Why Study The Bible?

[sojourner]

You are correct. Bible is extremely lacking in terms of spiritual and theological content.

It is if you don’t understand the theology it contains.

 

[sojourner]

I don't know of any atheist that became one only due to studying the Bible, but it does help.

I’m not sure I agree that it “helps.” I suppose if the study is done incorrectly, maybe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is if you don’t understand the theology it contains.

Or perhaps the other way around.

 

[Segev Moran]

His name was Michael.

Where does it say that?

Everything thereafter was created by Jehovah through Michael as master worker.

And that?

What a remarkable work the Bible is!

I agree, but for a very different reason than yours

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Pretty much.

OK - thanks.

 

[shunyadragon]

It doesn't. You have to figure that out yourself. Let me show you how.

The Hebrew word for angel is malakh, the Greek aggelos. Both literally mean "messenger." When referring to human messengers the text is translated as "messenger" but when referring to spirit creatures the text is translated as "angel." (Genesis 16:7 / Genesis 32:3 / James 2:25 / Revelation 22:8)

There are only two angels named in the Bible. Michael and Gabriel. There is only one called the archangel. Always singular. That is Michael. (Jude 1:9 / Daniel 10:13-21 / Daniel 12:1 / Luke 1:20)

1. Jesus existed in heaven before he came to earth. Proverbs 8:22 / John 1:1-3, John 1:14; John 3:13; John 8:23, 58; John 17:5 / Colossians 1:15-17 / 1 John 2:13 / Revelation 3:14 all speak of Jesus’ existence before the world began, in fact before anything was created Jesus was created. Before Heaven, the heavens, the Earth, and of course, man. He is the firstborn of creation, the beginning of creation, he came from somewhere other than this world, he descended from heaven. There can be no doubt that he had a pre-human existence in heaven before he came to Earth as the man Jesus Christ.

2. Jesus’ position in heaven before he came to the earth must have been an important one, considering he was the first of Jehovah’s creation and all things were created through him and for him. (Proverbs 8:22 / John 1:3) That means not only the heavens and earth as we know them but the angels and heaven as well. Jesus is referred to as the "word of God," this means he is the spokesperson. (John 1:1) As the spokesperson for Jehovah God we can assume that when an angel performed some important task on earth, like guiding and protecting the early Israelites from Egypt or taking the physical form of men in performing an important task, it was likely Michael as he existed before he came to earth as Jesus.

3. The term archangel means chief of the angels. Arch means chief or principal. The term is only applied to one angel in the Bible. Michael. It is always used in the singular. There is only one archangel. The term archangel itself only appears twice throughout Scripture. At 1 Thessalonians 4:16 Paul writes of Jesus as having the voice of the archangel, and Jude 9 indicates Michael disputed with Satan over the body of Moses. So there is a connection with Jesus as well as an indication that Michael was connected in some way with the people of the exodus of Egypt.

4. Other than Jehovah God himself only two people in the Bible are said to be in charge of or over the angels. They are Michael and Jesus Christ. The name Michael appears only five times throughout Scripture. At Daniel 10:13, 21; 12:1 / Jude 9 and Revelation 12:7.

5. Are there any others who believe Michael and Jesus are the same? Yes, there are many. Joseph Benson, E. W. Hengstenberg, J. P. Lange, Butterworth, Cruden, Taylor, Guyse all wrote that Michael and Jesus were the same.

Clarke's Commentary (Adam Clarke) - "Let it be observed that the word archangel is never found in the plural number in the sacred writings. There can be properly only one archangel, one chief or head of all the angelic host .... Michael is this archangel, and head of all the angelic orders .... hence by this personage, in the Apocalypse, many understand the Lord Jesus."

W. E. Vine - the "voice of the archangel" (1 Thessalonians 4:16) is apparently "the voice of the Lord Jesus Christ" - An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 64.

The 1599 Geneva Study Bible: Christ is the Prince of angels and head of the Church, who bears that iron rod."

The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia: - "The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with the preincarnate Christ, finding support for their view, not only in the juxtaposition of the "child" and the archangel in Rev. 12, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Daniel" – vol. 3, p. 2048, Eerdmans Publishing, 1984 printing.

John Calvin: "I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of Christ, because it suits the subject best to represent him as standing forward for the defense of his elect people." - J. Calvin, Commentaries On The Book Of The Prophet Daniel, trans. T. Myers (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), vol. 2 p. 369.

Brown's Dictionary of the Bible - on 'Michael' and 'Angel,' both these words do sometimes refer to Christ; and also affirms that Christ is the Archangel.

The NIV Study Bible - "The Angel of the LORD .... Traditional Christian interpretation has held that this 'angel' was a preincarnate manifestation of Christ as God's Messenger-Servant. It may be ..., the angel could speak on behalf of the One who sent him." - footnote for Gen. 16:7. Zondervan Publishing, 1985

Smith's Bible Dictionary (says of Michael) - "Angel of the Lord. ... Christ's visible form before the incarnation. p. 40"

Today's Dictionary of the Bible - "Angel of the Lord [angel of Jehovah] - occurs many times in the Old Testament, where in almost every instance it means a supernatural personage to be distinguished from Jehovah .... Some feel the pre-incarnate Christ is meant." Bethany House Publ., 1982, p. 39.



