davidylan:

no problem bros. Nothing taken personal... things get said in the heat of the moment.

plaetton: @davidylan:
Now back to topic,
The main question is whether there is a clear disticntion between a Temple and An High Place in the bible.
Your refuse to simply answer that question by asserting that both serve the same purpose as places of worship and sacrifice.
It still does not answer the question of whether they are distinct or not.

By this twisted logic, on can also say wooden shrines or alters in the bush are also nouns for Temples since they both serve the same purpose, and therefore are not distinct.

Or, that since a donkey and tractor trailer both haul people and goods from one point to another, both serve the same purpose, and therefore one is not distinct from the other. Are you willing to agree to this?

frosbel: Good to see mankind make peace and not war !!

plaetton:

Frosybel, and what is your take on this debate?
Is there a clear distinction between a Temple and an High Place in the biblical context?

frosbel:


In some instances the nouns temple and high place can be used interchangeably , biblically speaking.

For example :

"Then Solomon built a temple for Chamos the idol of Moab, on the hill that is over against Jerusalem, and for Moloch the idol of the children of Ammon." - 1 Kings 11:7

plaetton:

No sir. The bible never said that. The bible said" High Places", not Temple.
C'mon , this is the inerrant word of god. You cannot replace words with your artificial nouns anythime it suits you. That is called blasphemy.

davidylan:

The funny thing is how atheists employ mental gymnastics. One debate they will only accept the KJV, in another they will NEVER consider the KJV. So long as their point is the "right" one.

davidylan:

The funny thing is how atheists employ mental gymnastics. One debate they will only accept the KJV, in another they will NEVER consider the KJV. So long as their point is the "right" one.

plaetton:

He he he. So you are back again with bible versions. Thats a laugh.
Now, if the bible has different versions saying different things, does it make any sense to even have any sensible debate about what the the bible says? But if your bible says temples in place of High places, kindly tell me which version and I'll simply check it out.

Enigma:

One thing I find quite pitiable and rather pitiful is the desperation to discredit Christianity at all costs, by all means, on anything (even ordinarily innocuous things as I pointed out on another thread recently) ---- which leads to the mental gymnastics, intellectual bankruptcy and/or dishonesty.

davidylan:

Bros, i have never seen such level of dishonesty until i started running into NL atheists.

Enigma:

One thing I find quite pitiable and rather pitiful is the desperation to discredit Christianity at all costs, by all means, on anything (even ordinarily innocuous things as I pointed out on another thread recently) ---- which leads to the mental gymnastics, intellectual bankruptcy and/or dishonesty.

Enigma:

The shameless disregard for intellectual honesty, ready disposition to accepting and spreading conspiracy theories, empty grandstanding means I don't take quite a lot of them (and even some of their supposed non-atheist supporters with the same disposition) seriously.

davidylan:

I could barely believe my eyes when plaetton said that the greatest distinction between a temple and a high place was that the temple was permanent and anchored to the earth while the high place was temporal in nature. I thought i had wandered into the jokes section by mistake.

plaetton:
Seasons greetings and welcome to the discussions.
So what is your own personal opinion on the distinction and or similarity between a Temple and an High Place?.

And by the way, should we sign a peace treaty this coming year or maintain status quo?

davidylan:

I could barely believe my eyes when plaetton said that the greatest distinction between a temple and a high place was that the temple was permanent and anchored to the earth while the high place was temporal in nature. I thought I had wandered into the jokes section by mistake.

plaetton:

I still maintain that and I am quite sure you understand english well enough.
What I was trying to convey is that a Temple is purpose-built for a whole lot religious duties ,an High Place is designated, mostly on mountaintops for ritual sacrifices.

plaetton:
But why did the Nabataens, that you referred to earlier, have both their High Places and their Temple, in the same vicinity? Surely, they must have known better than you, that they were distinct. Don't you think?

plaetton:
But lets face the facts and stop pretending.
I have the KJV in from of me. In describes how Solomon painstakingly designed and built a TEMPLE. In further chapters it reminds us that Solomon later built an High Place.
Now, here we have the same bible, same version, in the same book, same saga, using Temple in one story and then High Places in another.
And you Davidylan, and the rest of you, are telling us, the the biblical authors and later day translators and revisionists did not understand that a Temple and an High Place of sacrifice are the same?
Is that really your point?

frosbel:

a plausible possibility !

