Created immortal (indestructable)?

[JehovahsWitness]

To my knowledge "immortality" is only spoken of as being a reward for certain faithful. What is the scriptural basis for saying "humans" were originally created immortal*?

- do you believe Satan is immortal?
- do you believe the wicked are immortal?

- do you believe God can destroy them (as in put an end to their existence) but will never choose to do this?

- do you believe God cannot (does not have the ability to) destroy them (put an end to their existence)?

Why?


*by immortal I mean basically "indestructable"

[William]

[Replying to post 80 by William]

Thank you first your link, I am very familiar with the word elohim and it's use in scripture but not with how you seemed to be using the word. Your wiki link did not help in this regard.

You seemed (correct me if I'm wrong ) to be using it to refer to some sub-group of individuals but who or what this group is wasn't clear.

Can you explain where in what I am saying re Elohim, gives the appearance of my seeming to be using it to refer to some sub-group of individuals - if you would be so kind as to quote me where you think this is happening I would be happy to clarify.

Thanks.

[William]

[Replying to post 94 by JehovahsWitness]

I believe the bible is the word of God

According to the bible, Jesus is who is referred to as 'The Word of God'.

Replacing Jesus with the bible is not so wise. Jesus informs that this is something to watch out for...lest deception prevails.

[William]

DP

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 80 by William]

Thank you first your link, I am very familiar with the word elohim and it's use in scripture but not with how you seemed to be using the word. Your wiki link did not help in this regard.

You seemed (correct me if I'm wrong ) to be using it to refer to some sub-group of individuals but who or what this group is wasn't clear.

Can you explain where in what I am saying re Elohim, gives the appearance of my seeming to be using it to refer to some sub-group of individuals - if you would be so kind as to quote me where you think this is happening I would be happy to clarify.

Thanks.

It was this paragraph I found confusing

You seem to think GOD as being perfect but the bible stories do not paint that picture. The picture painted is one of a species (Elohim) far more highly advanced in the sciences and able to do great awesome fear inspiring things in relation to humans but who were also woefully lacking any understanding (and thus empathy) as to what it was actually like to BE human.

Perhaps too busy trying to BE GOD? Well they had a lot to learn in that department too, by all accounts...

Can you explain what you mean ?


Thanks

JW

[William]

[Replying to post 80 by William]

Thank you first your link, I am very familiar with the word elohim and it's use in scripture but not with how you seemed to be using the word. Your wiki link did not help in this regard.

You seemed (correct me if I'm wrong ) to be using it to refer to some sub-group of individuals but who or what this group is wasn't clear.

Can you explain where in what I am saying re Elohim, gives the appearance of my seeming to be using it to refer to some sub-group of individuals - if you would be so kind as to quote me where you think this is happening I would be happy to clarify.

Thanks.

It was this paragraph I found confusing

You seem to think GOD as being perfect but the bible stories do not paint that picture. The picture painted is one of a species (Elohim) far more highly advanced in the sciences and able to do great awesome fear inspiring things in relation to humans but who were also woefully lacking any understanding (and thus empathy) as to what it was actually like to BE human.

Perhaps too busy trying to BE GOD? Well they had a lot to learn in that department too, by all accounts...

Can you explain what you mean ?


Thanks

JW

Well to be fair - what I said is self explanatory. A reader should have no confusion about that.

What I would like to know is why you then referred to the Elohim as 'some sub-group of individuals' when obviously I was not referring to them as such.

So, why have you done so? What gave you that impression that I was saying they were 'some sub-group of individuals'? Sub group of what?

I am quite happy to elaborate on what I have already said as to how I see the species, but it would be prudent first to find out exactly why you inferred what you did from what I have already said.

Thanks.

W

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 105 by William]

Well to be fair - what I said is self explanatory. A reader should have no confusion about that.

That's not fair at all, William.
If someone doesn't understand something you wrote, just re-write it more clearly.

Communication is a two way street. It serves no purpose to pretend that we are any of us PERFECT communicators.

Are you a perfect communicator, William?

[William]

Refrain from misrepresenting me please blastcat.

If you as a reader are having problems understanding what I said there, then just point out what that is and ask for clarification on that.

My post - in context - was merely asking for JW to clarify where JW felt confused.

That is why my post - in context - had this to say as well;

"I am quite happy to elaborate on what I have already said as to how I see the species, but it would be prudent first to find out exactly why you inferred what you did from what I have already said."

Your personal choice to leave that out amounts to misrepresenting what I said.

Please meditate on that - it is not the first time I have had to ask you not to misrepresent what I have said by quoting me out of context blastcat.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 107 by William]




[center]
Another unfair protest[/center]

Refrain from misrepresenting me please blastcat.

I promise to keep doing my best.
Will that be good enough?

If you as a reader are having problems understanding what I said there, then just point out what that is and ask for clarification on that.

Yeah.
Good idea.

I think you were telling someone that in your opinion, you made yourself very clear. Well, my friend, you weren't clear to him, now were you?

That's why he had asked you to clarify.
Then you complained:

You said "Well to be fair - what I said is self explanatory. A reader should have no confusion about that."... well you weren't being fair at all, in my opinion.

You might think of yourself as a perfect communicator.
I'll remain a bit skeptical about that one, if you don't mind.

"I am quite happy to elaborate on what I have already said as to how I see the species, but it would be prudent first to find out exactly why you inferred what you did from what I have already said."

That's convoluted.
Could you rephrase that?

Your personal choice to leave that out amounts to misrepresenting what I said.

I commented on your protest.

You said "to be fair" and I don't think you were being fair at all.
It's not fair to expect that others will understand everything that you happen to write, even though YOU MIGHT.

Please meditate on that - it is not the first time I have had to ask you not to misrepresent what I have said by quoting me out of context blastcat.

I quote you friend, so that I don't misrepresent your words.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 105 by William]

I thought when you referred to "species" you were referring to "elohim". What I understood is that you see "elojim" as being a highly intelligent group, but why? Who do you think these beings are and do they have anything to do with the bible narrative?

Are you talking about angels? The Nephlim? Alien lifeforms? The holy Trinity? Who?...

JW

[William]

[Replying to post 105 by William]

I thought when you referred to "species" you were referring to "elohim".

Yes I was. What I was asking you was why you took that to mean I was referring to some "sub-group of individuals " as you said. Subgroup of what exactly, I am not sure what you mean by that.

What I understood is that you see "elojim" as being a highly intelligent group, but why?

Because they are portrayed as being such, in the story of Genesis. The wiki link also gave weight to that being the case.

The word is identical to the usual plural of el meaning gods or magistrates, and is cognate to the 'l-h-m found in Ugaritic, where it is used for the pantheon of Canaanite gods, the children of El and conventionally vocalized as "Elohim". Most use of the term Elohim in the later Hebrew text imply a view that is at least monolatrist at the time of writing, and such usage (in the singular), as a proper title for the supreme deity, is generally not considered to be synonymous with the term elohim, "gods" (plural, simple noun). Hebrew grammar allows for this nominally plural form to mean "He is the Power (singular) over powers (plural)", or roughly, "God of gods".

"Elohim" essentially is not the name of GOD so much as the name of a group of Gods.

The Group is link to the Biblical story of creation.

Who do you think these beings are and do they have anything to do with the bible narrative?

Yes. See my answer above.

Are you talking about angels? The Nephlim? Alien lifeforms? The holy Trinity? Who?...

JW

Why the need to differentiate? I am talking about all of the above and more.