Christians: Do you think it's appropiate to teach...

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » October 25, 2004, 5:43 pm

Xzion wrote:
Adex_Xeda wrote:I haven't read in the bible where Satan's underlings are named.

If you have specfic scriptures that you're drawing from please let me know, I'd like to see if I missed them.

The names you do mention were from common religions at the time in the areas around Israel. The fact that those names are mentioned adds credence to the historical placement of the old testement stories.
Beezelbub? (sp)
isnt he in there a few times...
il admit im not that educated on the bible, these "facts" came from sources of mythology that stated certain deitys were mentioned in the bible several times.

Scroll up a few posts. I already answered this question.

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » October 25, 2004, 5:53 pm

Rivera Bladestrike wrote:Well, people never like when everything they've been taught during the lives and their parents lives and their parents parents lives and so on, was just a story to teach you to be nice and faithful to your parents and not hurt others. Its like when your child learns there is no Santa Claus and in reality it was just your parent's effort to make sure you're good during the holidays. Religion is just a method of controlling behavior. And naturally there is a negitive response when people are told it is...

What a shock! Religion is meant to guide the actions of people! My reality is ruined =(

Rivera Bladestrike · Post by **Rivera Bladestrike** » October 25, 2004, 5:58 pm

And thus the negitive response... here use this next time:

noel · Post by **noel** » October 25, 2004, 6:00 pm

It's always nice to see a Christian using a picture of a mentally handicapped individual to make a point. You're greasing the gates to heaven now Rekaar!

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » October 25, 2004, 6:10 pm

archeiron wrote:
Adex_Xeda wrote:I haven't read in the bible where Satan's underlings are named.

If you have specfic scriptures that you're drawing from please let me know, I'd like to see if I missed them.

The names you do mention were from common religions at the time in the areas around Israel. The fact that those names are mentioned adds credence to the historical placement of the old testement stories.
2 Kings includes references to Baal-zebub, God of Ekrons.

Matthew 12 includes a reference to Beelzebub, Prince of Demons.

Dante's Inferno and Paradise Lost are both works that would have needed to be accurate according to the church at the time of their writing to avoid being censored. Those works would have drawn upon church texts to fill in the details of individual demons and angels. These would both be respectable sources for such information, as they have had the approval of the church for centuries.

Dante's Inferno and Paradise Lost aren't exactly what I'd call God-inspired works. That might be some funky Catholic thing but they're definately not on par with the bible.

The Matthew 12 reference is talking about Satan directly. Anytime I've bumped into a bunch of demon names, it was in description of Satan himself.

The 2 Kings reference was in relation to a religion from a country neighboring Israel. Many times in the old testement there will be reference to the competing religions at that time. None of those religions were considered to have real gods. The Israelites considered them all fake. There are even spectacular moments such as 1 Kings 18:22-39 where a one of God's prophets would step out and prove the other religions affecting Israel were fake.

The only fallen angel type that I see named in the bible is Satan. Like Jesus he was called a lot of different names.

Sylvos · Post by **Sylvos** » October 25, 2004, 6:38 pm

Dante's Inferno and Paradise Lost aren't exactly what I'd call God-inspired works. That might be some funky Catholic thing but they're definately not on par with the bible.

Actually no....its called an Epic Poem and that is it - it's not a funky Catholic thing. But go on and keep saying shit like that so that noncatholics like yourself who have no idea what exactly Catholicism is can go on believing stereotypes that are put forth by people like yourself.

