Creationists' theory in detail

[BreezeWood]

We (Jehovah's Witnesses) do not go to war and we do love our enemies. We do actually follow what Jesus taught.

Do you believe in the creed?

View attachment 317105

Do you believe in the creed?

THE NICENE CREED

another heretic ... consubstantial.

The original Nicene Creed was first adopted on 19 June 325 at the First Council of Nicaea

they added more forgeries in 381 - it is nicene christianity - state church of the roman empire - their christian bible came a decade latter, just like you they cooked the books even more just for giggles ...

nothing in that creed is from the 1st century.

 

[Newtonian]

We (Jehovah's Witnesses) do not go to war and we do love our enemies. We do actually follow what Jesus taught.

Do you believe in the creed?

View attachment 317105

Do you believe in the creed?

THE NICENE CREED

another heretic ... consubstantial.

The original Nicene Creed was first adopted on 19 June 325 at the First Council of Nicaea

they added more forgeries in 381 - it is nicene christianity - state church of the roman empire - their christian bible came a decade latter, just like you they cooked the books even more just for giggles ...

nothing in that creed is from the 1st century.

Yes, the Nicene Creed was adopted by the Nicene Counsel under the leadership of emperor Constantine. Not sure what this tangent has to do with the Biblical account of creation compared with scientific discoveries.

However, the Christian Greek Scriptures (aka NT) were written in the first century - see the history involving Polycarp (a student of the apostle John), who was a quartodeciman vs. Victor - later adoped as a Pope by the western churches. Also note that earliest manuscript copies of the NT date from the second century.

I guess we could get back to thread title by noting than some apostate Christian religions accept macro-evolution.

 

[BreezeWood]

We (Jehovah's Witnesses) do not go to war and we do love our enemies. We do actually follow what Jesus taught.

Do you believe in the creed?

View attachment 317105

Do you believe in the creed?

THE NICENE CREED

another heretic ... consubstantial.

The original Nicene Creed was first adopted on 19 June 325 at the First Council of Nicaea

they added more forgeries in 381 - it is nicene christianity - state church of the roman empire - their christian bible came a decade latter, just like you they cooked the books even more just for giggles ...

nothing in that creed is from the 1st century.

Yes, the Nicene Creed was adopted by the Nicene Counsel under the leadership of emperor Constantine. Not sure what this tangent has to do with the Biblical account of creation compared with scientific discoveries.

However, the Christian Greek Scriptures (aka NT) were written in the first century - see the history involving Polycarp (a student of the apostle John), who was a quartodeciman vs. Victor - later adoped as a Pope by the western churches. Also note that earliest manuscript copies of the NT date from the second century.

I guess we could get back to thread title by noting than some apostate Christian religions accept macro-evolution.

However, the Christian Greek Scriptures (aka NT) were written in the first century

just a side note ....

Christianity in the 4th century was dominated in its early stage by Constantine the great and the First Council of Nicaea of 325, which was the beginning of the period of the First seven Ecumenical Councils (325–787), and in its late stage by the Edict of Thessalonica of 380, which made Nicene Christianity the state church of the Roman Empire.

do you have your own nt, there are no original documents in existence and nothing from the primary character in writing - the christian bible is whatever they wanted it to be in the 4th century. they spent the entire century writing it.

nothing in that creed is from the 1st century.

- have you followed the development of that creed, blank to a complete forgery from the 1st century to the 4th beginning in the 3rd no one in the 1st century believed jesus was the son of god.

there is nothing contradictory between the 1st century and evolution - evolution, one would hope exemplifies the religion of that time, the triumph of good vs evil - progression of evolution validates the religion in not just objective but in physical terms. and what may be in the offering for humanity fulfilling its destiny.

 

[james bond]

We (Jehovah's Witnesses) do not go to war and we do love our enemies. We do actually follow what Jesus taught.

Do you believe in the creed?

View attachment 317105

How is that a response to my post 989? I was responding to RWS' accurate statement in post 985 that so-called Christians have been responsible for massacreing people and I gave the example of the Inquistion etc. And I posted that we, Jehovah's Witnesses, actaully follow what Jesus taught including loving our enemies - Matthew 5:44.

