A collection of information about the state's Class I and short-line rail lines.

Current information on Interstate construction, road closures, highway problems due to accidents or inclement weather, rest area locations, and related topics.

Official site. Traffic cams; information about state highways, road construction, grant programs, and other topics; kids' pages.

Information about state-maintained highways, driving, construction, and related topics.

Information about Tennessee highways, driving in Tennessee, highway construction, and related topics.

Reports on studies about potential modernization and expansion of the state's rail system, including information on public involvement opportunities.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God (ho
theos),and the Word was [God,god] (theos).


To clearly explain this, let us use an illustration.
e.g. (Human Judge - Jim)

In the year 1950 (beginning) was the human judge, and the human judge was
with God (ho theos), and the human judge was [god /a god/ or God]
(theos).

In the last phrase, “the human judge was theos” NOT “ho theos”, will you
translate the “theos” to God or god? Definitely, a Christian will
translate the “theos” in the last phrase as “god” not “God” because if you
translate it to “God” it means that you have two Gods and that the human
judge is THE GOD. (This is the same with the Word was with God, If Word is
God, then God is with God, this is wrong because there is only one God).

In John 1:1, the “theos” without the “ho” has become qualitative. No
wonder other Bible translators translate John 1:1 as “the word was divine”
/ ““and of a divine kind was the Word”/ “the Word was god/a god”



((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))

gilgames wrote:
> <<
> gpatton@bayou.com
>
> Now you sound like you are changing your story. At first you
> identified the serpent with Satan, now you seem to be saying Satan was
> "behind the serpent". If you think about it, there is a
> difference. You seem to abandon one weak theory to adopt another weak
> theory. Please think it over and be consistent so that we can discuss
> this in a sane manner.
> >>
>
> I don't see any inconsistency. My opinion is that Gen 3 is a symbolic
> story about the original sin involving God, the Satan and the first
> human couple.



Oh, now I begin to see things from a different point of view. When the
writer of Genesis wrote the symbolic story, he spoke a serpent. But,
some think, that was not the best way to tell the story. So to tell
the symbolic story in the best manner, some think that they should
correct the author of Genesis and substitute "Satan" for
"serpent".

I, myself, do not feel that the symbolic story in question, needs me to
correct it nor improve it. I, differ with those many Christians who
see a need to make changes in any of the symbolic stories found in the
Bible. Having at least a little humility, I actually think that my
inspiration is no better than the author of Genesis's inspiration. I
think it better to tell the story, with all its "weaknesses", and
without making corrections. I really thought that the author of
Genesis did a very good job of telling the symbolic story.

Natuarally you are free to think otherwise.


> God wanted something from the first couple, the Sata