Colossians 1:15-17 John 17 :5



Well, cool. What's your reason.

You should be responding to @Segev Moran and not @shunyadragon.

 

[Earthling]

It certainly is interesting how we interpret but our perceptions of ourself and the world around us deeply influences those interpretations.

I read an article last year in scientific American. It was a whole issue dedicated to the Brin and the cosmos. It opened by stating "the two deepest mysteries in science today is the human brain and the cosmos" .. Paraphrased "the two things we understand the least today in science is ourselves and the world around us"

I would say inadvertently accurate. I would also say that in ancient times nature was seen differently and we understood ourselves better. I mean way way back. Today it's generally all super intellectualizing in context to inferior emotions. Or so it's believed by Freudians.. I am jungian he is way whackier. In an accedemic sense.

Something I always found sort of interesting about cosmos in my Bible study, the English word comes from the Greek kosmos or kosmeticos. The word is used 187 times in the Christian Greek scriptures, and means "adornment." It's used as adornment at 1 Peter 3:3

 

[Earthling]

You should be responding to @Segev Moran and not @shunyadragon.

Thanks, Frank, I fixed it.

 

[Earthling]

I study the Bible and the other religious scriptures to understand their cultural perspective on the belief in God(s) and the relationship with creation and humanity.

Most of them have little to nothing to say about Gods. Primarily the Abrahamic religions do. Hinduism and Scientology leave it to the individual to decide. Shintoism's deities are more aptly called spirits, though in effect they are gods.

I do not believe that the Bible 'gives us insight on what was going on before the Earth itself was created.' It provides a perspective of what some cultures in the Middle East believed thousands of years ago on the origins of the universe, earth, life and humanity. It is in no way factual based on objective verifiable evidence.

Objective verifiable evidence is subject to the same corruption as anything else.

 

[Segev Moran]

It doesn't. You have to figure that out yourself. Let me show you how.

I assume you believe the story of Genesis is true?
It says literally (And the number on rule of the Tora is that each word must be (also) true in its literal sense) that god itself created and manipulated its creation.
It is said it created it, and than it is said it manipulated it by using its own words.
wouldn't you agree that if an angle was the one doing the job it would say "And god told Michael, create the earth"?

Well, cool. What's your reason.

I find it one of the most complex and philosophical books i have ever red.
the idea that is is written without punctuation or scoring is very unique.
The concept of Gimatrya is smart and intriguing.
if you read the stories and literally study the actual meaning of the words, i think the bible presents in a way the basics for many modern concepts of society, politics, laws, philosophy and many more issues.
I find the amount of thought put into the interpretation of the bible is "ungraspable".
There are many more things, and these days i study it in depth and the more i study the more intrigued i become (not in a religious manner).

 

[shunyadragon]

Most of them have little to nothing to say about Gods. Primarily the Abrahamic religions do. Hinduism and Scientology leave it to the individual to decide. Shintoism's deities are more aptly called spirits, though in effect they are gods.

There are of course more religions than above. I believe in Hinduism there is the belief in some sort of God (such as Brahman), Scientology is questionable as a religion, and more like a philosophy. In my primary invesitgation I do not tend to judge religions, but more understand them

Objective verifiable evidence is subject to the same corruption as anything else.

Disagree, objective evidence remains neutral, but may be misused. There are checks and balances in the sciences, and airplanes fly and computers work and the different sciences have corrective consistency over time, because of repetitive research and peer review, You need to clarify this awkward view.

 

[Earthling]

I assume you believe the story of Genesis is true?
It says literally (And the number on rule of the Tora is that each word must be (also) true in its literal sense) that god itself created and manipulated its creation.
It is said it created it, and than it is said it manipulated it by using its own words.
wouldn't you agree that if an angle was the one doing the job it would say "And god told Michael, create the earth"?

Well . . . I don't think it was as simple as that.

I find it one of the most complex and philosophical books i have ever read.
the idea that is is written without punctuation or scoring is very unique.
The concept of Gimatrya is smart and intriguing.
if you read the stories and literally study the actual meaning of the words, i think the bible presents in a way the basics for many modern concepts of society, politics, laws, philosophy and many more issues.
I find the amount of thought put into the interpretation of the bible is "ungraspable".
There are many more things, and these days i study it in depth and the more i study the more intrigued i become (not in a religious manner).

Well, punctuation wasn't developed until the 16th century C.E. so that isn't all that uncommon. Gimatrya is nonsense.

But cool, thanks for sharing.

 

[Earthling]

There are of course more religions than above. I believe in Hinduism there is the belief in some sort of God (such as Brahman), Scientology is questionable as a religion, and more like a philosophy.

