How can we know if the Abrhamic God Is the one true God?

[gnostic]

It is not about reinterpreting, it is about using other Scripture to interpret it.

The verses J2hapydna supplied were self-explanatory, omega2xx. Which mean that I don't have to prove anything.

You would have to be dumbest guy in literature subject, if you cannot see there were no mention of Amalekites in those verses.

You said it yourself, "Amalekites" were never mentioned any of these passages, regarding child sacrifices. In your post, you replied this:

There is no direct rference to tghe Amalekite. The references are to Molech(Lev 128:21, 20:2-5, 2 Ki 23:10 & Jer 32:35) who was a Canananite God.

Since you have crashed into the debate between me and J2hapydna, this paragraph that I quote from you, is the only smart thing you wrote in this thread, but then you spoil it by reverting to baseless conjectures in the next lines, and the next 3 replies.

You wrote "No direct reference to the Amalekites" that connect the Amalekites to Molech, so there are also no direct link to connect the Amalekites with human sacrifices to Molech.

Without the references, why should I need to prove anything. Those 4 verses that you cited no references.

And if the Amalekites were indeed to slaughtered 1 Samuel 15, then the Amalekites had nothing to do with with 2 Kings 23:10 and Jeremiah 32:35.

He desecrated Topheth, which was in the Valley of Ben Hinnom, so no one could use it to sacrifice their son or daughter in the fire to Molek.

The "He" being King Josiah of Judah.

In 2 Kings 23, Josiah tore down shrines and altars of various Canaanite gods, not just those that belonging to Molech. At know point does ever mention "Amalekites".

As I stated in one of my earlier reply, Jeremiah was a contemporary to Josiah and to the final kings, including the last when Jerusalem fell to the Neo-Babylonian forces in 587.

The verse in Jeremiah 32:35 are actually related to the event of 2 Kings 23.

The verses in those chapters (in 2 Kings 23 and Jeremiah 32) actually prove my points.

J2hapydna, on the other hand, is making assumption that Jeremiah 32:35, even when there is no direct mention of Amalekites being involved in.

There were also no direct mention of Exodus and 1 Samuel 15 to connect the Amalekites with "Molech" or with "human sacrices".

J2hapydna think it is implied, but that's just baseless assumptions.

If it is implied, then the person needing to prove it, is J2hapydna, and apparently you, since you keep arguing over this with me.

 

[gnostic]

My interpretation offers an explanation that can keep the description of God as compassionate and full of loving kindness. If you don't like my interpretation, I couldn't care less.

Actually your interpretations are not explanation, but opinions that you have no mean to prove, omega2xx.

If the Amalekites all died out in Saul and Samuel's time, then they can't be involved several centuries later in Jeremiah's time.

Clearly, you are no better at scholarship than J2hapydna.

It's late, so I am going to bed.

If you have actual explanation to your reinterpretation of the verses, then I may debate further, but at this stage, I believe I am wasting my time on things that you clearly don't understand.

 

[omega2xx]

The verses J2hapydna supplied were self-explanatory, omega2xx. Which mean that I don't have to prove anything.

I have not ask you to prove anything or to believe anything. I simply offered my interpretation of the idea that God is not ALWAYS compassionate and full of loving kindness as the 'Bible says. If you don't accept it, fine. Tell me why I am wrong or just move one.


>>You would have to be dumbest guy in literature subject, if you cannot see there were no mention of Amalekites in those verses.

You said it yourself, "Amalekites" were never mentioned any of these passages, regarding child sacrifices. In your post, you replied this:<<

Then I can't be the dumbest guy in literature can I" IMO the dumbest guy in Christian literature is to read that God is compassionate and full of loving kindness and not believe it. If you don't believe He is, that's fine. If you want to judge God without know all teh facts, that is illogical but it is also fine with me.

Since you have crashed into the debate between me and J2hapydna, this paragraph that I quote from you, is the only smart thing you wrote in this thread, but then you spoil it by reverting to baseless conjectures in the next lines, and the next 3 replies.

Your hyperbole is unwarranted. This is an open forum and anyone is welcome to join in any conversation they want to. I bet you a dollar to a doughnut hole you have done the same thing.

You wrote "No direct reference to the Amalekites" that connect the Amalekites to Molech, so there are also no direct link to connect the Amalekites with human sacrifices to Molech.

Without the references, why should I need to prove anything. Those 4 verses that you cited no references.

And if the Amalekites were indeed to slaughtered 1 Samuel 15, then the Amalekites had nothing to do with with 2 Kings 23:10 and Jeremiah 32:35.



The "He" being King Josiah of Judah.

In 2 Kings 23, Josiah tore down shrines and altars of various Canaanite gods, not just those that belonging to Molech. At know point does ever mention "Amalekites".

As I stated in one of my earlier reply, Jeremiah was a contemporary to Josiah and to the final kings, including the last when Jerusalem fell to the Neo-Babylonian forces in 587.

