Alleles or Alleluia?

[JackRT]

Alleluia

Actually it is "hallelujah" from the Hebrew and meaning "praise to Yah".

 

[MasonP]

No.

See if you can spot the true religion:

1. Love thine enemies.
2. Convert Infidels, lest they need to die.
3. There are no gods, and if you meet Buddha on the road, kill him.
4. Shiva desires destruction.

Counting numbers.3,532,223 so far.

OK

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually it is "hallelujah" from the Hebrew and meaning "praise to Yah".

Yah ... and I'm Genghis Khan.

 

[AV1611VET]

OK

OK, what?

 

[JackRT]

Yah ... and I'm Genghis Khan.

Glad to meet you Mr. Khan. Actually the use of "hallelujah" in Christian liturgy was imposed by papal decree in the fifth century.

 

[AV1611VET]

Glad to meet you Mr. Khan. Actually the use of "hallelujah" in Christian liturgy was imposed by papal decree in the fifth century.

That's probably because they were jealous of Anabaptists using it for centuries without a decree.

praise ye Jehovah, frequently rendered "Praise ye the LORD," stands at the beginning of ten of the psalms (106, 111-113, 135, 146-150), hence called "hallelujah psalms." From its frequent occurrence it grew into a formula of praise. The Greek form of the word (alleluia) is found in Re 19:1,3-4,6

 

[JackRT]

That's probably because they were jealous of Anabaptists using it for centuries without a decree.

Your abysmal lack of knowledge of Christian history continues to amaze me. I suppose that might be too much posting and not enough study.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your abysmal lack of knowledge of Christian history continues to amaze me. I suppose that might be too much posting and not enough study.

I did my homework.

That's why I'm not four different denominations in one.

 

[MasonP]

OK, what?

If that's the way you want to use up your very short life, OK.

 

[In situ]

Please vote responsibly.

I don't understand the question.

 

[In situ]

Creation:

Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding

A friend of mine told me the other day, when I disused with him about what was going on on this forum, that "I am the one who created the world, when I was terrible drunk. I promise to never do it again. I feel the highest remorse." He then added "If you tell people that I, the creator, have said it then it means you are a "prophet".".

If you want AV, I can bring all your question about the creation of the heavens and the Earth to him and have him, the creator, answer them for you.

By the way, I noticed you left out the question when Gods asked if man knows how the child is formed in the woman womb. But since science already answered that question I don't think it will be needed to bring that one.

Signed: In Situ - the Prophet of the Creator.

 

[In situ]

I have said many times there is no conflict between Science and the Bible. What part of that are you having problems understanding?

The part that you consider to be 'science'. You know, you are entitled to your own beliefs, but you are not entitled to your own definitions.

 

[AV1611VET]

Signed: In Situ - the Prophet of the Creator.

You're a false prophet then.

All prophecies ended with the completion of the Scriptures in AD 96.

 

[MasonP]

All prophecies ended with the completion of the Scriptures in AD 96.

The Bible was still having things added to it long after that.
Take this for instance:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/aprilweb-only/117-31.0.html

The story of the woman caught in adultery, usually found in John 7:53-8:11, was missing from three of the texts, and was out of place in a fourth, tacked on to the end of John's Gospel.

"This is way out of proportion for manuscripts from the 9th century and following," Wallace said. "Once we get into that era, the manuscripts start conforming much more to each other. Thus, to find some that didn't have the story is remarkable."

 

[AV1611VET]

The Bible was still having things added to it long after that.

You can believe that if you want to, but as for me, I'll go with the fact that anyone purporting to be a prophet after AD 96 will be considered a false prophet.

And that includes In situ.

 

[MasonP]

You can believe that if you want to, but as for me, I'll go with the fact that anyone purporting to be a prophet after AD 96 will be considered a false prophet.

There is no such thing as a prophet and anyone was able to add stuff to the bible.
One of the biggest additions was Mark 16:9-20
The addition of this ending brought Mark into line with the other Gospels and smoothed over any inconsistencies.

 

[AV1611VET]

One of the biggest additions was Mark 16:9-20

IF, as you say, it was added, then it was added because someone took it out.

In other words, it was added back in.

 

[MasonP]

IF, as you say, it was added, then it was added because someone took it out.
In other words, it was added back in.

Yes of course it was.

As the saying goes: There's none so blind as those who will not see.

 

[AV1611VET]

As the saying goes: There's none so blind as those who will not see.

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

 

[Mobezom]

Oh, for goodness' sake. The choice to use "allele" as an opposite to "alleluia" is ridiculous. Alleles are definitely existent.