too Judaism over the years. Lost that shouldn't have been lost from it or added too it that shouldn't have been added too it. The same adding too and taking away has happened to many of the English Bibles we have in print today.
1. Indeed, the removing and inserting of text you refer to was no doubt done to make certain points. Maybe that's what Jeremiah was referring to at 8:8, with respect to the Jewish scriptures, "How can you say, "We are wise because we have the word of the LORD," when your scribes have twisted it by writing lies?"
2. With respect to the Christian scripture we know from the discovery of older manuscripts that there was tampering. One of the most glaring examples is the well known Johannine Comma intended to give divine scriptural backing to the doctrine of the trinity.
Once again trying to undermine the Bible? One of the things these lying scribes are saying at a time when there is no peace is "There is peace! There is peace!" If these writings of these lying scribes are included in the Bible, where can I read their writings claiming peace? Do you consider all prophets to be false prophets because Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah and others said that there are false prophets?
(Jeremiah 8:8-11) ‘How can you say: “We are wise, and we have the law of Jehovah”? For in fact, the lying stylus of the scribes has been used only for falsehood. 9 The wise have been put to shame. They have become terrified and will be caught. Look! They have rejected the word of Jehovah, And what wisdom do they have? 10 So I will give their wives to other men, Their fields to other owners; For from the least to the greatest, each one is making dishonest gain; From the prophet to the priest, each one is practicing fraud. 11 And they try to heal the breakdown of the daughter of my people lightly, saying, “There is peace! There is peace!” When there is no peace. (Jeremiah 6:13, 14) “For from the least to the greatest, each one is making dishonest gain; From the prophet to the priest, each one is practicing fraud. 14 And they try to heal the breakdown of my people lightly, saying, ‘There is peace! There is peace!’ When there is no peace. (Ezekiel 13:1, 2) And the word of Jehovah again came to me, saying: 2 “Son of man, prophesy against the prophets of Israel, and say to those who fabricate their own prophecies, ‘Hear the word of Jehovah. (Ezekiel 13:10) All of this is because they have led my people astray by saying, “There is peace!” when there is no peace. When a flimsy partition wall is built, they are plastering it with whitewash.’
Do you not think that there were other Jewish writings not included in the Bible? Just as the Quran and Book of Mormon are not included in the Bible, neither were those writings of earlier false prophets. (1 Kings 14:19) And the rest of the history of Jer·o·boʹam, how he waged war and how he reigned, is written in the book of the history of the times of the kings of Israel. (Ezra 4:15) so that there may be an investigation of the book of records of your ancestors. You will find in the book of records and learn that this city is a rebellious city, injurious to kings and provinces, and within it have been those stirring up sedition from ancient times. That is why this city was destroyed. (Esther 10:2) And all his powerful and mighty accomplishments, as well as the detailed account of Morʹde·cai’s greatness to which the king exalted him, are they not written in the book of the history of the times of the kings of Meʹdi·a and Persia?
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-apocrypha-and-pseudepigrapha The Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) consists of a collection of writings dating from approximately the 13th - 3rd centuries BCE. These books were included in the Jewish canon by the Talmudic sages at Yavneh around the end of the first century CE, after the destruction of the Second Temple. However, there are many other Jewish writings from the Second Temple Period which were excluded from the Tanakh; these are known as the Apocrypha and the Pseudepigrapha.
The Bible certainly has quite a rich and varied history. It started life as a Jewish scripture and is believed to have been an open canon from about 400 BCE. That means books could be added to it and removed from it by almost anyone. The scripture came to be known among Jews by the three Hebrew letters, Ta-Na-Kha [the letter Ta for the Torah, or Law, the Na for Nevi’im, or Prophets and Kha for the Ketuvim, or Writings.] What should constitute the Torah was decided first, followed by decision around 200 BCE on what books should form the Prophets, while it was probably about 200 years AFTER Jesus that the part referred to as the Writings was finalised. Those familiar with the sayings of Jesus will remember that it was only the first two parts of the Tanakh that Jesus mentioned in his declaration at Matthew 5:17, “Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I came, not to destroy, but to fulfil” So scripture, or the Bible, to Jesus and his disciples at that time, and for the first 100 years of early Christianity was whatever parts of the OT that had been canonised - most probably the 24 or so books that formed the first two parts of the Ta-Na-Kha, the Torah or Law and the Prophets
I don't see how that is a reply to my comment? Maybe you are more qualified to answer a question about Sharia Law? https://answermug.com/forums/topic/40967/is-this-the-thin-edge-of-the-wedge-is-this-the-start-of-the-imp
The subject has been the Bible and "writings not included in the Bible" as well as those included in it. My last post gives a short historical perspective on that.
Really? I thought the initial subject had to do with: "When someone says "Oh my God" are they saying the Lord's name in vain?"