The references to Beezlebub and other monikers attached to Lucifer first appeared in the Catholic bible (which I might add is the first bible but that's because every person was a christian back then and as a result the First Catholic Church was built and founded by St. Peter. Btw Catholic means Universal - meaning all the non-jews who had witnessed the life of christ and had converted could celebrate as one faith. It wasn't until the split by both the Anglican church and Martin Luther in the 1500s did you have different denominations split off aside from the Eastern Orthodox which split off during the Roman Empire. You see your Protestant Bible is actually the same as the Catholic bible only King James in his infiinate wisdom decided to edit the bible to make it easier to read and got rid of 4 books in the new testament he didn't feel belonged. As a result the Catholic Bible was translated from Greek to Latin or Greek to English. The Protestant bible has gone from Greek -Latin - old english, middle english, norman translations as well as French-English splits - hence several translations. As a result some data is lost in translation. It happens in almost every environment.) several times as well as other names that can be attributed to Lucifer the Morning Star. Then if you ever have the opportunity to look at the Spiritus Ennumica (that I believe is the name, I may be mistaken its been a while) is an old old old book they had found that listed all the known angels, saints and demons dating back from the beginnings of the Jewish faith in the old testament. Fabulous book really, gives you a very good insight into what the older cultures put stock in for faith and if you follow the tangents and stories mentioned in there you can get some really good historical info as to how far back these beliefs date. Some of them coming from ancient babel and mesopotamia when the Sumerian pantheon was the forefront religion. ..alrighty im rambleing...[/quote]

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » October 25, 2004, 6:42 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:The only fallen angel type that I see named in the bible is Satan. Like Jesus he was called a lot of different names.

Just to clear up that previous references in the Bible could and do refer to more than one entity, the Book of Revelations (12:9) contains a reference to more than one fallen angel fighting the Host of Heaven on Judgement Day.

Revelations 12:9 wrote:The great dragon was thrown down, the old serpent, he who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world. He was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.

Now refer back to my post on Satan, Lucifer, Appolyon, etc.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » October 25, 2004, 6:56 pm

Fabulous book really, gives you a very good insight into what the older cultures put stock in for faith and if you follow the tangents and stories mentioned in there you can get some really good historical info as to how far back these beliefs date.

Would you call it the "The Silmarillion" of Chrisitanity?

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » October 25, 2004, 7:01 pm

noel wrote:It's always nice to see a Christian using a picture of a mentally handicapped individual to make a point. You're greasing the gates to heaven now Rekaar!

It's not cruel to show empathy!

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » October 25, 2004, 7:06 pm

Actually Sylvos you are very close but a little off on the KJV. They didn't use the Latin Vulgate because they were rebelling against the Catholic church. Both use the same Hebraic version of the OT but the NT version they used was different... yet incomplete. It didn't have all of those books you mentioned, like Macabees, nor were many of the others complete, especially Revelation. Thus when while translating it from Greek to English if they didn't have part of it they would then pull out a German version the Vulgate (of course they didn't tell anyone about this at the time) and translate what was said there into English. Thus is some of the books in the KJV you have verses which were translated from Greek to Latin to German and then to English... and yet there are people out there who believe that no errors could have occured. I have a dissertation from someone who did their PhD work on the KJV and it has numerous photocopies of handwritten notes from some of the translators, it's very interesting. I doubt it's still published but I'll try to remember to check when I get home.

My Church believes in God, more than the Bible. We believe that it is the inspired work of God and that through reading it God will reveal Himself to you. The key is that you have to read, you have to study, you have to think, reason and learn. Thus no matter what "version" you are reading, God can lead you to finding the Truth and His Will. We also believe in the One Holy and Catholic Church, even though it's memebers are devided by differences, we believe that all Christians are part of God's Universal Church as you noted.

Marb

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » October 25, 2004, 7:09 pm

It didn't seem like empathy was the reason for that picture but I could be wrong I guess.

Marb

noel · Post by **noel** » October 25, 2004, 7:16 pm

Marbus wrote:It didn't seem like empathy was the reason for that picture but I could be wrong I guess.

Marb

Clearly he was fooling us all!

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » October 25, 2004, 7:19 pm

A religion debate is the most pointless thing you can do. Religious people will not be persuaded by non religious people or people of other religions, and visa versa.

In short, you all win the prize. =P Now can we discuss why we should(n't) be teaching something that's a very personal choice and likely to offend others in school?

-=Lohrno

Sirton · Post by **Sirton** » October 25, 2004, 7:24 pm

I think they should be elective coarses only.

Now I think Darwin should be mentioned in any history coarse of the time period and any other major figure head during a period in time in history. No big discussion, but example the mentioning like Darwin spurned the theory of evolution. Or Jesus was crucified around this time period and spurned the starting of Christanity. More history relation than a scientific approach.

