Ancient gods...still around

what an amusing website - I think it pretty much represents everything that non-Christians mock about Christians.

As Dr. Bob Griffin said - get a grip.

 

Maybe the question will be broached, but if so, those who love the NKJV should broach the symbol still present on their Bible.

http://www.av1611.org/nkjv.html </font>[/QUOTE]Those who love the NKJV have. Repeatedly. The Triqueta (the symbol on the NKJV) is an ancient symbol, used by the early church, to represent the Trinity.

Less seriously, it is also NOT a stylized "666", but rather *three* (Trinitarian) stylized "777"s:


Yes, like other symbols, less-than-Christian groups have used a symbol for their own purpose. That does not mean the symbol itself is evil - it only means the *intended meaning in the context* of what it is used for is good or bad.

The symbol of the rainbow (God's sign of his promise) is used by New-Ager's and gay pride groups. The Star of David (on the flag of Israel) is used by Satanists as a "hexagram". A variation on the Christian cross is the center-piece of the Nazi Swastika. The early Christian symbol of the fish (seen on cars nowadays) is used by astrologers for Pisces.

It is not the symbol itself that is wrong - a symbol is just an image. Instead, it is what the symbol it *intended to represent by the person using it*.

God bless,
Brian

 

So, let me get this. Most posters are saying that the symbols plastered throughout the Mormon Temple in Utah have no spiritual significance, but are placed there merely to provide some aesthetic interest to the architecture?

Doesn't this ignore the history of Mormonism? After all, as I understand it, Joseph Smith was heavily involved with Freemasonry which is replete with symbols such as these. Are we supposed to believe that the symbols festooning every Masonic hall is mere beautification of their buildings? Please!

 

Brian, why did you not use the symbol on the front of your NKJV as proof of your point? Why drag the KJV into the debate with an illustration dating back almost four hundred years when you have a perfectly good contemporary example sitting before you in the NKJV?

I think this is another example of those who are proponents of the MVs taking every opportunity to put down the most glorious translation of the Scriptures that ever came into the English language.

 

No. They *do* have spiritual significance. But the significance is limited to the context of the Mormon temple, because the intentions of those who placed the symbols there in the first place. The significance is not "universal" - i.e. just because some Mormon used it for one reason, doesn't mean the rest of the world is forever bound to Mormonism if they use a similar (or same) symbol for a completely different reason.

I don't understand your question. Wall's link did not mention the Triqueta, so it was not even part of the discussion until you brought it up.

The original poster's link was about the sun god image, the moon god image, the inverted star, and egg shapes, and how wrong it was to have anything that had any of these symbols. It reminded me of the title page of the 1611 KJV NT, so I mentioned it. I apologize for not thinking of (and mentioning) every Christian symbol in use throughout the last 2,000 years, in my very first post.

Nope, sorry. I love the KJV. I even like the image of the sun-with-a-face in it. I was just trying to make a point to Walls about consistency.

 

I also found the "sun symbol of Baal" on the main title page (top left) of the 1611 KJV:
click here to see

Note also the large egg-shaped image, upper center between the seated men, as well as the bottom center.

Both images (main title page, NT title page) also have the moon symbol in the top right, although it's a little hard to make out.

I'm curious if Walls or Ulsterman are going to comment on this? Is it really that hard to say, "Ya, I guess symbols really do have context."?

God bless,
Brian

 

You certainly implied it. I guess I'll ask you directly: is it right or wrong to have these images?

I agree it's good to be aware how symbols are used by others. However, it's also good to be aware that someone else's use of a symbol does not give them universal rights as to that symbol's meaning.

Is there a place where God said such symbols are wrong?

 

Somebody mentioned the egg shaped windows, so I went back to the site Walls posted and looked.
I'm not saying for sure, but I'm pretty positive they did mess that up, but not to say it doesn't have meaning somewhat related to what they said. The egg shape is a common mormon thing. The peepstone Joseph used was an egg shape, and Joseph's image is displayed in an egg. Go look through an LDS temple gift, lds gift catalog to get an idea of what I'm talking about. LDS.org or .com or whatever it is has links to this stuff (you can also look through liahona and friends and all that stuff there and maybe find more info)
Gina

 

Although, Brian, I would argue that there are SOME symbols that are downright unusable.
Eg., the swastika. Granted, the actual symbol has been around for many centuries. Yet, its modern usage completely links it in most peoples' minds with the Nazis.
I would NEVER use a swastika nor expect people to assume, if I did, that I only meant its ancient meaning, not its recent. I would question the basic maturity, at the very least, of any Christian who did overtly display the swastika.

