The Bible conveys what it is meant to.... Trying to find God's intent in a book written by man is silly.
Should also take into account, that Yah Hovah means lord of mischief.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Trusting the Bible
- Thread starter jojom
- Start date
Should also take into account, that Yah Hovah means lord of mischief.
Tumah
Veteran Member
If something seems inaccurate, that points to a deficiency in the reader's comprehension, not in the Books.
Historians are putting into question much of it even taking place... So clearly that perspective isn't rational.
Tumah
Veteran Member
And of course, Historians are beyond error. Because, you know, they never change their minds about what happened.Historians are putting into question much of it even taking place... So clearly that perspective isn't rational.
Daniel 2:44 It says the righteousness kingdom will destroy every other kingdom. Is this accurate?
Tumah
Veteran Member
The verse doesn't use the phrase "righteous kingdom" nor does it make any mention towards the righteousness of that kingdom. It also doesn't say that it will destroy every other kingdom, it says it will destroy "those" kngdoms, ie. that were alluded to in the previous verses.
Does it not say "GOD" will set it up??????????????????????? LOL. Are we to assume what The God does is not righteous?
I agree it says, those kingdoms that were mentioned. But people today view those kingdoms as these kingdoms that now exist.
I am having a hard time thinking there is an opinion that what God sets up isn't righteous. I have learned GOD and Righteous are synonymous. Am I really all alone?
I am having a hard time thinking there is an opinion that what God sets up isn't righteous. I have learned GOD and Righteous are synonymous. Am I really all alone?
Tumah
Veteran Member
I'm not sure I understand what your complaint is here. All I did was point out that you weren't accurately stating what the verse says, you were interpolating your own understanding as you said, "I have learned that GOD and Righteous are synonyms". Whether the verse intended that or not, it doesn't explicitly say. So your interpretation was not accurate. Which is what you originally asked me.
You could say that same thing for drawing conclusions from grains of sand. The smarter you are the more information you can extract from any particular item. Can't learn enough from a grain of sand? You must be deficient.
Tumah
Veteran Member
I don't think its entirely a question of being smart, although that will give one a lead. But without effort and study, no amount of intelligence will deepen one's knowledge.
And if a grain of sand contains such a wealth of information and it was only created to step on, how much more so the Book that was created to convey Divine Wisdom.
But I was asking you if YOUR interpretation is accurate. Do you want to hear mine? No?
Is the right interpretation of Daniel 2:44 ELAH* of heaven will set up a kingdom which "shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms and it shall stand forever"
*(Is this the God of Abraham?)
I think it says all other kingdoms will act to break and consume the kingdom which God of heaven set up, BUT it will stand forever. I think the scripture means that what God sets up is indestructible. It does NOT mean that what God sets up is a destroyer.
Last edited:
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
My approach to the Bible and all scriptures in all religions is the same: read them; try to understand what I read; and see what may be useful through the use of reason. Needless to say, this approach is an imprecise art. I do not deify any book, nor do I have any belief as to whether the Bible is divinely inspired or not because I believe it is beyond my ability to know for sure what the answer is. I have no problem accepting my "I don't know" approach if I don't know.
Does The God of heaven set up a kingdom which is for destroying kingdoms? It is what Daniel 2:44 says.
If what God sets up is for destroying then it WILL be destroyed because the rule "you shall reap what you sow" is TRUE imho.
If what God sets up is for destroying then it WILL be destroyed because the rule "you shall reap what you sow" is TRUE imho.
Last edited:
Your system is steeped in logic and studiousness, and you spend a good deal of effort on logic. I don't know you, so to me it seems possible that you might not be able to imagine yourself in a system that wasn't. Perhaps you don't believe such a thing is possible and that every system rewards studiousness and logic. That hasn't been my experience, although logic and studiousness have rewards of their own.
Here is another thing to think about. IF God did, would or will set up a kingdom for destroying other kingdoms what should/must/will the kingdom's main occupation be? Wouldn't its main occupation be defense? Because we know for sure that sovereignty is for protecting.