Scientific approach to any of those issues should be elective in my opinion not forced...Forced should be outlawed. Like I took Evolution in college, and I goto Catholic Church. I believe in both in my own ways....Not how I am told by others. Example, I think the Nebulus clouds you see on the Hubble telescope pictures birthing the Stars, light and life is were the center of Heaven is.

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » October 25, 2004, 7:26 pm

I believe religious studies should be taught in school in an informational way, illustrating the beliefs of one vs another. Religion is as much or more a part of our history and culture as anything else. You think people are ignorant about politics? Try religion.

More amazing than the things some people believe are the perceptions of what other people think you believe.

How do you choose which ones to pick? Market share worldwide.

edit:

Main Entry: 1spurn
Pronunciation: 'spern
Function: verb
1 obsolete a : STUMBLE b : KICK
2 archaic : to reject something disdainfully
transitive senses
1 : to tread sharply or heavily upon : TRAMPLE
2 : to reject with disdain or contempt : SCORN

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » October 25, 2004, 7:55 pm

archeiron wrote:
Adex_Xeda wrote:The only fallen angel type that I see named in the bible is Satan. Like Jesus he was called a lot of different names.
Just to clear up that previous references in the Bible could and do refer to more than one entity, the Book of Revelations (12:9) contains a reference to more than one fallen angel fighting the Host of Heaven on Judgement Day.

Revelations 12:9 wrote:The great dragon was thrown down, the old serpent, he who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world. He was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.
Now refer back to my post on Satan, Lucifer, Appolyon, etc.

Yes, I have seen references to fallen angels other than Satan in the bible such as Genesis 6. I have not seen any individual names other than those that label Satan, specifially I have not read the names of any demonic lieutenants.

There are works outside the bible that are not considered God inspired that mention all types of things. You might find something there but I'd not place much weight in a non-inspired source.

Rivera Bladestrike · Post by **Rivera Bladestrike** » October 25, 2004, 7:59 pm

What about a drug inspired source? Opium was a common drug in that area back then.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » October 25, 2004, 8:07 pm

Sylvos wrote:
Adex wrote:
Dante's Inferno and Paradise Lost aren't exactly what I'd call God-inspired works. That might be some funky Catholic thing but they're definately not on par with the bible.
The references to Beezlebub and other monikers attached to Lucifer first appeared in the Catholic bible ....

I have read 3 of the books of the Apocrypha that you mention Sylvos. If you read them you'll quickly see that they don't reflect a consistant theme when compared to the rest of the bible. One of the book writers "brags" about how holy he is and how God loves him because of his personal greatness etc. It's the kind of stuff that would piss God off (not being humble). Other books I read barely even mention God. The books of the Apocrypha aren't included in most bibles because they're not consistant with the rest of the bible books.

There might be demon leutenant names in one of those Apocrypha books that I haven't read, but again they're iffy sources.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » October 25, 2004, 8:08 pm

Yes yes,

Drug inspired sources are the fruitful origin of great things like shag carpet.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » October 25, 2004, 8:15 pm

The ironic thing about all off this iffy sources stuff is most people reading this board consider ALL of the bible books iffy.

Given that perspective I can understand how some of you would lump all of the non bible books into one big pile and cite from it.

noel · Post by **noel** » October 25, 2004, 8:19 pm

The Bible has a wonderful message, but it *is* an iffy source.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 25, 2004, 8:38 pm

Islam site calling out the Bible:

http://johnw.host.sk/articles/bible_chr ... in_the.htm

101 clear contradictions in the Bible!

Rivera Bladestrike · Post by **Rivera Bladestrike** » October 25, 2004, 8:55 pm

guarentee you can find that many contradictions in any "holy" book. Because man wrote them all and man is not perfect.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » October 25, 2004, 10:26 pm

Sylvos wrote:

Spiritus Ennumica (that I believe is the name, I may be mistaken its been a while) is an old old old book they had found that listed all the known angels, saints and demons dating back from the beginnings of the Jewish faith in the old testament. ...

if anyone could find any information on that book i would love it, tried looking it up but the spelling was too far off i guess, ive always had a thing for that kind of mythology, and christians are always so seemingly secretive about a lot of theres.