I will be surprised if you disagree with me on this. If you agree, then to SOME extent, you just think the link Walls is pointing to carries it way too far.

Come to think of it, I am surprised that IFB Baptists especially are not agreeing more with Walls. I was in the UK recently with my husband and went to Yorkminster Cathedral and Durham Cathedral. I loved every second of it. But both are full of carvings of pagan images. For example, one of the little exercises on the handouts is seeing how many times you can find the Green Man in the Chapter House of Yorkminster Cathedral.
The argument would be that Christianity has changed the meaning from paganism to a new meaning.

Context, right?
Then how come we as Baptists don't have ANY kind of carving, pagan or otherwise in our churches?
And we are very proud of this difference from Catholics and High Anglicans. The cathedrals and churches in England don't have nearly as many carvings as before Cromwell started destroying as much as he could in the 1600's. Those supporting him saw it all as pure paganism and helped destroy as much as they could. I am sorry they did.

In practicality, you would find that I would probably horrify Walls, personally. I have a Christmas tree, have some Celtic knot souvenirs, and yes, I bought a replica of a Green Man carving. (Among many other examples I could give.)

But I suggest that these things do need to be thought through. (And reasonable Christians are going to disagree.) I suggest that some of the responses to Walls have been a liiiittle knee-jerk.
Sometimes we are so busy responding to the problems of 20 years ago, what is coming is invisible till it absolutely clobbers us.

Karen

 

I understand (and agree with) what you are saying, but there is still a context. The context is those countries which dealt with Germany in WWII. In other countries (e.g. India and many far east countries), the mirror image of the Swastika (the "Swavastika") is still used today without people there connecting it with Aryanism and Nazism.

Another thought about the Swastika - the vast majority (in Western countries) associate it something bad, and that's a good reason for Christians not to use it for other purposes - it's too easy to confuse people about it's intended meaning. However, the "sun image of Baal", the Triqueta, the Star of David, etc, don't instantly bring images of huge evil to 99% of the population. It's much easier to use these images without confusing the viewer of the image as to the intended meaning.

Actually, many (most?) do. We have images and carvings of the cross all over the place. Currently our church has a Nativity scene set up, with little carvings of Mary, Joseph, Jesus, etc. Every Baptist wedding I've ever seen in a Baptist church has the exchange of rings, which were shunned by the early Puritans and anabaptists, and a "wedding ring" was a pagan symbol of the sexual act centuries earlier. My pastor has a calendar in his office, with the months named with pagan things like "January" (Janus was a Roman god), "March" (named for the god Mars), "April" (English derived from the old Greek Aphro, short for Aphrodite), etc.

Me too. I like art in general, and I love the ties to the historical Church.

Perhaps. I guess I could have been a little more tactful initially. Thanks for the reminder.

God bless,
Brian

 

In some countries they worship cows. Does that mean we shouldn't eat beef?
oh, wait, it's so expensive I can't afford to eat it anyway.

 

Maybe the question will be broached, but if so, those who love the NKJV should broach the symbol still present on their Bible.

http://www.av1611.org/nkjv.html </font>[/QUOTE]The last time someone brought this up I checked my NKJV and it's not there.

 

I don't think I have ever said it was wrong to have these images, I said you may have them and not know what they are. If they are wrong it because God said so and not me. </font>[/QUOTE]God did not say these certain symbols are wrong. In the context of worship of a false god they are wrong, because of the false god.

this is a picture of worship. I think that needs to be in context.

 

Got that right, for sure! </font>[/QUOTE]What happened to holy living and being seperate and not conformed to the image of this world? How sad Christ must be! </font>[/QUOTE]So how many people here would say are worshipping a false god as you seem to be accusing with this statement. If they are not, then what is Jesus sad about? A people who refuse false worship?