Home of the The Hall of Ma'at on the Internet
Home
Discussion Forums
Papers
Authors
Web Links

May 28, 2024, 2:24 pm UTC    
January 25, 2006 01:55AM
JimLewandowski Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> > Hmmmm a small guy reached into his ammo pouch
> and
> > took out a bullet
>
> ***
> Stone.

bullet - gun
stone- sling
*ammo- weapon* get it?



> and loaded his weapon(sling). He
> > shot the the big attacker in the head killing
> him
> > instantly.
>
> ***
> It says "the stone sunk in his forehead". Think
> about it. Two pieces of symbolism have been
> provided.

Thought about it the first time. Stone in forehead - bullet in head - ammo in head. All equal dead!


> The big guy fall down and go BOOM!!!
> > I don't see much symbolism
>
> ***
> Precisely my point. What is the reason for this?

Because it was a descriptive statement of what happened when Goliath got killed by a stone from a sling penetrating his forehead.

> Can you provide me an example of anything in the
> bible that you DO think is symbolic?

Find me a passage that states people will try to symbolise a news article over a big dumb guy bringing a knife to a gun fight and I will have one.


> there just an accurate
> > description of what happens when someone
> gets
> > killed instantly and "falls upon his face on
> the
> > ground" due to not being alive to break his
> fall
> > with his hands/arms.
>
> ***
> Why would he fall face first?

Physics?

Isn't it possible
> that he would crumple to the ground rather than
> "fall"?

Are you saying it is impossible to "fall" rather then crumple?

And, the word EARTH is used, not ground.
> Think about it.

And what ground do you walk on if not earth? What if they had said soil, sand, mud, dirt, clay, or perhaps"that brown stuff that we walk over and grass and trees grow in" instead?

Perhaps Earth was a word the author liked using, similar to IMHO for some posters. Perhaps "earth" in his original language took less symbols to spell out vs. all the other words mentioned above.
Ex. Fahrvergnügen = VW around here. Which would you want to write a few hundred times?


> > Then all the newspaper stories I read where
> > someone gets knocked out in a fight, or gets
> shot
> > dead, and "falls flat out" or "falls face
> first
> > into the ground" are speaking of the identity
> of
> > God/Jesus? Gotcha!
>
> ***
> The bible isn't a newspaper (i.e. it's not
> journalism but BELIEFS). I thought that much
> would be obvious.

Try researching journalism and read the above statement again, lol.
The bible is a conglomeration of different stories much like a newspaper. You will have romance, war, poverty, violence in the streets, fishing stories, weather reports, comics, sci-fi, and money reports.


> >
> > It explains the dude, or dude-ette, is a
> penitent
> > worshipper and wants to get down on the
> ground
> > quick before they are "smitten" by their
> vengeful
> > god!
>
> ***
> They never kneel or lay down. It's always "fell
> on their face".

You kneel to pray. You lay down for a nap. You fall flat on your face, while begging for mercy, if you have sinned and think that God has come to punish you. You don't continue watering the oxen or drinking your beer and tell God to wait until you are thru. At least in the bible they didn't.


> ***
> Why would it be important to FURTHER describe the
> mountain when EVERYONE knows what a mountain looks
> like (i.e. or the story wouldn't be able to relate
> to the intended audience/reader)? The bible is
> littered (pun intended) with references to
> rocks/stones/hail/hailstones normally in
> conjunction with God being nearby or present.

You would think so wouldn'tcha? Here in OKlahoma they have Mount Scott. I call it a molehill. It would be, at best, a foothill(stretching it alot). People I know have seen cotton in lots of things and read about it in books, yet take them out to a 1000 acres of cotton plants and they have no clue what it is growing there.
Some people need the help in descriptive literature to see the picture.


> >
> > I've seen better symbolism in
> Winnie-the-Pooh
> > books!
>
> ***
> Maybe you don't understand symbolism? Or, maybe
> you don't think it is valid (evidence) to show the
> consistency of the use of the terms
> rock/stone/hail/hailstone in the bible?
>

Are you saying you have never seen symbolism in Winnie the Pooh books? And you are questioning my ability to see symbolism.