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » October 25, 2004, 10:46 pm

Akaran_D wrote:Hi Sion.
Grats on not reading the post.

oh I know I didnt read it, but i figuered i would never get as close a chance to say that so i just went for it, besides its 9 in the morning in pschology class, fuck making sense

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » October 25, 2004, 11:52 pm

LOL so called educated people arguing as to which work is fiction is accurate

noel · Post by **noel** » October 26, 2004, 1:16 am

Kylere wrote:LOL so called educated people arguing as to which work is fiction is accurate

Yeah we should argue that a web browser will fix the computer security problem!!!!

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » October 26, 2004, 3:13 am

Adex_Xeda wrote:The ironic thing about all off this iffy sources stuff is most people reading this board consider ALL of the bible books iffy.

Given that perspective I can understand how some of you would lump all of the non bible books into one big pile and cite from it.

Sorry, the problem I have is that in every christian service I've ever been to there's at least two "readings" from the bible and they are closed out with, "This is the word of the Lord". -- Clearly bullshit.

Basic tenets of Christianity are laudible, but basing *any* argument on the text from the bible is just foolhardy. If I based my arguments on text from the Lord of the Rings, you'd rightly laugh me out of town...

Lynxe · Post by **Lynxe** » October 26, 2004, 7:39 am

Re-Rail!

Akaran_D wrote:...Evolution instead of Creationism in public schools, or, like me, do you beleive that evolution may be the way that we were created? Reference that in the Bible, when God says 'let there be light', we're not treated to a blow by blow description of how the light is created; it just is.

Evolution
A Therory based on scientific evidence and fact. Bascially an educated quess, NOT a belief.

Creationism
To non-believers, this maybe be a myth, story, theology or "bullshit" but to someone who believes, this is a reality. It is part of their beliefs and NOT a theory. That's why they want it taught in schools.

So I'm with Sueven, I don't think you can compare the two at all.

Rivera Bladestrike · Post by **Rivera Bladestrike** » October 26, 2004, 8:30 am

The bible says that man was molded in his image, which is just a borrow from other mythology of the time. All faiths at the time in that part of the world had man being in the image of god, and that they were chosen among all other religions. Pretty much an ego thing if you ask me.

Sylvos · Post by **Sylvos** » October 26, 2004, 10:06 am

When argueing the facets of the Bible there is only one truth that can not be disproven - The Bible is open to interpretation. 1000 people can read a passage and get 1000 different meanings from it. The bible is "the word of God" - meaning that the stories (Yes Stories which mean they may or may NOT have happened) are there to teach a lesson in order to obtain knowledge and understanding on how to treat one another. It however is not concrete proof that this or that happened unless there is other documented and historically accurate information to support it. The thing about the bible which people forget is - it wasn't written in a day. Oral tradition was scribbed down into stone tablets/papyrus/streched animal hide after being told to the next generation. So while they say Moses parted the Red Sea by holding his arms aloft, he could have just found a good spot to cross and used his arms to signal when the tide was coming in and for everyone to hurry up. Generally acts of heroism are blown up and made more important after being told over and over and over again, this is where our popular myths come from. Irish mythology for example - Cuchullain the Great Irish Achilles. They say he was the son of Lugh, Lord of Lightning - God of the Sun, head of the Pantheon of the Tuatha de Dannan. Unearthly strong and a warrior without peer, the had the Riathestare - the blood frenzy which made him unstoppable on the battle field. Irish bards called Fillad would catalogue what happened in battle. Over time the tales of his deeds and exploits were expanded to not only give him more renown but to also instill in their enemies a sense of dread and hesitation to attack Ireland. Such things are true in the bible, tales tell of God sending Gabriel to destroy the city of Soddom and Gamora, for all we know a meteor shower could have leveled the city and the gallicians and erekelites and soddomites could have interpreted that as God's vengeance on a city of evil people. History is generally written by one type of person - the victor. As a result sometimes using a bit of poetic license comes into play when cataloguing events or wriiting/translating a story. Alrighty then....that will do for writing at 6am.

Rivera Bladestrike · October 26, 2004, 10:19 am

Good explanation.

