From now on if I want to get someone to believe something apparently all I have to say is that THE LORD said it.

Or: IT IS WRITTEN THAT.....

Any attempt to prove the Scripture with the Scripture is very Unlogical and bad intellectual practice!
Citing a Passage,to prove that Passage is slightly ridiculous!

...sayeth the Lord.

It's pronounced "Lloyd"....

Who's trying to prove anything with the scriptures? If you wish to know if the scriptures are reliable, you will seek this yourself. If you do not care or do not wish to know, you will not know. No one can prove to anyone anything is true or real unless that person finds it for themselves or just accepts it.

By whom?

Cowboy you aren't going to hash over that "No one can prove to anyone anything" crap again are you? Really, that is getting old.

To answer your question, when you over scripture as "evidence" for something, you are trying to "convince" someone of something by using what you consider to be an "authority."

Morningsong considers scripture to be an authority. So it is she is trying to convince. That is what we call "prove."

Good point.

al·ien   [eyl-yuhn, ey-lee-uhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
a resident born in or belonging to another country who has not acquired citizenship by naturalization (distinguished from citizen).
2.
a foreigner.
3.
a person who has been estranged or excluded.
4.
a creature from outer space; extraterrestrial.

Depending upon how one defines 'alien' can determine how one perceives many passages in The Bible.

In definition 1 there were Jews and Gentiles mentioned in the Bible in the New Testament.

In definition 2 and 3 there was the 'unknown' God as perceived in the passage where they were all these statues of Gods in the New Testament. I read where the Romans had so many gods and were afraid of them that they had this 'unknown' God place just in case they had missed one.

Definition 4 seems the most interesting one to me since Jesus' mother was human. You know, Mary. Joseph was Jesus' stepfather. But when you think of it God it is extraterrestial and from outer space in the Biblical sense since he was known in Genesis as the creator. But, of course, in Genesis, we find that God is talking to someone or some other entity when God says, "Let us create man in our image." We find that even God had an anger management problem with this other entity. The Bible gives this text, too. "Be ye angry but sin not." This has been a real challenge for me.

Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath: Ephesians 4:26

If you consider the great flood where a lot of folks had trouble in doing their genealogy you can understand where I am coming from.

1. The term "Jew" was not in the earlier versions of the Bible.

2. Judaens are not Jews.

The best known 18th century editions of the New Testament in English are the Rheims (Douai) Edition and the King James Authorized Edition. The Rheims (Douai) translation of the New Testament into English was first printed in 1582 but the word "Jew" did not appear in it.

The King James Authorized translation of the New Testament into English was begun in 1604 and first published in 1611. The word "Jew" did not appear in it either. The word "Jew" appeared in both these well known editions in their 18th century revised versions for the first times.

3. The great flood is a myth. (So sayeth the Lord.)

Prove to me the world is rotating, and I will prove to you God is real.

Any attempt to prove the world is rotating with a rotating world is very Unlogical and bad intellectual practice!

By Stanley Stupid.

Reason I said the above wasn't to get into science talk or anything of such, was to prove a point. No one's here trying to prove anything, nothing can be proven in this world.

Scientific fact -
World is round or a spherical shape
The world rotates on an axis.

And so on and so on. But none of this can be "proven". It is merely "accepted" as truth. This applies to all knowledge, not just the knowledge at hand.

"The world rotates!" sayeth the Lord.

So which came first - The Jew or the Jew's Harp?

Answer: The Harp came first, but that was not what it was called.

The instrument itself is older than the name "Jew's harp."


From Wiki:

The Jew's harp, jaw harp, mouth harp, Ozark harp, trump or juice harp, is thought to be one of the oldest musical instruments in the world;[1] a musician apparently playing it can be seen in a Chinese drawing from the 4th century BC.[2] Despite its common English name, and the sometimes used Jew's trump, it has no particular connection with the Jewish people or Judaism. This instrument is native to Asia and used in all tribes of Turkic peoples in Asia where it is variously referred to as a temir komuz (literally, iron komuz), agiz komuzu (literally, mouth komuz) or gubuz.

The instrument is known in many different cultures by many different names. The common English name "Jew's harp" may be considered controversial or potentially misleading, and is thus avoided by some speakers. Another name used to identify the instrument, especially in scholarly literature, is the older English trump, while guimbarde, the French word for the instrument, can be found in unabridged dictionaries and is featured in recent revival efforts.

Shalom

I believe you have a valid question. The scriptures say to prove all things.

With this at eyes length then you would have to believe those who say they believe could give a reasonable answer.

I do hope that someone will actually look deep enough to give you one.

Yet as has been said here thier are alot of " Catch phrases". This is the world of modern day religion.. Blessings...Miles

"The Lord said" is a way of description of communication felt by
the biblical character with God. It does not imply for example
that God has a mouth or teeth or breath or gums.



Certainly not a human voice.



Why in the world would you take such a thing so literally when
many other places in the bible it says clearly that God has no form
and no shape and is infinite etc.

Same thing with the hand of God denoting an action which is attributed
to God. Oh for Pete's sake. It is not like God has fingers. Well Jesus
had fingers but that's different.



This thread is another one of those things which is not so divinely inspired...

What I take literally is that other people take it literally. People do not speak in riddles. They didn't 2000 years ago either. When someone says "The Lord said..." they meant to say exactly that.

The Bible is not a coherent book that hangs together and agrees with itself. It is a combination of different books written by different men.

"If they did not mean "The Lord said" then they should not have said it."

(But the Lord also said, Don't quote me.)

For anyone to claim or write that the Lord (who ever that was supposed to be) said something to them is making the claim that he speaks directly to God. Then he quotes him, writes it down, and calls that divine inspiration.

B.S. and hearsay unsubstantiated.




Ah but it IS divinely inspired. (The Lord told me to tell you that.)

The point is, if you believe them then you should believe anyone else who makes that claim.

Not much being said on these forumns anymore.

Abra-Ca-Dabra must of made himself disappear