So what does the NIcene Creed have to do with that? Please note that the Nicene Creed is NOT in the Bible. Are you sure you want to go into early Christian history when violence entered apostate Christianity?

Obviously, I posted in response to you saying JW actually "follow what Jesus taught including loving our enemies" Matthew 5:44. I've read that JW reject the Trinity.

"They reject the Trinity, believing Jesus to be a created being and the Holy Spirit to essentially be the inanimate power of God. Jehovah’s Witnesses reject the concept of Christ’s substitutionary atonement and instead hold to a ransom theory, that Jesus’ death was a ransom payment for Adam’s sin."

"What do Jehovah’s Witnesses believe? Close scrutiny of their doctrinal position on such subjects as the deity of Christ, salvation, the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, and the atonement shows beyond a doubt that they do not hold to orthodox Christian positions on these subjects. Jehovah’s Witnesses believe Jesus is Michael the archangel, the highest created being. This contradicts many Scriptures which clearly declare Jesus to be God (John 1:1,14, 8:58, 10:30). Jehovah’s Witnesses believe salvation is obtained by a combination of faith, good works, and obedience."

Who are the Jehovah’s Witnesses and what are their beliefs? | GotQuestions.org

Who are the Jehovah’s Witnesses (Jehovahs / JW / JWs) and what are their beliefs? Why are the Jehovah’s Witnesses considered a cult?

www.gotquestions.org

Because of this and your Bible being changed, many Christians believe that you are a cult and were misled by one of the false prophets of the church. Your source isn't God based.

 

[james bond]

I agree, listening to your lies is a waste of time.

Then set me to ignore. Stop asking dumb questions. Why don't you talk with Hollie about evolution? I rather talk with the believers who have misunderstandings of their own.

 

[james bond]

there is nothing contradictory between the 1st century and evolution - evolution, one would hope exemplifies the religion of that time, the triumph of good vs evil - progression of evolution validates the religion in not just objective but in physical terms. and what may be in the offering for humanity fulfilling its destiny.

Evolution ignores the 1st century. What big event happened then? This is such silliness.

Instead, we had evolution involved in the persecution of Christians in the 1st century by your ancestors -- the bad Jews. These Pharisees may have been the ones who actually had Jesus crucified. For shame, you crumb.

 

[Newtonian]

We (Jehovah's Witnesses) do not go to war and we do love our enemies. We do actually follow what Jesus taught.

Do you believe in the creed?

View attachment 317105

Do you believe in the creed?

THE NICENE CREED

another heretic ... consubstantial.

The original Nicene Creed was first adopted on 19 June 325 at the First Council of Nicaea

they added more forgeries in 381 - it is nicene christianity - state church of the roman empire - their christian bible came a decade latter, just like you they cooked the books even more just for giggles ...

nothing in that creed is from the 1st century.

Yes, the Nicene Creed was adopted by the Nicene Counsel under the leadership of emperor Constantine. Not sure what this tangent has to do with the Biblical account of creation compared with scientific discoveries.

However, the Christian Greek Scriptures (aka NT) were written in the first century - see the history involving Polycarp (a student of the apostle John), who was a quartodeciman vs. Victor - later adoped as a Pope by the western churches. Also note that earliest manuscript copies of the NT date from the second century.

I guess we could get back to thread title by noting than some apostate Christian religions accept macro-evolution.

However, the Christian Greek Scriptures (aka NT) were written in the first century

just a side note ....

Christianity in the 4th century was dominated in its early stage by Constantine the great and the First Council of Nicaea of 325, which was the beginning of the period of the First seven Ecumenical Councils (325–787), and in its late stage by the Edict of Thessalonica of 380, which made Nicene Christianity the state church of the Roman Empire.

do you have your own nt, there are no original documents in existence and nothing from the primary character in writing - the christian bible is whatever they wanted it to be in the 4th century. they spent the entire century writing it.

nothing in that creed is from the 1st century.

- have you followed the development of that creed, blank to a complete forgery from the 1st century to the 4th beginning in the 3rd no one in the 1st century believed jesus was the son of god.

there is nothing contradictory between the 1st century and evolution - evolution, one would hope exemplifies the religion of that time, the triumph of good vs evil - progression of evolution validates the religion in not just objective but in physical terms. and what may be in the offering for humanity fulfilling its destiny.