Lynxe · Post by **Lynxe** » October 26, 2004, 10:31 pm

Actually Sylvos, though you might believe:

The Bible is open to interpretation...The bible is "the word of God" - meaning that the stories (Yes Stories which mean they may or may NOT have happened) are there to teach a lesson in order to obtain knowledge and understanding on how to treat one another. It however is not concrete proof that this or that happened unless there is other documented and historically accurate information to support it.

There are people who's entire religious belief structure is founded on taking the bible as a literal, historical recollection of facts. They believe you can not mix certain types of food, that Moses DID actually part the Red Sea and that Jesus was indeed the son of God born from a Virgin. THESE are the people who want creationism taught over evolution because they don't believe these are stories, they believe it actually happened. Thats why I think they can't be compared. One is blind faith and the other an educated guess.

Personally I think the bible started as a bedtime story to teach kids decent morals. The writers are in "heaven" laughing hysterically at us..but I digress!

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » October 26, 2004, 10:45 pm

Lynxe wrote:Actually Sylvos, though you might believe:
The Bible is open to interpretation...The bible is "the word of God" - meaning that the stories (Yes Stories which mean they may or may NOT have happened) are there to teach a lesson in order to obtain knowledge and understanding on how to treat one another. It however is not concrete proof that this or that happened unless there is other documented and historically accurate information to support it.
There are people who's entire religious belief structure is founded on taking the bible as a literal, historical recollection of facts. They believe you can not mix certain types of food, that Moses DID actually part the Red Sea and that Jesus was indeed the son of God born from a Virgin. THESE are the people who want creationism taught over evolution because they don't believe these are stories, they believe it actually happened. Thats why I think they can't be compared. One is blind faith and the other an educated guess.

Personally I think the bible started as a bedtime story to teach kids decent morals. The writers are in "heaven" laughing hysterically at us..but I digress!

As was previously stated, these people must necessarily believe in unicorns, cockatrices, firey serpents, satyrs, and dragons because all of those things are described in the Old Testament. Note that the dragon in the New Testament (Revelation) is from a dream, but if you want to take that literally than Christ is a seven eyed, seven horned lamb, which is a little creepy to me.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » October 27, 2004, 12:29 am

You take dude from 60AD and throw him into a perspective where he sees the future. Do you honestly expect him to understand and clearly describe *everything* he sees? How does Mr. 60AD explain a tank, or a heavenly creature that is removed from time reference?

Revelations deals with symbolism and one overwhelmed human writer.

I'm curious, where do you find unicorns, cockatrices, satyrs and the names of Satan's underlings?

Post by **Sylvus** » October 27, 2004, 12:54 am

I think the point that people are trying to make, Adex, is the Bible is full of symbolism. As such, people shouldn't follow it verbatim, nor should they place such stock in parts of it that aren't clear or aren't recurring themes.

For example, the debate about whether or not somewhere in the Bible explicitly says that homosexuality is wrong. Since that one is open to debate and some translations include it and others don't, it probably shouldn't be a focal point. Other things like loving your fellow man and turning the other cheek that are stressed repeatedly are probably what people the point the authors were trying to get you to take away from it.

Lynxe · Post by **Lynxe** » October 27, 2004, 7:51 am

archeiron wrote: As was previously stated, these people must necessarily believe in unicorns, cockatrices, firey serpents, satyrs, and dragons because all of those things are described in the Old Testament. Note that the dragon in the New Testament (Revelation) is from a dream, but if you want to take that literally than Christ is a seven eyed, seven horned lamb, which is a little creepy to me.

There are people who:
- dont' believe at all
- believe the bible is symbolic
- believe the bible literally
- believe a mixture of the above

If you believe people have a right to their OWN beliefs then it the decision of whether one should be taught over another is bigger than your personal beliefs.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » October 27, 2004, 8:28 am

Adex_Xeda wrote:You take dude from 60AD and throw him into a perspective where he sees the future. Do you honestly expect him to understand and clearly describe *everything* he sees? How does Mr. 60AD explain a tank, or a heavenly creature that is removed from time reference?

Revelations deals with symbolism and one overwhelmed human writer.

I'm curious, where do you find unicorns, cockatrices, satyrs and the names of Satan's underlings?

Scroll back up to my previous post. I have no intent to repeat myself again on this thread because people don't read, which incidentally explains why so many people have trouble with the Bible.