Until you can put together a peer reviewed, and accepted, paper proving all these are meant in the same way then No I don't see the consistency, only belief!

Regards,
Lobo-hotei
lobo

Treat the earth well, It was not given to you by your parents, It was loaned to you by your children.
Native American Proverb
Subject Author Posted

King Tutankhamen, Queen Ankhesenamen and Moses

Andrew Earl Singer January 23, 2006 08:25AM

Re: King Tutankhamen, Queen Ankhesenamen and Moses

John Wall January 23, 2006 08:28AM

Re: King Tutankhamen, Queen Ankhesenamen and Moses

Ritva Kurittu January 23, 2006 08:35AM

Re: King Tutankhamen, Queen Ankhesenamen and Moses

Amanda R January 23, 2006 10:05AM

Re: King Tutankhamen, Queen Ankhesenamen and Moses

Ritva Kurittu January 23, 2006 10:27AM

like searching for ...

Warwick L Nixon January 23, 2006 10:43AM

Re: like searching for ...

Ritva Kurittu January 23, 2006 11:06AM

Re: King Tutankhamen, Queen Ankhesenamen and Moses

Gerd VDC January 23, 2006 10:39AM

Re: King Tutankhamen, Queen Ankhesenamen and Moses

Andrew Earl Singer January 23, 2006 07:44PM

Re: King Tutankhamen, Queen Ankhesenamen and Moses

Gerd VDC January 24, 2006 03:00AM

Re: King Tutankhamen, Queen Ankhesenamen and Moses

Andrew Earl Singer January 24, 2006 08:17AM

Re: King Tutankhamen, Queen Ankhesenamen and Moses

Pete Clarke January 24, 2006 08:39AM

Re: King Tutankhamen, Queen Ankhesenamen and Moses

Gerd VDC January 24, 2006 09:38AM

Re: King Tutankhamen, Queen Ankhesenamen and Moses

Anthony January 24, 2006 11:46AM

Re: King Tutankhamen, Queen Ankhesenamen and Moses

Anthony January 24, 2006 08:54AM

Re: King Tutankhamen, Queen Ankhesenamen and Moses

Anthony January 23, 2006 11:48AM

Re: King Tutankhamen, Queen Ankhesenamen and Moses

Greg Reeder January 23, 2006 11:12AM

Re: King Tutankhamen, Queen Ankhesenamen and Moses

Ritva Kurittu January 23, 2006 11:31AM

virtually all biblical characters

JimLewandowski January 23, 2006 11:52AM

Re: virtually all biblical characters

Roxana January 23, 2006 12:32PM

it's LOGICAL

JimLewandowski January 23, 2006 12:55PM

Re: it's LOGICAL

Roxana January 23, 2006 01:50PM

Re: it's LOGICAL

JimLewandowski January 23, 2006 02:53PM

Re: it's LOGICAL

Roxana January 23, 2006 03:36PM

are you sure??

JimLewandowski January 23, 2006 03:49PM

Re: are you sure??

Damian Walter January 23, 2006 04:34PM

Re: are you sure??

JimLewandowski January 23, 2006 04:39PM

Re: are you sure??

Damian Walter January 24, 2006 04:49AM

Re: are you sure??

Roxana January 24, 2006 12:43PM

Re: are you sure??

Damian Walter January 24, 2006 02:46PM

Waters are PRIMARY to the creation event

JimLewandowski January 24, 2006 02:51PM

further

JimLewandowski January 24, 2006 02:57PM

Re: are you sure??

Damian Walter January 24, 2006 03:19PM

Re: are you sure??

Warwick L Nixon January 24, 2006 12:51PM

Re: are you sure??

Lee January 24, 2006 01:28PM

Re: are you sure??

Warwick L Nixon January 24, 2006 01:43PM

Re: are you sure??

Lee January 24, 2006 02:13PM

Re: are you sure??

Roxana January 24, 2006 03:27PM

Re: are you sure??

JimLewandowski January 24, 2006 03:39PM

Re: are you sure??

Lee January 25, 2006 10:56AM

Re: are you sure??

