100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: The Third Testament | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
It is what it is......and that is all that it is...... He is who He is.....and will always BE you mean SHAFT? I heard this cat SHAFT is a bad mother SHUT YOUR MOUTH but "feralcatlady" I'm only talking about "SHAFT" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IF the words spoken in the bible are true, and COME AS FROM ALL KNOWING TRUTH, and shall never pass away, AND they tell of ALL mans existence in advance and in future, AND the will of god be sooooooooooo powerful that no human alive can resist, then how would any that that question to seek to understand what is not understood be wrong for doing so............
what one calls others as ignorant does not prove themself to be the most ignorant? the questions posed here are of the greatest wisdom, and lead to much understanding of many mysteries that FEAR, that when birthed, creates false self confidence, and keeps from seeking answers....... who ever said that adam was finished naming the animals? who ever said that adam was just one man? who ever said that eden had disapeared? who ever said that there was only one world? who ever said that creation was completed? who ever said that man was not with his hands creating things for a purpose? what creation does not include percieved good and bad things? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Eljay" does bring up a good point that can't be overlooked ..The Flood ...clearly God meant to drown everyone that wasn't on the ark and had already foreseen that it would take exactly 40 days and nights to accomplish this ..so no matter where anyone hid including the Nephilim the water would find them
If there was a flood, the people had no way of knowing if it was covering the entire globe, they just assumed it was because they assumed and thought the world was flat and there was water every direction they looked. If you go out into the ocean you can see the same thing. Water in every direction you look, no land to be seen. You might be convinced that the world was all water. Also, some of the people may have been saved and taken to underground cities along with the Nephilim. There can be no way to really be sure. People like to think they all got killed in the flood, but I seriously doubt that. If it weren't for the fact that they are mentioned briefly in the Bible Christians would scoff at their existence entirely. But because they are of the mind set to believe anything in the Bible they have to admit they existed and believe in them. JB JennieBean this is according to the bible ..to discuss the belief logically nothing in the belief should be dismiss unless one can show that it's a falsehood or a contradiction or show a third option ..so according to the bible there was a great flood that possibly drown the Nephilim ..or maybe you can debate that some of them could have survived because maybe Noah or someone on the ark was a Nephilm as i stated to eljay, Funch: nope not at all - think eljay, - where was man located then? upon "all" the known earth as we know it today? of course not it was there in the beginning where the flood took place not the entire globe, unless you believe that man in such a short time had populated the entire planet as we know it today, do you? since were only talking a "few generations of man at that point this does not hold truth in my estimation of what i read. This would hold true for other life also, why bother flooding the whole globe? Had all the animals present in the garden and vicinity produced at such speed that the inhabited the entire earth by then? Did Adam really name all the animals as we know of today? Or just the ones present in the garden? Your thinking is to modernistic eljay, put yourself in the time and circumstances that were - not present day times. If you want to believe it's true, be my guest, but it's not in my opinion. Even Paul when stating the gospel had been preached around the world did not mean the whole globe, only the world that was know by him and all others 'AT THE TIME" therefore it becomes a moot point for debate as to whether or not the flood destroyed everything on the "entire planet" IMHO "Tribo" you may be right or you may be wrong but you just can't assume you are right and claim moot-ism..all we can do is to go with according to the bible but if you feel that the bible is wrong in certain instances then that is exactly what this thread is about but the point has to be debated first so that it can be accurately place into The Third Testament if you and JennieBean believe that Nephilim survived then this should be debated logical with according to the bible along side with the evidence you have..but even if you have no direct evidence you can still debate the point into a logical conclusion .. so since the Flood is in the bible it can not be dismiss but you can debate if the flood actually cover the entire world and/or drown all nephilim ..but you also have to realize that some things are absolute ..like the hand of God drowning everyone ...God ususally don't make mistakes when they make a committent to kill And just as easily - if JB and Tribo dismiss the flood, than Spider and I dismiss the Nephilim, which removes the entire debate from the 3rd Testiment. You can't have it both ways. well of course the Great Flood can not be dismiss, also because the Nephilim were making babies with humans was according to Genesis 3:16 a union forbidden by God and was one of the reasons that God caused the great flood in order to get rid of them ..so according to the bible the flood wiped out the Nephilim atleast on land also "Eljay" there's a snag in that theory because one of the passengers on Noah's Ark was "Og" King of Bashan that was a giant and was probably a Nephilim and he even had a 13 foot bed to accomadate him on the Ark ... also what about the story of David and Goliath ...wasn't Goliath a Nephilim and was most likely a decendant of King Og |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
those statements are from the Midrash, not the bible, the midrash among other things has the Hebrew myths and legends incorporated in them but is not considered part of moses writings. it's extra biblical lore. you can believe it if you want but there is nothing to support it outside of that and myths from the Muslims. two tales one is that Og followed the ark, and the other he had a room on the ark - are just that Myths.