Roman emperor Constantine did not originate the Bible - he did make the Nicene Creed part of the official apostate Christian religion of the Roman empire.

The Hebrew Scriptures (OT) were written before Jesus' time. Jesus and his followers quoted the Greek Septuagint (LXX) translation often - LXX began to be translated in the 3rd century BCE and was completed in the 2nd century BCE.

Interestingly, the removal of the Divine Name in the LXX began AFTER Jesus' time (1st century CE)- there are a number of LXX manuscript fragments of LXX from before and during Jesus' time that contain the Divine Name YHWH (Jehovah). A list of some of these mss. is found here:

1C The Divine Name in Ancient Greek Versions — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

For example:

We (Jehovah's Witnesses) do not go to war and we do love our enemies. We do actually follow what Jesus taught.

Do you believe in the creed?

View attachment 317105

How is that a response to my post 989? I was responding to RWS' accurate statement in post 985 that so-called Christians have been responsible for massacreing people and I gave the example of the Inquistion etc. And I posted that we, Jehovah's Witnesses, actaully follow what Jesus taught including loving our enemies - Matthew 5:44.

So what does the NIcene Creed have to do with that? Please note that the Nicene Creed is NOT in the Bible. Are you sure you want to go into early Christian history when violence entered apostate Christianity?

Obviously, I posted in response to you saying JW actually "follow what Jesus taught including loving our enemies" Matthew 5:44. I've read that JW reject the Trinity.

"They reject the Trinity, believing Jesus to be a created being and the Holy Spirit to essentially be the inanimate power of God. Jehovah’s Witnesses reject the concept of Christ’s substitutionary atonement and instead hold to a ransom theory, that Jesus’ death was a ransom payment for Adam’s sin."

"What do Jehovah’s Witnesses believe? Close scrutiny of their doctrinal position on such subjects as the deity of Christ, salvation, the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, and the atonement shows beyond a doubt that they do not hold to orthodox Christian positions on these subjects. Jehovah’s Witnesses believe Jesus is Michael the archangel, the highest created being. This contradicts many Scriptures which clearly declare Jesus to be God (John 1:1,14, 8:58, 10:30). Jehovah’s Witnesses believe salvation is obtained by a combination of faith, good works, and obedience."

Who are the Jehovah’s Witnesses and what are their beliefs? | GotQuestions.org

Who are the Jehovah’s Witnesses (Jehovahs / JW / JWs) and what are their beliefs? Why are the Jehovah’s Witnesses considered a cult?

www.gotquestions.org

Because of this and your Bible being changed, many Christians believe that you are a cult and were misled by one of the false prophets of the church. Your source isn't God based.

If you wish to know what we believe, see the list of our beliefs here:

What Do They Believe? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

The trinity, the archangel, the angel of Jehovah, and salvation are off topic. I will start a separate thread on the trinity - you could start separate threads on the other subjects if you wish. For me to respond I would be derailing the thread. But I will mention one point in response here:

Some claim that Michael the archangel is not Jesus and yet claim the angel of Jehovah is Jesus in a number of Bible accounts - they call these examples of "Christology." So, if Jesus was the angel of the Lord (original Hebrew: H3068/Yehovah/Jehovah), would he be less than the chief/arch angel?

Or would he be the archangel (see the definition of the prefix "arch" in Greek = first)?

Now, on topic - Jehovah's Witnesses accept micro-evolution but reject macro-evolution - are you willing to get back to topic?

 

[Hollie]

We do? I don't believe you.

It's funny we end up talking about science in R&E and religion in S&T forums? I think it means that they are intertwined.

Do you believe evolution? Here's a website on evolution that you should check out and believe -- Evolution. It's all about science. Maybe that will help get your religious stuff together and stop asking stupid questions and start being less wrong.

Thanks for the link.
No mention there about a flood.
Try again?

You're welcome. I gave it to you so you could ask your dumb questions there.

For example, orbital physics -- Search.

Global flood -- Search

The blog you linked to has the expected, pre-defined dogma and “statement of faith” that accompanies all of the fundamentalist ministries,

You don’t see the pointlessness in linking to fundamentalist ministries? You know with certainty that you will get a pre-defined conclusion with no regard for the facts or the truth?