Nevermind, I am feeling charitable and I will quote myself, so that you don't have to actually read this thread.

Literal interpretation of the Old Testament is an interesting notion when Isaish contains references to unicorns and satyrs, Numbers includes firey serpents, Jeremiah contains cockatrices, and Malachi contains a red dragon. I suppose we just have to believe in all of those things since they are in the Bible!

As to Revelations, I specifically stated that it was a dream (a vision), so go back and read my post again.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » October 27, 2004, 8:30 am

Lynxe wrote:
archeiron wrote: As was previously stated, these people must necessarily believe in unicorns, cockatrices, firey serpents, satyrs, and dragons because all of those things are described in the Old Testament. Note that the dragon in the New Testament (Revelation) is from a dream, but if you want to take that literally than Christ is a seven eyed, seven horned lamb, which is a little creepy to me.
There are people who:
- dont' believe at all
- believe the bible is symbolic
- believe the bible literally
- believe a mixture of the above

If you believe people have a right to their OWN beliefs then it the decision of whether one should be taught over another is bigger than your personal beliefs.

What does your response have to do with my post? Why did you quote my comments about things that can be found in the Bible and suggest that I was commenting about what people do and do not have a right to believe?

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » October 27, 2004, 10:45 am

Could you be a bit more specific? The books you quote are hundreds of pages. What is your source? Maybe it has verse numbers?

Dragon references are in almost every case refering to Satan or are symbols in a prophet's dream representing a country.

The only reference I can find to fantastical creatures that aren't specifically being spoken as a label of Satan or used as a symbol to represent a country (like Persia) is Leviathan and Behemoth in the book of Job.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » October 27, 2004, 10:52 am

Here's something on unicorns

http://www.countrykeepers.com/wp/index.php?p=923

So what was the animal described in the Bible as the 'unicorn'? ....... The word used in the Hebrew is 'reem'. This has been translated in various languages as monoceros, unicornis, unicorn, einhorn and eenhorn, all of which mean 'one horn'. However, the word 'reem' is not known to have such a meaning. Many Jewish translations simply left it untranslated, because they were not sure which creature was being referred to.

Archaeology has in fact provided a powerful clue to the likely meaning of 'reem'. Mesopotamian reliefs have been excavated which show King Assurnasirpal hunting oxen with one horn. The associated texts show that this animal was called 'rimu'. It is thus highly likely that this was the 'reem' of the Bible, a wild ox.

It appears that the reason it was shown in Assyrian (but not Egyptian) art as one-horned was as an artistic way of expressing the beauty of the fact that these horns on the 'rimu/reem' were very symmetrical, such that only one could be seen if the animal was viewed from one side. The first to translate the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek probably knew that the 'rimu/reem' was depicted as one-horned, so they translated it as monoceros (one horn).

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » October 27, 2004, 7:48 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:Could you be a bit more specific? The books you quote are hundreds of pages. What is your source? Maybe it has verse numbers?

Dragon references are in almost every case refering to Satan or are symbols in a prophet's dream representing a country.

The only reference I can find to fantastical creatures that aren't specifically being spoken as a label of Satan or used as a symbol to represent a country (like Persia) is Leviathan and Behemoth in the book of Job.

I went ahead and looked some up for you.

Number 21:6 wrote:6: And the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died.

Jemeremiah 8:17 wrote:17: For, behold, I will send serpents, cockatrices, among you, which will not be charmed, and they shall bite you, saith the LORD.

Malachi 1:2-3 wrote:2: I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob,
3: And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.

Isaiah 13:19-22 wrote:19: And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.
20: It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation: neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there; neither shall the shepherds make their fold there.
21: But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there.
22: And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged.

Isaiah, chapter 34 wrote:1: Come near, ye nations, to hear; and hearken, ye people: let the earth hear, and all that is therein; the world, and all things that come forth of it.

2: For the indignation of the LORD is upon all nations, and his fury upon all their armies: he hath utterly destroyed them, he hath delivered them to the slaughter.

3: Their slain also shall be cast out, and their stink shall come up out of their carcases, and the mountains shall be melted with their blood.

4: And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree.

5: For my sword shall be bathed in heaven: behold, it shall come down upon Idumea, and upon the people of my curse, to judgment.