My last post I asked a few questions such as: One of the things these lying scribes are saying at a time when there is no peace is "There is peace! There is peace!" If these writings of these lying scribes are included in the Bible, where can I read their writings claiming peace? Do you consider all prophets to be false prophets because Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah and others said that there are false prophets? Do you not think that there were other Jewish writings not included in the Bible?
1. "Really? I thought the initial subject had to do with: "When someone says "Oh my God" are they saying the Lord's name in vain?" ----------------- there you go again, finding it irresistible to put words in my mouth. Did I say "the initial subject had to do with....." or did I say "The subject has been the Bible and "writings not included in the Bible" as well as those included in it."?
2. Not sure why you're opening up a new subject in your second paragraph but here's my quick response:
a] the first one is not a question
b] Biblical "writings claiming peace?" ---------------- sorry, haven't looked into it
c] "Do you consider all prophets to be false prophets because Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah and others said that there are false prophets?" ------------ ALL prophets? but surely that would include Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah and all the others who said that there are false prophets!
d] "Do you not think that there were other Jewish writings not included in the Bible?"
i. all writers of the Bible including the NT [with the possible exception of Luke] were Jews, were they not?
ii. according to my very brief history of the Bible above the Bible "started life as a Jewish scripture and is believed to have been an open canon from about 400 BCE. That means books could be added to it and removed from it by almost anyone." so there must have been quite a few Jewish writings not included in the Bible. Don't forget that whereas the Protestant Bible has boos the Eastern Orthodox Bible has 84 books.
Such a hypocritical liar. Where did I put words in your mouth? Did I say that YOU said "the initial subject had to do with....." or did I say "the initial subject had to do with....."???? Be honest for once if you can.
You didn't really answer the relevant questions but obviously you recognize that there are other Jewish writings that are not included in the 66 inspired books of the Bible.
Here is my question again, I would at least like to see your answer to the colored question: Try this again: My last post I asked a few questions such as: One of the things these lying scribes are saying at a time when there is no peace is "There is peace! There is peace!" If these writings of these lying scribes are included in the Bible, where can I read their writings claiming peace? Do you consider all prophets to be false prophets because Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah and others said that there are false prophets? Do you not think that there were other Jewish writings not included in the Bible?
A response that says to a person "Really? I thought the initial subject had to do with [A]:......" implies that the person had said that the initial subject had to do with B or C or D or ..... [anything but A] and the response is correcting that.
I think that you are intelligent enough and been around enough to know that threads lead from one related issue to another. Why cry foul now whne you were apparently okay with the way the thread evolved earlier?
Yes, Really, after you implied that I changed the subject by responding with: "The subject has been the Bible and "writings not included in the Bible" as well as those included in it." That was a bit hypocritical as the subject had already evolved somewhat from what it once was.
Ya don't really have to say 'there you go again, finding it irresistible to put words in my mouth.' Do you find that to be friendly? Was it honest? Did I say that you said something that you didn't? If so, where did I error in saying "You said" or "Quote from CLURT", followed by something that you didn't say? Or perhaps I just said something that you took as me saying that you said it?
You don't say "Really? I thought the initial subject had to do with: "When someone says "Oh my God" are they saying the Lord's name in vain?"" unless you're implying that I said [or implied] that it had nothing to do with: "When someone says "Oh my God" are they saying the Lord's name in vain?". The fact is I had neither said nor implied that it had nothing to do with: "When someone says "Oh my God" are they saying the Lord's name in vain?".
I really don't understand what you are talking about? This is what you had said: [The subject has been the Bible and "writings not included in the Bible" as well as those included in it. My last post gives a short historical perspective on that.]
October 12, 2017 4:30 PM PDT
I'm okay to move on if you're good? I Don't even remember what we were talking about, without going back to look.
"I really don't understand ....." ------------ okay, lets try yet again
step 1: clurt said or implied that the initial subject was B [well, tex must have been convinced that clurt did]
step 2: so tex says, "Really? I thought the initial subject was A"
step 3: Now since what is alleged to have happened in step 1 did not actually occur, clurt says something like, "hey, stop putting words in my mouth, i never said the initial subject was not A"
step 4: tex calls clurt "Such a hypocritical liar." which is self explanatory and he says to clurt "Be honest for once if you can" which of course means that tex is implying that clurt is never honest and that clurt finds it very difficult to be honest
step 5 and all subsequent steps: clurt repeatedly tries to get tex to see what tex has done
1. I tried different ways to explain, including one with what was actually said, but every time your response was effectively that you did not understand what I was on about.
2. by the way, even my latest "paraphrased summary" does not totally ignore "the facts of what was actually said". The quotes in step 4 ARE "the facts of what was actually said".
3. "if you feel you need to have some sort of victory, okay." ------ It is not about whether or not I feel the "need to have some sort of victory". So no it's not okay. It's a question of you actually understanding.
tom jackson 