Statement of Faith

Statement of Faith

www.allaboutscience.org

The sole basis of our beliefs is the Bible, God's infallible written Word, the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments. We believe that it was uniquely, verbally and fully inspired by the Holy Spirit and that it was written without error (inerrant) in the original manuscripts. It is the supreme and final authority in all matters on which it speaks.

Hollie - we agree on the Bible being the infallible word of God in the original manuscripts. So, what is your belief compared with ours (Jehovah's Witnesses) when it comes to creation?

Perhaps you do not know what we believe on this. Here are links to 2 of our brochures on creation which reference both the Bible and science:

Origin of Life (lf) — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

Publications — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

It was noted by another poster that there are no original manuscripts of any bibles. Further, the Bibles are the fallible words of men. If Christians were willing to be objective; they would admit they have no corroboration that any of the gospels were authored by Luke, Matthew, Mark or John. They are simply accepting they were. So what happens if they were written by priests who were trying to codify messianic fervor of the time, and they did so writing a fictional account of a messiah? What if the real Jesus is an Essene priest who lived 100 years before? Suddenly that could explain a few things. I am suggesting that what was written about Jesus decades and much longer after his death could be an amalgam of existing messiahs of the time, most notably a rabbi of the Essenes who lived about 100 years before what is commonly referred to as the years of Jesus Christ.

Most importantly, I’ll task you with a challenge. You need to explain first why a book stands as acceptable communication of a god to humanity. Why would any of the gods allow their holy texts to be written by authors unknown and then subject to the corruptible hand of man?

The above is fully in support of the reality that there is no requirement for the universe to have a "creator" -- that is something which most religions assert with no evidence and based upon the bias to believe in a peculiar, sectarian version of god(s). You're certainly entitled to do that, but it is not any kind of an argument. It is purely an assertion and there are equally-"authoritative" assertions by other religious entities that are just as "viable" as yours. The only standard by which we can discern the truth is evidence, so please produce evidence to support A) your assertion and B) your assertion is true but the Hindu one for instance is not.

 

[james bond]

the Bible being the infallible word of God in the original manuscripts.

But we don't have the original manuscripts, we don't even have first or second copies of the original manuscripts. If God wanted us to know wouldn't He somehow have preserved them?

It's your false paradigm of God that defies logic. Only the original are infallible and we have that. Yet, the copies are around 99% agreement with each other which meets the statistical parameters for excellence.

"To be inerrant is to be free from error. Only the original autographs (the original manuscripts written by the apostles, prophets, etc.) are under the divine promise of inspiration and inerrancy. The books of the Bible, as they were originally written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16–17; 2 Peter 1:20–21), were 100 percent inerrant, accurate, authoritative, and true. There is no biblical promise that copies of the original manuscripts would be equally inerrant or free from errors. As the Bible has been copied thousands of times over thousands of years, some copyist errors have likely occurred.

It is important to remember that the biblical manuscripts we have today are in 99 percent agreement with one another. Yes, there are some minor differences, but the vast majority of the biblical text is identical from one manuscript to another. Most of the differences are in punctuation, word endings, minor grammatical issues, word order, etc.—issues easily explainable as scribal mistakes or changes in spelling rules. No important theological issue is thrown into doubt by any supposed error or contradiction. Biblical manuscripts from the fifteenth century agree completely with manuscripts from the third century. We can have absolute confidence that the Bible we have today is almost exactly identical to what the apostles and prophets wrote 2,000-plus years ago."

Does the inerrancy of the Bible only apply to the original manuscripts? | GotQuestions.org

Does the inerrancy of the Bible only apply to the original manuscripts? Can a translation of the Bible be considered inerrant? Has the inerrancy of the Bible been preserved through the copying process?

www.gotquestions.org

 

[Newtonian]

OK, trying to get back to topic: The Divine Name YHWH contains the verb HWH (=to be) in the causative sense (= He causes to be) and imperfect verb state (= action in progress not yet complete). This is in harmony with the scientific principle of cause and effect but specifies that rather than there being an infinite number of past causes and effects going back for infinite primordial time (the time in which cause and effect proceeded to cause the creation our universe with its universe specific space-time) there is actually a First Cause!

