Originally posted by RJHindsWell, you see I don't. However, if you mean is it possible to believe the Gospels, and to believe that God created the universe, but not to believe the Genesis account, then yes I think it is possible to.
How can you believe the Gospels, if you don't believe in God's creation and fall of man? Isn't Darwin's evolution and descent of man in conflict?
[b] “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon."
(Matthew 6:24 NKJV)[/b]
Yes, Darwin's evolutionary theory is in conflict with the Garden of Eden story. But that is a metaphor for childhood and growing up.
The quote isn't relevant since Mammon represents money.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtMammon represents whatever you put ahead of God. In your case, Darwin's evolution seems to be a part of it.
Well, you see I don't. However, if you mean is it possible to believe the Gospels, and to believe that God created the universe, but not to believe the Genesis account, then yes I think it is possible to.
Yes, Darwin's evolutionary theory is in conflict with the Garden of Eden story. But that is a metaphor for childhood and growing up.
The quote isn't relevant since Mammon represents money.
Originally posted by sonhouseDon't go off topic on this. This is hot stuff!
http://www.aldokkan.com/religion/creation.htm
Jewish/Christian creation tale is actually just a plagiarized Egyptian myth shoehorned in MUCH later.
This tale started out about 6,500 years ago......
The christian religion originates from the Egyptian mythology.
Originally posted by sonhouseYeah, you and your FF buddy don't have much of an imagination. The way you two think everything started was with a dot exploding and life popped out of a rock and you call it scientific pop rocks.
Sure, if your god was real, which it isn't. It is a figment of your and a few billion other people's imagination.
Originally posted by RJHindsThat's the difference by your fairy-tale religion and real science.
Yeah, you and your FF buddy don't have much of an imagination. The way you two think everything started was with a dot exploding and life popped out of a rock and you call it scientific pop rocks.
Originally posted by RJHindsNo, Mammon represents material wealth. There are a number of theories about the etymology, but they all derive from words for money in various languages. It's invariably used in that context in the Bible.
Mammon represents whatever you put ahead of God. In your case, Darwin's evolution seems to be a part of it.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtIn the context, one either serves God or Mammon. One can not serve material wealth. God says, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me... Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them." (Exodus 20:3, 5)
No, Mammon represents material wealth. There are a number of theories about the etymology, but they all derive from words for money in various languages. It's invariably used in that context in the Bible.
Mammon represents other gods that one serves. The Holy Bible says that Satan is the god of this world system and is in direct opposition to God. Lust and greed for material things is part of the world system and the teaching that there is no god and evolution is Satan's substitue for the creation by God.
I serve God by teaching God's creation in six days. The opposite, in this case, is to serve Mammon (Satan) by teaching the opposite, which would be that there is no God and everything evolved over long periods of time, like billions of years. I believe you serve Mammon in this case.
Originally posted by RJHindsMammon is not an alternative word for Satan. There is one writer, by the name of Gregory of Nyssa (~330AD) asserts that Mammon is Beelzebub, but no else apart from you does.
In the context, one either serves God or Mammon. One can not serve material wealth. God says, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me... Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them." (Exodus 20:3, 5)
Mammon represents other gods that one serves. The Holy Bible says that Satan is the god of this world system and is in direct opposition to G ...[text shortened]... ved over long periods of time, like billions of years. I believe you serve Mammon in this case.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtThis was the context that I was speaking of:
Mammon is not an alternative word for Satan. There is one writer, by the name of Gregory of Nyssa (~330AD) asserts that Mammon is Beelzebub, but no else apart from you does.
“No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.
Matthew 6:24 New King James Version (NKJV)
`None is able to serve two lords, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will hold to the one, and despise the other; ye are not able to serve God and Mammon.
Matthew 6:24 Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
Many modern scholars believe "mammon" is figurative language for confidence in wealth, which is personified and deified. That is because obviously "mammon" must represent two persons because it speaks of two masters or two Lords; and since one of these masters or Lords is God then "Mammon" is being put on equal status as a diety by the person that is trying to serve both masters or Lords. The reason it is believed that it is talking about wealth is that a few verses earlier, Jesus tells them not to lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven.
Also this same statment is used again at the finish of the parable of the unrighteous steward of the masters wealth in Luke 16. The steward made friends with the debtors of the master by reducing the amount of their debt.
He who is faithful in what is least is faithful also in much; and he who is unjust in what is least is unjust also in much. Therefore if you have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches? And if you have not been faithful in what is another man’s, who will give you what is your own?
“No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon."
(Luke 16:1o-13 NKJV)
So some interpret the unrighteous mammon as ill-gotten gains in contrast to true riches. The examples of money and wealth was used in the parable, however, the point Jesus was making is about faithful and unfaithful service to the master. In this case, the unrighteous mammon is really what the unrighteous steward was faithful to because he put the interest of the debtors and his own self interest ahead of the master.
The Pharisees did not like this parable, because they loved money and did not fully understand the point either. So the interpreters that think "mammon" refers ot wealth or money are wrong in my opinion. It refers to the other god that a person puts in place of the true creator God. Money is not a master that one can serve.
Originally posted by RJHindsGetting a bit off track in this thread which is about ancient Egyptian 6 day creation mythologies where Jews cherry picked it into their own myth.
This was the context that I was speaking of:
[b]“No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.
Matthew 6:24 New King James Version (NKJV)
`None is able to serve two lords, for either he will hate the one and love th ...[text shortened]... that a person puts in place of the true creator God. Money is not a master that one can serve.
