The 6 days of creation

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by Starman

I think darkness and light has to do with duality, as duality is inherit in physical creation but it is not present in the pure,
unformed, spiritual presence. The spiritual presence has no opposite but all of creation has pros and cons inherit right in it;
including thought, emotions, and physical matter. All of creation has opposite poles, like darkness and light.

And I do embrace that the Bible, and most other spiritual teachings are symbolic. Most spiritual teachings speak in parables
and metaphors. I feel this is because pure unformed spirit is beyond words and thoughts, and can not be directly described
as it transcends thought.

"But then................ writers of the Bible Books wrote that Jesus and his Apostles referenced and spoke about the Old Testament as if they were physical events."

Was Jesus wrong?

[sky]

Originally Posted by BigJohn

But then................ Jesus and his Apostles wrote about the Old Testament as if they were physical events.

Was Jesus wrong?

Jesus wrote about the OT ? It's even disputed about which of the Apostles wrote...
So can you point out please what did Jesus write.... and where can we read it.

[Molearner]

Originally Posted by Starman

And I do embrace that the Bible, and most other spiritual teachings are symbolic. Most spiritual teachings speak in parables
and metaphors. I feel this is because pure unformed spirit is beyond words and thoughts, and can not be directly described
as it transcends thought.

Starman,

Yes, this is true. But here is the thing: People argue whether the Bible is literal or symbolic. IMO it is both. The literal is for the religious.....the symbolic is for the spiritual. And, by the way, people themselves can be both spiritual and religious just as the Bible is.

[Molearner]

Originally Posted by BigJohn

A chap by the name of Marcion during 140 - 160 A.D. decided to canonize the scriptures with emphasize on scriptures he approved thru cut and paste. He wrote a lot of antitheses that perpetuated his belief that the Old Testament was folly and incompatible with the gospel. He also claimed the Old Testament God was a Demiurge. This is the tip of the iceberg of his beliefs. As a result of his activities, the Church responded by coming up with a canon.

Today, we can look at the Masoretic Text, which is the text used for virtually all Bibles for the Old Testament. Something we notice is that key expressions are not translated properly, and in many cases, the original meaning has been almost lost. For example, the first creation account is devoted only to Elohim. The English translations do not make that point evident. And then the second creation introduces Yahweh. Yahweh is the most used name in the Masoretic text but in English, is barely recognized. Elohim comes in a close second, and for the most part, is not recognizable.

Then we search the scriptures for the name of God Almighty and find out it was written as יְהוָ֔ה and was not pronounced as Yahweh but an expression fairly close. It is not surprising, that today only a few people know how to pronounce the name of the Almighty God. That name is known by some of the mystery/secret groups but is virtually unknown to the common person.

We can even go to the Septuagint translations and actually witness how key words got mistranslated. But what is hard to comprehend: why is it hard for newer translations to correct these obvious errors? Some have, but most have not.

BigJohn,

So basically you are saying that there are many names for God and many pronunciations of the name. Also your fascination with many translations. None of this, however, explains the importance and meaning of these differences and how they impact our understanding of the Bible. Even in prayer I personally use different names for God. It never occurs to me that He might not hear me if I do not use a certain name.

[sky]

Originally Posted by Molearner

BigJohn,

So basically you are saying that there are many names for God and many pronunciations of the name. Also your fascination with many translations. None of this, however, explains the importance and meaning of these differences and how they impact our understanding of the Bible. Even in prayer I personally use different names for God. It never occurs to me that He might not hear me if I do not use a certain name.

By constant obsessions with names/titles etc : you can just drop a few Translations and run, discussion isn't needed....



' None of this, however, explains the importance and meaning of these differences and how they impact our understanding of the Bible.'

I wouldn't hold you breath waiting for any explanation

I talk about things I don't understand.
I tell myself I think I do, but only a strand.
Many stories around fires were told.
Passing on times and peoples of Old.
Human nature and families carry on.
Like tales of bones of animals gone.
Now the written, fact of, we fight.
Who is wrong and who is right.
Oh, how I long of tales in the night.
** * *
))((
^^^^

[Molearner]

Originally Posted by Molearner

Yes, this is true. But here is the thing: People argue whether the Bible is literal or symbolic. IMO it is both. The literal is for the religious.....the symbolic is for the spiritual. And, by the way, people themselves can be both spiritual and religious just as the Bible is.