 

[Hollie]

I agree, listening to your lies is a waste of time.

Then set me to ignore. Stop asking dumb questions. Why don't you talk with Hollie about evolution? I rather talk with the believers who have misunderstandings of their own.

It sure looks like you Christian believers have core disagreements about the most basic elements of the religion. Could it be that none of you are right and you’re confusing Vishnu with Jesus? Odd that Christianity has splintered into so many sects / subdivisions.

Maybe the believer with the largest caliber weapon represents the “true” sect.

 

[Newtonian]

Hollie & Bond - the manuscript evidence for the original language text of both the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures (OT & NT) is also a separate subject - either of you wish to start a thread on that subject? Or bump one that is already here?

On topic, Genesis 1:1 says that in the/a beginning God created the heavens and the earth - all manuscripts agree on this. Science has since proven that the heavens and the earth had a beginning.

For centuries many accepted Aristotle's teaching of an eternal and rigid universe with no beginning.

 

[Newtonian]

I agree, listening to your lies is a waste of time.

Then set me to ignore. Stop asking dumb questions. Why don't you talk with Hollie about evolution? I rather talk with the believers who have misunderstandings of their own.

It sure looks like you Christian believers have core disagreements about the most basic elements of the religion. Could it be that none of you are right and you’re confusing Vishnu with Jesus? Odd that Christianity has splintered into so many sects / subdivisions.

Maybe the believer with the largest caliber weapon represents the “true” sect.

True - Jehovah's Witnesses do not agree with creationists on certain points - like how old the earth and universe are. More importantly, many Bible translations remove the name of God which is a Hebrew verb = He causes to be. Substituting the title Lord is wrong.

Have you noticed that these faulty Bible translations only remove God's name but leave the names of false gods like Dagon and Molech (etc.). Why is it that the only name they remove from the Bible is God's name?

 

[Hollie]

OK, trying to get back to topic: The Divine Name YHWH contains the verb HWH (=to be) in the causative sense (= He causes to be) and imperfect verb state (= action in progress not yet complete). This is in harmony with the scientific principle of cause and effect but specifies that rather than there being an infinite number of past causes and effects going back for infinite primordial time (the time in which cause and effect proceeded to cause the creation our universe with its universe specific space-time) there is actually a First Cause!

As far as science has discovered so far, “his” first name was “singularity”.

Due to happenstance; place of birth and parentage, believers in western civilization with almost universal exclusivity will have a version of the gods which are very different than those whose parentage and place of birth is of eastern culture. Meaning, ones version of the gods of convenience is really a matter of the culturally appropriate gods,

 

[Newtonian]

OK, trying to get back to topic: The Divine Name YHWH contains the verb HWH (=to be) in the causative sense (= He causes to be) and imperfect verb state (= action in progress not yet complete). This is in harmony with the scientific principle of cause and effect but specifies that rather than there being an infinite number of past causes and effects going back for infinite primordial time (the time in which cause and effect proceeded to cause the creation our universe with its universe specific space-time) there is actually a First Cause!

As far as science has discovered so far, “his” first name was “singularity”.

Due to happenstance; place of birth and parentage, believers in western civilization with almost universal exclusivity will have a version of the gods which are very different than those whose parentage and place of birth is of eastern culture. Meaning, ones version of the gods of convenience is really a matter of the culturally appropriate gods,

Singularity is not a name - surely you realize that. Assuming that model is correct rather than the origin of our universe having actual dimensions smaller that Planck length - what caused the singularity?

Do you agree with the scientific principle of cause and effect embodied in the name Jehovah?

 

[Hollie]

I agree, listening to your lies is a waste of time.

Then set me to ignore. Stop asking dumb questions. Why don't you talk with Hollie about evolution? I rather talk with the believers who have misunderstandings of their own.

It sure looks like you Christian believers have core disagreements about the most basic elements of the religion. Could it be that none of you are right and you’re confusing Vishnu with Jesus? Odd that Christianity has splintered into so many sects / subdivisions.

Maybe the believer with the largest caliber weapon represents the “true” sect.