Roxana January 25, 2006 03:13PM

no implying of any kind

JimLewandowski January 24, 2006 02:36PM

Re: no implying of any kind

Warwick L Nixon January 24, 2006 02:49PM

Re: no implying of any kind

JimLewandowski January 24, 2006 02:54PM

Re: no implying of any kind

Warwick L Nixon January 24, 2006 03:03PM

Re: it's LOGICAL

Damian Walter January 23, 2006 01:54PM

Re: it's LOGICAL

JimLewandowski January 23, 2006 03:04PM

Re: it's LOGICAL

Damian Walter January 23, 2006 04:19PM

Re: it's LOGICAL

JimLewandowski January 23, 2006 04:31PM

Re: it's LOGICAL

Roxana January 23, 2006 03:32PM

Remember, the REASON for religion/religious writings

JimLewandowski January 23, 2006 03:50PM

Re: Remember, the REASON for religion/religious writings

Damian Walter January 23, 2006 04:24PM

Re: Remember, the REASON for religion/religious writings

JimLewandowski January 23, 2006 04:35PM

Re: Remember, the REASON for religion/religious writings

Roxana January 24, 2006 12:46PM

Re: Remember, the REASON for religion/religious writings

Warwick L Nixon January 24, 2006 12:52PM

Re: Remember, the REASON for religion/religious writings

Roxana January 24, 2006 03:48PM

We're dealing with probabilities, not possibilities

JimLewandowski January 24, 2006 02:49PM

Re: We're dealing with probabilities, not possibilities

Damian Walter January 24, 2006 03:26PM

I have no opinion nor interest in what you've posted

JimLewandowski January 24, 2006 03:44PM

LOL! n/t

Damian Walter January 24, 2006 03:49PM

Your point doesn't address the original subject

JimLewandowski January 24, 2006 03:58PM

What can I say?

Damian Walter January 24, 2006 04:04PM

example biblical text

JimLewandowski January 24, 2006 04:14PM

Question on this biblical text

Anthony January 24, 2006 04:17PM

It doesn't matter

JimLewandowski January 24, 2006 06:19PM

Re: It doesn't matter

Anthony January 24, 2006 09:34PM

Re: It doesn't matter

JimLewandowski January 24, 2006 11:00PM

Re: It doesn't matter

Roxana Cooper January 25, 2006 10:57AM

Re: It doesn't matter

Warwick L Nixon January 25, 2006 11:12AM

you still seem to be evading the issue of the identity of God

JimLewandowski January 25, 2006 11:21AM

Re: you still seem to be evading the issue of the identity of God

Warwick L Nixon January 25, 2006 11:35AM

Re: you still seem to be evading the issue of the identity of God

Roxana January 25, 2006 12:43PM

Re: you still seem to be evading the issue of the identity of God

John Wall January 25, 2006 01:12PM

From experience, using the term exploded planet

JimLewandowski January 25, 2006 03:22PM

Re: you still seem to be evading the issue of the identity of God

Tommi Huhtamaki January 25, 2006 01:15PM

Pffffft....

Anthony January 25, 2006 01:24PM

Re: Pffffft....