But that is what you are good at. Deflection, obfuscation, distortions and outright lies as befitting a tenth century man besotted with ancient tales.
Originally posted by sonhouseI believe you have failed to prove anything about an Egyptian 6 day creation story that you apparently dreamed about or just imagined. So I might as well answer someone else on their legitimate concerns, because the Egyptian 6 day creation mythology is not a legitimate concern other than in your distorted old brain.
Getting a bit off track in this thread which is about ancient Egyptian 6 day creation mythologies where Jews cherry picked it into their own myth.
But that is what you are good at. Deflection, obfuscation, distortions and outright lies as befitting a tenth century man besotted with ancient tales.
Egypt and the Bible
Author: Professor Walter J. Veith, PhD
Publish date:Feb 24, 2009
http://amazingdiscoveries.org/S-deception_archaeology_Egypt_Moses
Who Wrote the Book of Genesis?
Question Answered!
In Deuteronomy 31:19-21 Moses was given a song to teach the people, and was specifically commanded to write it down so that it would not be forgotten. Obviously God had little faith in oral transmission. The Bible is not written in that way. He told Isaiah to "Take thee a great roll, and write..."(8:1). "Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever:" (30:8). He told Jeremiah also to "Write thee all the words that I have spoken unto thee in a book" (30:2).
So did Moses borrow from the ancient pagan stories of the creation and the flood? From all the evidence that we have seen, the answer is an absolute NO! If anything, the pagans knowing the original story, but as time went on, got corrupted in the telling, and we have the creation and flood myths Babylon, Assyria etc... The book of Genesis is the ORIGINAL AND EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY TO WHAT REALLY HAPPENED!
Norman Geisler writes: "In the ancient Near East, the rule is that simple accounts or traditions may give rise (by accretion and embellishment) to elaborated legends, BUT NOT VICE VERSA. In the ancient Orient, legends WERE NOT SIMPLIFIED or turned into pseudo-history (historicized) as have been assumed for early Genesis...The recent discoveries of Creation accounts at Elba confirm this. The library of more than 17, 000 clay tablets pre-dates the Babylonian account by about 600 years. The creation tablet is STRIKINGLY CLOSE TO GENESIS...This shows that the BIBLE CONTAINS THE ANCIENT, LESS EMBELLISHED VERSION OF THE STORY and transmits the facts without the corruption of the mythological rendering" (When Skeptics Ask, p.182, emphasis mine). You see, as the stories get OLDER, they more and more RESEMBLE THE BOOK OF GENESIS, so the book of Genesis had to be the original account, and as Geisler says it was NEVER THE OTHER WAY AROUND! We have the true version of what happened by the people who actually WITNESSED IT! Thank God for the preservation of his word!
Preservation-There is also an indication in the book of Genesis, that the people of God were preserving the knowledge of the word of God, on these clay tablets in the book of Genesis itself. Speaking of Noah they wrote: "This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which YHWH hath cursed" (Genesis 5:29). Notice their "work" AND the "toil of our hands." Its NOT their work COMMA, the toil of their hands. It is talking about two different things. Since these were men of God, they were preserving the knowledge of the word of God on tablets. THIS WAS THEIR "WORK."
FROM A PORTION QUOTED ABOVE:
Who wrote Genesis 1:1-2:4? Adam could not have written about his own creation, or the creation of the universe. The creation myths from Egypt and Mesopotamia can hardly be set alongside Genesis 1 as a parallel in any meaningful sense. Moses communed DIRECTLY WITH GOD, and he gave him the revelation of the origin of the Universe! So Moses must have wriiten this creation account at Sinai on clay tablets along with the the ten commandments God wrote on stone, since, "Moses wrote all the words of the LORD," (Exodus 24:4).
http://www.british-israel.ca/Genesis.htm
The Tablet Theory of Genesis Authorship
During his tour of duty in Mesopotamia, where much of the earliest Bible activity took place, Air Commodore P.J. Wiseman became interested in the archaeology of that area, and especially in the many ancient clay tablets that had been dated to long before the time of Abraham. He recognized that they held the key to the original writings of the early Bible, and especially to the Book of Genesis. He published his book in 1936. More recently his son, Professor of Assyriology D.J. Wiseman, updated and revised his father’s book: P.J. Wiseman, “Ancient Records and the Structure of Genesis” (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1985)
He found that most of the old clay tablets had “colophon phrases” at the end; these named the writer or owner of the tablet; they had words to identify the subject, and often some sort of dating phrase. If multiple tablets were involved, there were also “catch-lines” to connect a tablet to its next in sequence. Many of these old records related to family histories and origins, which were evidently highly important to those ancient people. Wiseman noticed the similarity of many of these to the sections of the book of Genesis.
http://www.trueorigin.org/tablet.asp
Originally posted by RJHindsBlah Blah Blah, more trolling.
Egypt and the Bible
Author: Professor Walter J. Veith, PhD
Publish date:Feb 24, 2009
http://amazingdiscoveries.org/S-deception_archaeology_Egypt_Moses
[b]Who Wrote the Book of Genesis?
Question Answered!
In Deuteronomy 31:19-21 Moses was given a song to teach the people, and was specifically commanded to write it down so that it woul ...[text shortened]... ny of these to the sections of the book of Genesis. [/b]
http://www.trueorigin.org/tablet.asp[/b]