True - Jehovah's Witnesses do not agree with creationists on certain points - like how old the earth and universe are. More importantly, many Bible translations remove the name of God which is a Hebrew verb = He causes to be. Substituting the title Lord is wrong.

Have you noticed that these faulty Bible translations only remove God's name but leave the names of false gods like Dagon and Molech (etc.). Why is it that the only name they remove from the Bible is God's name?

“Poetic license” answers your question about why unknown writers used specific names / characters in the stories they wrote.

You don’t quite get that same message from Homer's Iliad, do you? It's intended as a fictional retelling, and few people debate its relative accuracy. But plenty of people think Bibles and korans and Mafioso Books of the Dead do relate an accurate worldview, and that opinion crosses into social constructs, and those social constructs impact individuals’ freedoms. It leverages political decisions. It lends weight to laws that are developed and implemented.

 

[Hollie]

OK, trying to get back to topic: The Divine Name YHWH contains the verb HWH (=to be) in the causative sense (= He causes to be) and imperfect verb state (= action in progress not yet complete). This is in harmony with the scientific principle of cause and effect but specifies that rather than there being an infinite number of past causes and effects going back for infinite primordial time (the time in which cause and effect proceeded to cause the creation our universe with its universe specific space-time) there is actually a First Cause!

As far as science has discovered so far, “his” first name was “singularity”.

Due to happenstance; place of birth and parentage, believers in western civilization with almost universal exclusivity will have a version of the gods which are very different than those whose parentage and place of birth is of eastern culture. Meaning, ones version of the gods of convenience is really a matter of the culturally appropriate gods,

Singularity is not a name - surely you realize that. Assuming that model is correct rather than the origin of our universe having actual dimensions smaller that Planck length - what caused the singularity?

Do you agree with the scientific principle of cause and effect embodied in the name Jehovah?

The cause of the singularity is not known. I see no reason to presume that Lord Vishnu or any formidable unionized conglomeration of Greek gods had any connection to the apparent beginning of the universe.

I see no scientific principle of cause and effect embodied in the name Jehovah or the god Mercury, for that matter.

 

[Newtonian]

OK, trying to get back to topic: The Divine Name YHWH contains the verb HWH (=to be) in the causative sense (= He causes to be) and imperfect verb state (= action in progress not yet complete). This is in harmony with the scientific principle of cause and effect but specifies that rather than there being an infinite number of past causes and effects going back for infinite primordial time (the time in which cause and effect proceeded to cause the creation our universe with its universe specific space-time) there is actually a First Cause!

As far as science has discovered so far, “his” first name was “singularity”.

Due to happenstance; place of birth and parentage, believers in western civilization with almost universal exclusivity will have a version of the gods which are very different than those whose parentage and place of birth is of eastern culture. Meaning, ones version of the gods of convenience is really a matter of the culturally appropriate gods,

Singularity is not a name - surely you realize that. Assuming that model is correct rather than the origin of our universe having actual dimensions smaller that Planck length - what caused the singularity?

Do you agree with the scientific principle of cause and effect embodied in the name Jehovah?

The cause of the singularity is not known. I see no reason to presume that Lord Vishnu or any formidable unionized conglomeration of Greek gods had any connection to the apparent beginning of the universe.

I see no scientific principle of cause and effect embodied in the name Jehovah or the god Mercury, for that matter.

Ah - you don't see!

You are correct that the name Mercury does not have cause and effect as part of the definition of that name.

Meaning, origin and history of the name Mercury

The meaning, origin and history of the given name Mercury

www.behindthename.com

"From the Latin Mercurius, probably derived from Latin mercari "to trade" or merces "wages". This was the name of the Roman god of trade, merchants, and travellers, later equated with the Greek god Hermes."

However, the name of the author of the Bible (Jehovah) does have cause and effect as part of the definitions of H3068/Yehovah/Jehovah. YHWH (the original Hebrew had only consonants - no vowels) has the verb hawah/HWH in the causative sense and the Hebrew imperfect verb state (= action in progress not yet complete) and thus a primary definition of the name Jehovah is 'He causes to be.'