Tommi Huhtamaki January 25, 2006 01:34PM

Jerry Goldsmith

JimLewandowski January 25, 2006 01:54PM

Re: Question on this biblical text

Lee January 26, 2006 02:59PM

Re: I have no opinion nor interest in what you've posted

Roxana January 24, 2006 03:50PM

the facts are the least important elements of the book

JimLewandowski January 25, 2006 12:18AM

Re: the facts are the least important elements of the book

lobo-hotei January 25, 2006 12:52AM

Re: the facts are the least important elements of the book

JimLewandowski January 25, 2006 01:17AM

Re: the facts are the least important elements of the book

lobo-hotei January 25, 2006 01:55AM

Re: the facts are the least important elements of the book

Roxana Cooper January 25, 2006 11:11AM

Re: the facts are the least important elements of the book

JimLewandowski January 25, 2006 11:27AM

Re: the facts are the least important elements of the book

Warwick L Nixon January 25, 2006 11:32AM

and I've been 100% honest about that

JimLewandowski January 25, 2006 01:28PM

Re: and I've been 100% honest about that

Warwick L Nixon January 25, 2006 01:40PM

I have no interest in fiction

JimLewandowski January 25, 2006 01:56PM

Re: the facts are the least important elements of the book

lobo-hotei January 25, 2006 11:49AM

Re: the facts are the least important elements of the book

Roxana January 25, 2006 12:50PM

Re: the facts are the least important elements of the book

lobo-hotei January 25, 2006 01:02PM

Re: the facts are the least important elements of the book

Roxana January 25, 2006 03:21PM

I'm so bad at directions I have to orient the map

JimLewandowski January 25, 2006 03:32PM

Re: the facts are the least important elements of the book

JimLewandowski January 25, 2006 01:33PM

Re: the facts are the least important elements of the book

Roxana January 25, 2006 12:47PM

You're getting closer

JimLewandowski January 25, 2006 03:31PM

Re: virtually all biblical characters

Pacal January 24, 2006 05:54PM

defining creation story

JimLewandowski January 24, 2006 08:24PM

Re: defining creation story

Pacal January 25, 2006 04:12PM

Re: defining creation story

JimLewandowski January 25, 2006 04:26PM

Re: defining creation story

Pacal January 26, 2006 07:42PM

Re: King Tutankhamen, Queen Ankhesenamen and Moses

Roxana January 23, 2006 12:28PM

Re: King Tutankhamen, Queen Ankhesenamen and Moses

Andrew Earl Singer January 23, 2006 03:56PM

Re: King Tutankhamen, Queen Ankhesenamen and Moses

John Wall January 23, 2006 04:13PM

Re: King Tutankhamen, Queen Ankhesenamen and Moses

Ritva Kurittu January 23, 2006 04:17PM

Re: King Tutankhamen, Queen Ankhesenamen and Moses

Rick B January 23, 2006 11:12PM

Re: King Tutankhamen, Queen Ankhesenamen and Moses

Marduk January 24, 2006 12:41AM

Re: King Tutankhamen, Queen Ankhesenamen and Moses

Damian Walter January 24, 2006 08:11AM

Re: King Tutankhamen, Queen Ankhesenamen and Moses

Marduk January 24, 2006 08:35AM

Re: King Tutankhamen, Queen Ankhesenamen and Moses

John Wall January 24, 2006 08:37AM

Re: King Tutankhamen, Queen Ankhesenamen and Moses

Marduk January 24, 2006 10:23AM

Re: King Tutankhamen, Queen Ankhesenamen and Moses

John Wall January 24, 2006 12:18PM

Re: King Tutankhamen, Queen Ankhesenamen and Moses

Marduk January 24, 2006 12:34PM

Re: King Tutankhamen, Queen Ankhesenamen and Moses

Damian Walter January 24, 2006 09:32AM

Re: King Tutankhamen, Queen Ankhesenamen and Moses

Marduk January 24, 2006 09:44AM

Re: King Tutankhamen, Queen Ankhesenamen and Moses

Damian Walter January 24, 2006 10:05AM

Moderator Note

Katherine Reece January 24, 2006 11:35AM

Re: King Tutankhamen, Queen Ankhesenamen and Moses

Marduk January 24, 2006 12:37PM

Re: King Tutankhamen, Queen Ankhesenamen and Moses

Damian Walter January 24, 2006 12:42PM

touche'

Warwick L Nixon January 24, 2006 12:45PM

Re: King Tutankhamen, Queen Ankhesenamen and Moses

Marduk January 24, 2006 12:53PM

Re: King Tutankhamen, Queen Ankhesenamen and Moses

Warwick L Nixon January 24, 2006 12:57PM

Re: King Tutankhamen, Queen Ankhesenamen and Moses

Marduk January 24, 2006 01:03PM

Mod note~~

lobo-hotei January 24, 2006 01:11PM

Re: Mod note~~

Marduk January 24, 2006 01:31PM

Correct. Literalism seems to have paid virtually NO

JimLewandowski January 24, 2006 10:06AM

Re: Correct. Literalism seems to have paid virtually NO

Pacal January 29, 2006 06:53PM

Re: King Tutankhamen, Queen Ankhesenamen and Moses

Hermione January 24, 2006 11:44AM

Re: King Tutankhamen, Queen Ankhesenamen and Moses

Damian Walter January 24, 2006 12:44PM



Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login