Enigma:

Seasons greetings.

I don't need to express an opinion; I am happy to watch and chip in whatever I feel like chipping in.

I'm not at war with anybody and don't need to sign any peace treaty. My stance remains that I do not readily engage in discussions with those who have an intellectually dishonest disposition and a predilection for conspiracy theories.

vanstanzy:

Its not just a plausible possibility, its an exact account. Check this out: "Then Solomon built a temple for Chamos the idol of Moab, on the hill that is over against Jerusalem, and for Moloch the idol of the children of Ammon." - 1 Kings 11:7

davidylan:

Again the same attempt at splitting hairs. What were the "religious duties" taking place in the temple? Was it not the exact same ritual sacrifices taking place on high places? So what exactly was the difference in the purpose for both places?



Did they really? You didnt provide any evidence for this beyond two fotos that could be a picture of Idanre hills for all we know. Can you CLEARLY show us that they had a high place and temple IN THE SAME AREA? Please provide the concrete proof with fotos.





this is becoming a dreadfully unfunny joke. You dont seem to be reading the bible with any depth of understanding at all. You just take the literal words and build a high place as a monument to your own ignorance.

Those same "high places" you claim solomon built were also referred to as temples in other lands. Take for example the temple to the philistine god of dagon.

plaetton:

Good. I'm glad no war.
When you say intellectually dishonest disposition, I hope you are not referring to me because I am far from being or doing anything intellectual, Unless, you are giving me a promotion.
In that case, Thank you.

But you and I quite different.
I do like to engage in discussion with people who have an intellectually dishonest disposition. That is why I love to argue with religious people, especially the educated ones.
Honestly speaking,I am still trying to see where and how religious belief interfaces with the intellect. Its an honest search.
I may never understand it.

As for conspiracies, they exists, otherwise we would not even have the word or have conspiracy as crime on our criminal codes.
For example, I can tell you that right this moment, thousands of intellectually dishonest men and women are conspiring about how they are going to pick the pockets of others tomorrow in churches throughout most of the world, especially Nigeria.
If that makes me a conspiracy nut, then I will wear it a great badge of honour.

plaetton:

Here we go again. Now you are acusing me of taking the bible literal?
Big laugh again.
So when the bible says temple, it is temple, but when it says High places, I should not be literal, but I should be scriptural to see it as Temples too, right?
And what other lands are you referring to ?

davidylan:

I'm not interested in the long story. Please provide evidence that the nabateans had a temple and high place within the same vicinity. thanks.

frosbel:


hahaha , giberrish is the word, yes of course it is

happy new year Mclatunji !!

plaetton:

This is an example.

The Temple, popularly known as the Qasr al-Bint Firaun ("The Castle of Pharaoh's Daughter", was a large free-standing structure, built of massive blocks of yellow sandstone. It has been extensively restored. Dushara was the principal god of the Nabataeans; his partner, the fertility goddess Atagartis, was worshipped at the Temple of the Winged Lions, which faces the Temple of Dushara from a low rise to the north-east of the Temenos gateway. In Roman times, these temples would have been taken over for the worship of the appropriate Roman gods, possibly Apollo and Artemis respectively. In the city's Byzantine period, it is likely that they were also adapted for Christian worship.

http://nabataea.net/burial.html

High Places
Scattered around the burial cities are hundreds of high places. Some of these are proper high places with evidence of altars, and other items. Others are different. In most of these cases steps lead up the side of mountains or rocks to a small flat ledge or surface area. On many of these ledges or hilltops, there is little room to stand. I suspect that these places were not actually high places in the religious sense, but that they were places where the dead were exposed to the elements. Visitors to Petra unknowingly pass many of these spots as they walk among the tombs. (Right: One of the many highplaces in Petra. Below: The Robinson High Place in Petra)

maclatunji:

Thank you for not arguing like David. You mention a Prophet, we Muslims are going to show-up. Let no one come and tell me Solomon was a king, that goes without saying.

davidylan:

And how exactly does this show that a temple and high place (2 distinct worship buildings) were in the same vicinity? Are we still in the joke section?