The verse in Jeremiah 32:35 are actually related to the event of 2 Kings 23.

The verses in those chapters (in 2 Kings 23 and Jeremiah 32) actually prove my points.

J2hapydna, on the other hand, is making assumption that Jeremiah 32:35, even when there is no direct mention of Amalekites being involved in.

There were also no direct mention of Exodus and 1 Samuel 15 to connect the Amalekites with "Molech" or with "human sacrices".

J2hapydna think it is implied, but that's just baseless assumptions.

If it is implied, then the person needing to prove it, is J2hapydna, and apparently you, since you keep arguing over this with me.

I HAVE NOT ASK YOU TO PROVE ANYTHING. I don't have to prove anything to you. I gave my understanding of the subject. Since you don't accept it, then you explain why God is not compassionate to all instead of judging Him and not knowing all the facts.

Isa 55:8-9 - For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways declares the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts higher than your thoughts.

 

[omega2xx]

Actually your interpretations are not explanation, but opinions that you have no mean to prove, omega2xx.

Interpretations are explanation.

If the Amalekites all died out in Saul and Samuel's time, then they can't be involved several centuries later in Jeremiah's time.

It is very unlikely that all of the Amalekites were destroyed.

Clearly, you are no better at scholarship than J2hapydna.

Clearly anyone who accepts all of the Bible as being the inerrant, inspired word of God, is a better scholar than those why don't. I offered an explanation as to why God is ALWAYS compassionate to everyone. All you have done is declare He is not, and you have done this without having all the facts. Many times it is necessary to do much more than scratch the surface. Real scholars dig deeper, and that eliminates you as being a scholar.

It's late, so I am going to bed.

If you have actual explanation to your reinterpretation of the verses, then I may debate further, but at this stage, I believe I am wasting my time on things that you clearly don't understand.

Sweet dreams and when you wake up, have a nice day.

 

[CalvinFarage]

Why would they lie about this? This is not a DNA molecule.

 

[Prestor John]

You can only know he is the true God for you, not for anyone else. If you believe he is, then he is. And when I say "true God", I mean his representation. To me there is only one God, but not as depicted by the Abrahamic religions and representations. Everyone sees God in their own way.

I will never be able to agree with these ideas.

 

[Jainarayan]

I will never be able to agree with these ideas.

Ok.

 

[Watchmen]

Read the Book of Mormon and follow its counsel to pray if what you read is true.

The Book of Mormon promises that you do so with sincerity and no hypocrisy that the Holy Spirit of the Lord will testify to your mind and heart that it is true.

If the Book of Mormon is true, then the God of Abraham is the one true God.

Or do your research on Joseph's Smith and the Book of Mormon, use your brain, and realize it's a total fiction.

 

[Prestor John]

Or do your research on Joseph's Smith and the Book of Mormon, use your brain, and realize it's a total fiction.

You keep saying stuff like this, but you've never been able to prove anything that you claim.

Doesn't that present a problem?

 

[Watchmen]

You keep saying stuff like this, but you've never been able to prove anything that you claim.

Doesn't that present a problem?

I've proved it time and again. You've got blinders on. You've also refused my multiple attempts at a one on one debate. Why? Because you know you're going to keep those blinders on.

 

[Prestor John]

I've proved it time and again. You've got blinders on. You've also refused my multiple attempts at a one on one debate. Why? Because you know you're going to keep those blinders on.

I remember you asking me one time to do a one-on-one debate.

I don't remember all the specifics, but I do remember claiming that I was up for it given some stipulation. That is the one thing I can't remember what it was, but I do remember your unwillingness to proceed afterward.

If you remember which thread we had that conversation on please share it.

Anyways, no, you have not "proven" anything you claim about Joseph Smith, the Church or the Book of Mormon.

I think you can blame me only so much before other people realize that there is something wrong on your end.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You either believe he is or you don't. You can't actually know. It's called faith.

 

[Watchmen]

I remember you asking me one time to do a one-on-one debate.

I don't remember all the specifics, but I do remember claiming that I was up for it given some stipulation. That is the one thing I can't remember what it was, but I do remember your unwillingness to proceed afterward.

If you remember which thread we had that conversation on please share it.

Anyways, no, you have not "proven" anything you claim about Joseph Smith, the Church or the Book of Mormon.

I think you can blame me only so much before other people realize that there is something wrong on your end.

Actually you turned me down. You said you'd do it then said it was pointless. Are you willing to do so now?

Oh, and here's the one one one I started several months ago. You were a no show.

1v1 Watchmen and Prestor John: The Book of Abraham

 

[Prestor John]

Actually you turned me down. You said you'd do it then said it was pointless. Are you willing to do so now?

Oh, and here's the one one one I started several months ago. You were a no show.

1v1 Watchmen and Prestor John: The Book of Abraham

I had no idea this one actually existed.