6: The sword of the LORD is filled with blood, it is made fat with fatness, and with the blood of lambs and goats, with the fat of the kidneys of rams: for the LORD hath a sacrifice in Bozrah, and a great slaughter in the land of Idumea.

7: And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.

8: For it is the day of the LORD's vengeance, and the year of recompences for the controversy of Zion.

9: And the streams thereof shall be turned into pitch, and the dust thereof into brimstone, and the land thereof shall become burning pitch.

10: It shall not be quenched night nor day; the smoke thereof shall go up for ever: from generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it for ever and ever.

11: But the cormorant and the bittern shall possess it; the owl also and the raven shall dwell in it: and he shall stretch out upon it the line of confusion, and the stones of emptiness.

12: They shall call the nobles thereof to the kingdom, but none shall be there, and all her princes shall be nothing.

13: And thorns shall come up in her palaces, nettles and brambles in the fortresses thereof: and it shall be an habitation of dragons, and a court for owls.

14: The wild beasts of the desert shall also meet with the wild beasts of the island, and the satyr shall cry to his fellow; the screech owl also shall rest there, and find for herself a place of rest.

15: There shall the great owl make her nest, and lay, and hatch, and gather under her shadow: there shall the vultures also be gathered, every one with her mate.

16: Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.

17: And he hath cast the lot for them, and his hand hath divided it unto them by line: they shall possess it for ever, from generation to generation shall they dwell therein.

Pslams Pslam 92:10 wrote:10: But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil.

Before you tell me that these are all metaphors, I would caution you that I used these references originally as a retort to the comments about taking the Bible literally. These are not a comprehensive list of references, but all I was willing to find for you tonight. I am sure that it would be easy to dig up this same number again, at the very least. Once again, refer to my first comment that this is in response to people taking the Bible literally, so any arguments that these are all metaphors is not valid.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » October 27, 2004, 8:23 pm

Thanks for the numbers Arch.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » October 27, 2004, 8:29 pm

I notice that all of the unicorn verses you cite share the same hebrew root word that is better translated as wild ox.

Note my post above yours.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » October 27, 2004, 8:36 pm

The word used for cockatrices is tsepha or tsiphoniy

This word is also translated as an "adder" Proverbs 23: 29-32

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » October 27, 2004, 8:48 pm

Satyr has a greek root word "satyros" or Latin "satyrus"

It was a half goat half man idol of the Greeks.

The word was also used by those 1600s KJV scribes to translate a hebrew word "saw-eer" which means a shaggy goat.

Go look at that Isaiah verse again given this context.

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bibl ... ah+34%3A14

noel · Post by **noel** » October 27, 2004, 8:50 pm

It would be great if you could edit your posts instead of making three posts in a row with essentially the same content.

I'm trying to say this in the nicest way possible. It just makes the forum easier to read since the new posts icon isn't constantly lighting up.

Thanks.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » October 27, 2004, 8:52 pm

I'm working as I go here Aranuil.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » October 27, 2004, 8:56 pm

Two funny things.

1. Homosexual (a very modern word relative to the Bible) means homosexual, no matter what the word from which it was translated actually means. But as for all these funny creatures, we'll go back and check what the original word might have meant instead. So the "word of God" is up for interpretation as to mythical creatures, but not as to "homosexual." Got it.

2. Christians find the idea of an all-powerful all-knowing invisible man in the sky perfectly reasonable; they also find demons and devils that exist in a fiery netherrealm perfectly reasonable. But find unicorns, cockatri, dragons, satyrs and possible other creatures of mythology implausible and will take the time and effort to explain away references to such creatures in their holy book.

noel · Post by **noel** » October 27, 2004, 8:58 pm

I understand that, and it's nothing more than a friendly suggestion with what I think is a reasonable reason. When I'm doing something similar to what you're doing, I edit and add so that all of the related thoughts end up in a single post.

On-topic:
I'm quite sure that you can research and validate all of the references. Intelligent people like yourself who seek understanding are not the problem. The point that was being made was that some people take the Bible as verbatim.

VeeshanVault

Christians: Do you think it's appropiate to teach...

Re: Christians: Do you think it's appropiate to teach...