"TIMITS" Revisited: Is it correct to describe the

[Jagella]

Due to popular demand, I've decided to again tackle the subject of what may or may not be an accurate description of the Bible god. I think it's safe to say that most Christians would reject or at least not affirm that the god they believe in can be accurately described as "The Invisible Man In The Sky." They probably feel that "TIMITS" is not a name that most people can respect because it makes the Bible god appear to be mythological or even the product a a child's imagination.

While I think the name TIMITS fits well, another member here disagrees.

Invisible

Might have a problem here. Just because something is unseen does not mean that it is invisible. My brother lives on the other side of the country; I cannot see him, but he is not invisible.

God dwells in the spiritual realm (in unapproachable light). We may not currently see Him; but that does not mean He is invisible; nor does it mean that other spirit beings cannot see Him. As well, what would be the point of God saying, 'No one can see me and live'... if He was invisible, if no one could see Him, ever? Would He not have said instead, "No one can see me because I am invisible"?

"No one can see me and live" implies rather than that He is too powerful a being for us to physically (stand in His presence and) see Him. At least not in this vessel (the body that we currently inhabit).

Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

This argument is very easy to disprove. The Bible god is indeed invisible. Just read Colossians 1:15:

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

Question for Debate: Would anybody else like to affirm or deny that the Bible god is The Invisible Man In The Sky?

[JehovahsWitness]

So is your position that every single occurrence of the word heaven in the bible ONLY refers to the literal sky where birds fly and it never refers to a spiritual realm where God and the angels abide invisible to humans? Is that the point you are making?

Absolutely not.

So what point are you making (above and beyond that you believe the bible "cannot be true as is written", which from what I can tell was NOT the point of discussion) and how is this illusive point - which we have yet to identify - relevant* to what I have posted?

* I presume it is somehow relevant since you seem to be addressing your words to me.


So let's go back to your initial response ...I posted

# While the Hebrew word translated as the English "heaven" covers what we call the "sky" ie the atmospher surrounding the earth were birds fly) the same word also, and more frequently refer to the spirit realm. It is arguably this meaning that is exclusively used when speaking of God's literal location.

Your responsd to that, in part, that was ....

... The Gospels have the disciples of Jesus watch his physical body ascend up into the clouds.

We have yet to establish whyyou felt the need to share this information with me in response to the words in the post. Is there any part of what was written that you feel was factually inaccurate?




JW

[Jagella]

Would anybody else like to affirm or deny that the Bible god is The Invisible Man In The Sky?

I don't believe the above statement to be true.

We're off to a good start. You answered the question for debate.

• # A man is usually defined as a human of the male sex and the bible explicitly states God is a spirit (John 4:24).

"Spirit" and "man" are not mutually exclusive terms. The Bible god can be, and often is, thought of as both man and spirit.

NOTE: The bible often uses metaphors, describing God as having "eyes", "hands" "arms" "feet" etc) these figures of speech they help us understand his nature and capacities. Scholars call such terms anthropomorphic (see further reading below)
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102008370

One of the biggest problems in Christian apologetics is to explain away problematical Bible passages as being metaphorical. While there are obvious metaphors used in the Bible, it's not proper to label anything as symbolic merely to avoid an obvious error if that thing is taken literally. So the Bible god, if portrayed as being like a man, should be accepted as being like a man. If he is said to have human body parts, then that's what he is believed to have had unless the the text indicates that those members are merely symbolic.

# While it is true God is described as being invisible to humans, the bible implies Him to be visible to fellow spirits; thus the bible God is not "invisible" in the absolute sense.

Well, has anybody seen him aside from those "fellow spirits" who aren't talking about it? What does he look like? If he's present, and yet unseen, then he is invisible, obviously.

# While the Hebrew wordtranslated as the English "heaven" covers what we call the "sky" ie the atmopher surrounding the earth were birds fly) the same word also, and more frequently refer to the spirit realm. It is arguably this meaning that is exclusively used when speaking of God's literal location.[/list]

You haven't accomplished much here because the "spirit realm" is often represented as being in the sky. If we look at the Greek word for "heavenly" as in passages like Matthew 5:48, we see the Greek word for heavenly, ο��άνιος, can be translated as "in the sky." So "heavenly Father" (Greek Πατὴ� � ο��άνιος), can be translated as "Father in the Sky."