 

[Hollie]

OK, trying to get back to topic: The Divine Name YHWH contains the verb HWH (=to be) in the causative sense (= He causes to be) and imperfect verb state (= action in progress not yet complete). This is in harmony with the scientific principle of cause and effect but specifies that rather than there being an infinite number of past causes and effects going back for infinite primordial time (the time in which cause and effect proceeded to cause the creation our universe with its universe specific space-time) there is actually a First Cause!

As far as science has discovered so far, “his” first name was “singularity”.

Due to happenstance; place of birth and parentage, believers in western civilization with almost universal exclusivity will have a version of the gods which are very different than those whose parentage and place of birth is of eastern culture. Meaning, ones version of the gods of convenience is really a matter of the culturally appropriate gods,

Singularity is not a name - surely you realize that. Assuming that model is correct rather than the origin of our universe having actual dimensions smaller that Planck length - what caused the singularity?

Do you agree with the scientific principle of cause and effect embodied in the name Jehovah?

The cause of the singularity is not known. I see no reason to presume that Lord Vishnu or any formidable unionized conglomeration of Greek gods had any connection to the apparent beginning of the universe.

I see no scientific principle of cause and effect embodied in the name Jehovah or the god Mercury, for that matter.

Ah - you don't see!

You are correct that the name Mercury does not have cause and effect as part of the definition of that name.

Meaning, origin and history of the name Mercury

The meaning, origin and history of the given name Mercury

www.behindthename.com

"From the Latin Mercurius, probably derived from Latin mercari "to trade" or merces "wages". This was the name of the Roman god of trade, merchants, and travellers, later equated with the Greek god Hermes."

However, the name of the author of the Bible (Jehovah) does have cause and effect as part of the definitions of H3068/Yehovah/Jehovah. YHWH (the original Hebrew had only consonants - no vowels) has the verb hawah/HWH in the causative sense and the Hebrew imperfect verb state (= action in progress not yet complete) and thus a primary definition of the name Jehovah is 'He causes to be.'

There is no reason to accept that Jehovah wrote any of the tales and fables that became the bibles. That completely contradicts the notion that any of the alleged apostles wrote the bibles.

Your argument is best aimed at the competing sects/subdivisions of chriatianity.

 

[Hollie]

OK, trying to get back to topic: The Divine Name YHWH contains the verb HWH (=to be) in the causative sense (= He causes to be) and imperfect verb state (= action in progress not yet complete). This is in harmony with the scientific principle of cause and effect but specifies that rather than there being an infinite number of past causes and effects going back for infinite primordial time (the time in which cause and effect proceeded to cause the creation our universe with its universe specific space-time) there is actually a First Cause!

As far as science has discovered so far, “his” first name was “singularity”.

Due to happenstance; place of birth and parentage, believers in western civilization with almost universal exclusivity will have a version of the gods which are very different than those whose parentage and place of birth is of eastern culture. Meaning, ones version of the gods of convenience is really a matter of the culturally appropriate gods,

Singularity is not a name - surely you realize that. Assuming that model is correct rather than the origin of our universe having actual dimensions smaller that Planck length - what caused the singularity?

Do you agree with the scientific principle of cause and effect embodied in the name Jehovah?

The cause of the singularity is not known. I see no reason to presume that Lord Vishnu or any formidable unionized conglomeration of Greek gods had any connection to the apparent beginning of the universe.

I see no scientific principle of cause and effect embodied in the name Jehovah or the god Mercury, for that matter.

Ah - you don't see!

You are correct that the name Mercury does not have cause and effect as part of the definition of that name.

Meaning, origin and history of the name Mercury

The meaning, origin and history of the given name Mercury

www.behindthename.com

"From the Latin Mercurius, probably derived from Latin mercari "to trade" or merces "wages". This was the name of the Roman god of trade, merchants, and travellers, later equated with the Greek god Hermes."

However, the name of the author of the Bible (Jehovah) does have cause and effect as part of the definitions of H3068/Yehovah/Jehovah. YHWH (the original Hebrew had only consonants - no vowels) has the verb hawah/HWH in the causative sense and the Hebrew imperfect verb state (= action in progress not yet complete) and thus a primary definition of the name Jehovah is 'He causes to be.'

The "cause and effect" sidetrack regarding the Greek god Mercury is misplaced. Do you agree that the Greek god Mercury was a precursor god to Jehovah?