In Hinduism Brahma was a creator, but was born of another deity. He is pretty insignificant in Hinduism, yet Brahman is very popular, a metaphysical concept of an ultimate reality.

Disagree, objective evidence remains neutral, but may be misused. There are checks and balances in the sciences, and airplanes fly and computers work and the different sciences have consistency over time, because of repetitive research and peer review, You need to clarify this awkward view.

I'm only being realistic. If an airplane is going to fly and a computer is going to work objective evidence has little to do with it. I once watched one of the world's most respected ichthyologists in the Amazon explain that a fish had a bump on it's head so it could crack open the nuts that fell in the river. It evolved this bump. It couldn't have been that the fish could crack the nuts because it had the bump, because that wouldn't mean evolution, i.e. funding.

He was there to study the primitive people's because they knew a great deal about the fish.

Now you tell me, which of the two, the primitives or the ichthyologist had objective evidence?

I wonder how many millions of people have been wrongly imprisoned on objective evidence? Fingerprints, the lie detector, forensics, DNA . . . and how come you science minded skeptics never have anything bad to say about science? Only how wonderful it is. Never thermonuclear, chemical, biological warfare, just space travel, dinosaurs, and cell phones. The cool stuff.

 

[sayak83]

In Hinduism Brahma was a creator, but was born of another deity. He is pretty insignificant in Hinduism, yet Brahman is very popular, a metaphysical concept of an ultimate reality.



I'm only being realistic. If an airplane is going to fly and a computer is going to work objective evidence has little to do with it. I once watched one of the world's most respected ichthyologists in the Amazon explain that a fish had a bump on it's head so it could crack open the nuts that fell in the river. It evolved this bump. It couldn't have been that the fish could crack the nuts because it had the bump, because that wouldn't mean evolution, i.e. funding.

He was there to study the primitive people's because they knew a great deal about the fish.

Now you tell me, which of the two, the primitives or the ichthyologist had objective evidence?

I wonder how many millions of people have been wrongly imprisoned on objective evidence? Fingerprints, the lie detector, forensics, DNA . . . and how come you science minded skeptics never have anything bad to say about science? Only how wonderful it is. Never thermonuclear, chemical, biological warfare, just space travel, dinosaurs, and cell phones. The cool stuff.

Brahma and Brahman are NOT the same. Brahman, to use an analogy from Christianity, is the fundamental ground of Being. Brahma is the creative aspect of Brahman that is conceived in a personal form.

 

[Fool]

Yes. It is to bring forth from himself — not to create out in front of himself with his hands.

yes, because is not a man with hands. that is how everything offsprings from god, like eve from adam.

 

[sojourner]

yes, because is not a man with hands. that is how everything offsprings from god, like eve from adam.

No. You’re twisting the definition. People create art. They don’t give birth to it. People beget children. They don’t create them. The two are not interchangeable.

God created the cosmos. The Father begat the Son.

 

[Earthling]

Brahma and Brahman are NOT the same. Brahman, to use an analogy from Christianity, is the fundamental ground of Being. Brahma is the creative aspect of Brahman that is conceived in a personal form.

I didn't say that they were the same.

 

[sayak83]

I didn't say that they were the same.

You believe Moses wrote the entire first five books. When do you believe he wrote it?

 

[Earthling]

You believe Moses wrote the entire first five books. When do you believe he wrote it?

Yes, I do. And he wrote those from 1513 - 1473 B.C.E.

 

[sayak83]

Yes, I do. And he wrote those from 1513 - 1473 B.C.E.

How then do you explain the fact that the Joseph story clearly alludes to a flourishing trade with Arabia via camel caravans that has been archaeologically and textually dated to the period of Assyrian empire?

25 Then they sat down to eat; and looking up they saw a caravan of Ishmaelites coming from Gilead, with their camels carrying gum, balm, and resin, on their way to carry it down to Egypt. 26 Then Judah said to his brothers, “What profit is it if we kill our brother and conceal his blood? 27 Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, and not lay our hands on him, for he is our brother, our own flesh.” And his brothers agreed.

Also see,
Back to the roots and routes of dromedary domestication
the domestication of the dromedary took place rather late in human history, most likely at the transition between the second and first millennia before the Common Era (B.C.E.) (8). Archaeologists can indeed trace the emergence of key domestication markers around that time (9), including a significant reduction in the size of bone remains, an increasing association with human settlement, and unambiguous artistic representations.

The Incense trade route (Fig. 1) is one such example, where large caravans of dromedaries carried myrrh and frankincense from South Arabia, spices from India, and other luxury goods throughout the Arabian Peninsula and the Levant, effectively connecting the cultures and civilizations of antiquity from the seventh century B.C.E. to the second century Common Era (C.E.).

Also see this book page 305,
Archaeozoology of the Near East

Camel use for riding and trade cannot be traced before 900 BCE and becomes an important form of trade after 800 BCE, earliest.