CONCLUSION

I contend that all three markers in the expression The Invisible [1] Man[2] In The Sky[3] are at the very least linguistically and biblically ambiguous and at the most totally inaccurate

After seeing the evidence I've posted that TIMITS is indeed the real view of the Bible god (Jehovah), any informed person should accept TIMITS as an accurate representation.

[Divine Insight]

We have yet to establish whyyou felt the need to share this information with me in response to the words in the post. Is there any part of what was written that you feel was factually inaccurate?

I'm taking into consideration the entire context of this thread and specifically the topic of the OP and your response to it.

The OP is basically saying:

TIMITS = "The Invisible Man In The Sky."

{snip}

While I think the name TIMITS fits well, another member here disagrees.

{snip}

This argument is very easy to disprove. The Bible god is indeed invisible. Just read Colossians 1:15:

Your apologetic argument is that the term "heaven" supposedly doesn't always need to refer to "sky" and that you personally have accepted the apologetic argument that the term "heaven" in the Bible actually should be taken to mean "spiritual" rather than "sky".

I'm simply pointing out that this apology for this specific problem fails miserably because there are clearly other places in the Gospels where the sky is indeed being used as the place where God resides.

I gave the specific example of Jesus "ascending into the clouds" where the term "heaven" isn't even used. Thus demonstrating that a mere semantic apology isn't going to solve this problem.

I can also point to the places where God's voice "speaks from the clouds". Again, implying that God is in the sky looking down on humans.

In other words TIMITS is a valid description of the Biblical God. An invisible God who speaks from the clouds.

So your appeal to the idea that maybe the term "heaven" doesn't always need to refer to the sky is basically a meaningless apologetic argument against viewing this God as TIMITS.

So I'm not even rejecting your semantic argument. I'm saying that even if the word "heaven" doesn't always refer to the sky this doesn't help in this particular case.

In other words, the apology you are making against TIMITS fails even if your apology is TRUE! There are simply too many other references and descriptions that clearly have God residing in the sky and being invisible that any argument that the term 'heaven' doesn't always need to mean 'sky' is hardly going to make a compelling case that TIMITS isn't a valid description of this God.

So I'm not even arguing that your apology is necessarily wrong. I'm simply pointing out that it would be irrelevant.

[tam]

Peace to you,

The Greek for "heavenly Father" is Πατὴ� � ο��άνιος. The word ο��άνιος is defined as
of or relating to the sky. So Πατὴ� � ο��άνιος can be translated as "Father of/in the sky."

As JW has pointed out, the word translated heaven refers also to the abode of God.

You are using the one definition:

the vaulted expanse of the sky with all things visible in it

How can you consider that to be the correct definition of the place where God dwells when it is a place with all things visible in it?

But it is the second definition that is referring to the abode of God, and that definition does not define exactly 'where' that place is.

the region above the sidereal heavens, the seat of order of things eternal and consummately perfect where God dwells and other heavenly beings

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/le ... 3772&t=KJV

So as I said:

God dwells in the spiritual realm (the heavens); and He can also dwell in people by means of His holy spirit (His breath, blood, seed), if indeed a person has been anointed with holy spirit (the holy spirit that Christ breathed upon His apostles, and again upon the people at Pentecost, and upon anyone who is truly a Christian - an anointed one.)

Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[JehovahsWitness]

Your apologetic argument is that the term "heaven" supposedly doesn't always need to refer to "sky" and that you personally have accepted the apologetic argument that the term "heaven" in the Bible actually should be taken to mean "spiritual" rather than "sky".

Emphasis MINE

Where did I say that I have accepted the apologetic argument that: "the term heaven in the Bible actually should be taken to mean "spiritual" rather than "sky"?