Having said this it is my belief that the symbolic/spiritual understanding of the Bible is the only thing of importance. The literal/religious/historical understanding of the Bible is just a distraction. Matthew 7:13-14....."Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

The narrow gate is accessed through and by the spiritual gospel. Jesus is saying....go thru the spiritual gate because that leads to life. The wide gate is easy and tempting because it requires no effort for anyone can have a literal understanding of something.....but that broad gate leads to destruction(not finding life). Actually even the literal can be a task if you witness the ways that people in these forums argue over the tiniest aspects of different things which are nearly always spiritually insignificant.

Now....a few thoughts on the 'spiritual' gospel. First clue: John 1:1....."In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning."
What more does one need to know ? Jesus was the Word.....the Word is the gospel(the good news)…...Jesus is the good news...….Jesus is the gospel. And, by the way, both spiritually and literally(if you accept that scripture is divinely inspired). In Christianity there is but one divinity and that is the Holy Trinity. The gospel is the words of Jesus......the only trouble is that they are to be spiritually understood. Most of what are attributed as being direct teachings of Jesus are in the form of parables. The literal understanding of which will miss any connection to the spiritual level and the essence of God is spiritual. Basically....if you cannot talk spiritual you cannot communicate with God. I said 'communicate' which implies two-way dialogue.

It is crazy but religion falls quite easily into the trap of taking the broad road that leads to delusion, duality and destruction. It is not intentional but it is easy. Even though in the first scripture that I quoted the choice is between life and destruction it is also a choice of between hard and easy. 'Easy', unfortunately, trumps 'life'. Crazy, we opt for destruction because it is easy....go figure....:) Do not ever expect to find a church that can really address the spiritual gospel. Finding the spiritual gospel one must go within, become spiritual and develop a new mindset....it is not easy. At the same time, IMO, one can still go to church....like I say what they do is not intentionally wrong......they are basically good people....but, largely, they are spiritually ignorant. One just has to accept even if he/she has great spiritual knowledge many are not ready to receive that which is spiritual.

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by Molearner

BigJohn,

So basically you are saying that there are many names for God and many pronunciations of the name. Also your fascination with many translations. None of this, however, explains the importance and meaning of these differences and how they impact our understanding of the Bible. Even in prayer I personally use different names for God. It never occurs to me that He might not hear me if I do not use a certain name.

According to the Hebrew Bible, there is only one name for Almighty God.

As for using many translations, my primary source is the Masoretic Text, text normally used for Old Testament translations, and versions of the Koine Greek scripture.

You mention, you use other versions of God's name. Can you share some of those names?

In the Old Testament, Almighty God's name is transliterated as Yahweh. But Yahweh is not exactly how the name should have been transliterated. Almighty God's name that is mentioned in Exodus 6:3 is normally transliterated as Yahweh but in reality Yahweh comes in as a distance third. The actual name and the pronunciation is mostly unknown to most people. This was done via poor translations, etc. To me, it is a shame.

I find it strange that in this time period, Jewish, Christians and Muslims who worship the same Almighty God, do not know that name.

If you look at the Hindu belief system, their Supreme God, Trimurti, is also looked at normally as an unknown God.

[sky]

Originally Posted by BigJohn

According to the Hebrew Bible, there is only one name for Almighty God.

As for using many translations, my primary source is the Masoretic Text, text normally used for Old Testament translations, and versions of the Koine Greek scripture.

You mention, you use other versions of God's name. Can you share some of those names?

In the Old Testament, Almighty God's name is transliterated as Yahweh. But Yahweh is not exactly how the name should have been transliterated. Almighty God's name that is mentioned in Exodus 6:3 is normally transliterated as Yahweh but in reality Yahweh comes in as a distance third. The actual name and the pronunciation is mostly unknown to most people. This was done via poor translations, etc. To me, it is a shame.

I find it strange that in this time period, Jewish, Christians and Muslims who worship the same Almighty God, do not know that name.

If you look at the Hindu belief system, their Supreme God, Trimurti, is also looked at normally as an unknown God.

' You mention, you use other versions of God's name. Can you share some of those names '


You mentioned that Jesus wrote about the OT, can you point out please as to where I can find these writings, I'm intrigued....

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by sky123

By constant obsessions with names/titles etc : you can just drop a few Translations and run, discussion isn't needed....



' None of this, however, explains the importance and meaning of these differences and how they impact our understanding of the Bible.'

I wouldn't hold you breath waiting for any explanation

'constant obsessions with names'................

Would you say a Bible that removes the name - Jesus would be a good translation?

Would you say if people used the expression 'son of God' instead of the name Jesus, that such a change would be an improvement? If that was done, how would a person be able to distinguish the other sons of God from Jesus?

If such changes were made, this would alter are understanding and appreciation of the Bible. Besides, the Bible says we are not suppose to add or take away from the scriptures...........