Tumah
Veteran Member
I think we need to differentiate between translation and interpretation.
The translation of the verse is as follows:
And in their days/ of/ kings/ those, (And the the days of those kings)
will establish/ G-d/ of Heaven/ a kingdom/ that/ forever/ not/ be destroyed (G-d of Heaven will establish a kingdom that will never be destroyed)
and the kingdom/ to a nation/ another/ not/ be left (and the kingdom will not be left for another nation)
it will break/ and it will annihilate/ all/ these kingdoms (it will break and annihilate all these kingdoms)
and she/ will be established/ forever. (and it will be established forever)
That is the translation of the verse.
I do see a part of the verse that mentions what G-d setting up as being indestructible. I do not see anything in this verse saying that other nations will act to destroy it.And I see a part of the verse that says that the kingdom G-d sets up will do something somehow to the other nations. You can't just ignore half the verse because it doesn't suit your opinion of what it should say.
Tumah
Veteran Member
I'm not sure if I have trouble imagining a rewarding system that wasn't based on logic. I'm not sure that a system can exist without logic. But I do think that logic and studiousness are rewarding in their own right with the information that is gleaned through their application.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
It's a good question. I think, one would have to decide, is it logical for them, to read the Bible in the context, of a ''correct'', text, or not. If I'm reading the Bible, just looking for inconsistencies, or things I disagree with, it would probably seem filled with those things; if I'm reading the Bible, in a context, where I'm basically giving it the benefit of the doubt, in meaning, then it might seem pretty consistent. I personally, have not found ''mistakes'', in the Bible; what I have found, though, are instances where the nature of the theology could be questioned, as in, is it right, or wrong, etc.
That being said, some of us cannot just drop the Bible or our religious zeitgeist, for whatever reason, so I think that that is something to consider. Ie, we are not reading a text that we could honestly say, is completely false.
אִנּ֗וּן יְקִים֩ אֱלָ֨הּ שְׁמַיָּ֤א מַלְכוּ֙ דִּ֤י לְעָלְמִין֙ לָ֣א תִתְחַבַּ֔ל וּמַ֨לְכוּתָ֔הלְעַ֥ם אָחֳרָ֖ן לָ֣א תִשְׁתְּבִ֑ק תַּדִּ֤ק וְתָסֵיף֙ כָּל־ אִלֵּ֣ין מַלְכְוָתָ֔א וְהִ֖יא תְּק֥וּם לְעָלְמַיָּֽא׃
and in the days
of
kings
these
shall set up
the God
of heaven
a kingdom
that
for ever
shall
be destroyed
the kingdom
people
to other
shall
be left
it shall break in pieces Strong's 1855*
and consume
to all
these
kingdoms
it
shall stand (or arise)
forever
* Strong's Hebrew: 1855. דְּקַק (deqaq) -- to be shattered, fall to pieces to be shattered, fall to pieces
It might have said "by all" not to all.
History has proved conclusively that ALL sovereigns do attempt, will, or wish the destruction of every other sovereignty which threatens its own.
So THAT is true.
IF it might never have said "by all" then you are leaning on the understanding of the scribe who wrote it. The Bible says do not do that. Doesn't it?
and in the days
of
kings
these
shall set up
the God
of heaven
a kingdom
that
for ever
shall
be destroyed
the kingdom
people
to other
shall
be left
it shall break in pieces Strong's 1855*
and consume
to all
these
kingdoms
it
shall stand (or arise)
forever
* Strong's Hebrew: 1855. דְּקַק (deqaq) -- to be shattered, fall to pieces to be shattered, fall to pieces
It might have said "by all" not to all.
History has proved conclusively that ALL sovereigns do attempt, will, or wish the destruction of every other sovereignty which threatens its own.
So THAT is true.
IF it might never have said "by all" then you are leaning on the understanding of the scribe who wrote it. The Bible says do not do that. Doesn't it?