# While the Hebrew word translated as the English "heaven" covers what we call the "sky" ie the atmopher surrounding the earth were birds fly) the same word also, and more frequently refer to the spirit realm. It is arguably this meaning that is exclusively used when speaking of God's literal location.

Do you have a problem distinguishing the difference in meaning between the the words "also", and "rather than "?



JW

[Jagella]

As JW has pointed out, the word translated heaven refers also to the abode of God.

You are using the one definition:

the vaulted expanse of the sky with all things visible in it

How can you consider that to be the correct definition of the place where God dwells when it is a place with all things visible in it?

Well, as I have demonstrated, the Bible god not only dwells in the sky but Christ goes so far as to refer to him as "Father in the sky." The "abode of god" is the sky. If the Bible god dwells in a place with all "all things visible in it," then he would live in the sky because visible things are in it! You know--the sun, moon, clouds, and stars.

Oh, and where did Christ go when he left the earth to return to his Father? He went up! And what is up?

In any case, allow me to reiterate that believers are changing the Bible god to make him more consistent with modern knowledge. The ignorant and superstitious people of the "Bible days" would have no problem believing in TMITS, but now that we know so much about the real world, we need to revise the Bible god to make him an easier sell. Now he can no longer be invisible but must be moved far away to explain why he is unseen, and he must be removed from the sky to explain why we don't really find him there. He is now in some ill-defined "spirit realm" the location of which is unknown or at least unspecified. There he is safe from the prying eyes of skeptics and their troubling tendency to insist he be observed and his existence verified. He is a "spirit" that we now insist is no man. Spirits, after all, are much more difficult to disprove than men.

So apologists make the Bible god a moving target and they hope harder to shoot down.

[William]

Christian imagery often depicts their idea of GOD as a being in the clouds...



But where else but out is one to go?

(Up is not really an accurate description)

[Jagella]

Christian imagery often depicts their idea of GOD as a being in the clouds...

Yes--exactly. Where do you think I got the idea of TIMITS? I didn't make it up but got it directly from the Bible and Christians.

But where else but out is one to go?

(Up is not really an accurate description)

Does the Bible say Jesus went sideways? Consider the following Bible passages:

John 20:17

Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father...

John 3:13

No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.

John 6:62

Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?

So the Bible god is clearly located up in the sky. You must ascend to get to him. You go up into the sky, and there he is!

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 38 by Jagella]

I just don't understand why Christians would object to referring to their God as TIMITS anyway. Do they think it would be degrading for an invisible God to speak from the clouds?

It just doesn't make any sense. They seem to embarrassed by all the things their God does and feel that they need to apologize for everything.

And I certainly don't see how they could argue that he's much different from Santa Claus.

He knows when they are sleeping.
He knows when they're awake
He knows if they've been bad or good
and keeps track for heaven's sake!

He's making a list
He's checking it twice;
He's gonna find out who's naughty or nice
And those who are good he'll grant them a kiss
But those who are bad will be cast in abyss

Aren't these all properties of the Biblical God? The TIMITS that's keeping tabs on every person 24/7 non-stop?

Doesn't the Bible say that God is keeping a book of names of those who will be granted eternal life and of those who will be condemned into eternal condemnation?

It's just Santa Claus for adults.

Instead of a lump of coal the naughty children are condemned into eternal hell.

That's about the only difference.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 38 by Jagella]

I just don't understand why Christians would object to referring to their God as TIMITS anyway. Do they think it would be degrading for an invisible God to speak from the clouds?

Since I cannot read minds I'm forced to speculate. I do know that many of the pagan gods were believed to live in some "high place" like the sky or on a mountaintop. They might rain down their wrath from the clouds on those mortals who displeased them. They often did so while "unseen" or invisible. Finally, they were very often manlike in both behavior and in appearance (if they were seen on occasion, they often looked like men and women).

In other words, they were very similar to the Bible god. That similarity of the Bible god to pagan gods is I think embarrassing to many Christians. They are forced to engage in special pleading insisting that the Bible god is real while denying all those other gods whose "reality" could be based on the same arguments made for the Bible god.