as to Goliath, he certainly is suspect as to being a man type of nephilim as to his size and his family, but one cannot also dismiss the probability that Noah's descendants did not carry the giant genes with in them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Eljay" does bring up a good point that can't be overlooked ..The Flood ...clearly God meant to drown everyone that wasn't on the ark and had already foreseen that it would take exactly 40 days and nights to accomplish this ..so no matter where anyone hid including the Nephilim the water would find them
If there was a flood, the people had no way of knowing if it was covering the entire globe, they just assumed it was because they assumed and thought the world was flat and there was water every direction they looked. If you go out into the ocean you can see the same thing. Water in every direction you look, no land to be seen. You might be convinced that the world was all water. Also, some of the people may have been saved and taken to underground cities along with the Nephilim. There can be no way to really be sure. People like to think they all got killed in the flood, but I seriously doubt that. If it weren't for the fact that they are mentioned briefly in the Bible Christians would scoff at their existence entirely. But because they are of the mind set to believe anything in the Bible they have to admit they existed and believe in them. JB JennieBean this is according to the bible ..to discuss the belief logically nothing in the belief should be dismiss unless one can show that it's a falsehood or a contradiction or show a third option ..so according to the bible there was a great flood that possibly drown the Nephilim ..or maybe you can debate that some of them could have survived because maybe Noah or someone on the ark was a Nephilm as i stated to eljay, Funch: nope not at all - think eljay, - where was man located then? upon "all" the known earth as we know it today? of course not it was there in the beginning where the flood took place not the entire globe, unless you believe that man in such a short time had populated the entire planet as we know it today, do you? since were only talking a "few generations of man at that point this does not hold truth in my estimation of what i read. This would hold true for other life also, why bother flooding the whole globe? Had all the animals present in the garden and vicinity produced at such speed that the inhabited the entire earth by then? Did Adam really name all the animals as we know of today? Or just the ones present in the garden? Your thinking is to modernistic eljay, put yourself in the time and circumstances that were - not present day times. If you want to believe it's true, be my guest, but it's not in my opinion. Even Paul when stating the gospel had been preached around the world did not mean the whole globe, only the world that was know by him and all others 'AT THE TIME" therefore it becomes a moot point for debate as to whether or not the flood destroyed everything on the "entire planet" IMHO "Tribo" you may be right or you may be wrong but you just can't assume you are right and claim moot-ism..all we can do is to go with according to the bible but if you feel that the bible is wrong in certain instances then that is exactly what this thread is about but the point has to be debated first so that it can be accurately place into The Third Testament if you and JennieBean believe that Nephilim survived then this should be debated logical with according to the bible along side with the evidence you have..but even if you have no direct evidence you can still debate the point into a logical conclusion .. so since the Flood is in the bible it can not be dismiss but you can debate if the flood actually cover the entire world and/or drown all nephilim ..but you also have to realize that some things are absolute ..like the hand of God drowning everyone ...God ususally don't make mistakes when they make a committent to kill granted Funch, i apologize, i will still stand by my post, but will give others the chance to refute, to continue though, God could have flooded the whole earth i will grant that as you say it is supposedly his right to do so, but the question remains - WHY? - if there was no mankind to drown outside of the area populated by mankind at that early time? unless you believe as some there were 2 different creations or creation stories, do you? Even then since supposedly the first boat was built in that area by Noah, how did the rest of the world get populated so quickly? I'll wait for response's, but i doubt i will get any Funch, it just isn't logical to think that way or believe such a thing, oh well. plus it still does not answer the question of why all aquatic life would have to die if it was really being detroyed because of mankinds behavior. What harm had the jellyfish or other fish done to deserve death for the actions of man? and why would WATER all of a sudden DROWN them? Doubt you'll get a response? Please. You're assumption is that the purpose of the flood was to eliminate man. Your premise that man was centrally located and therefore megates the need to flood the whole earh is a false one - because the bible states that ALL of the creatures on the earth were to be wiped out. If a single sparrow flew to the center of Nebraska (as we know it to be now) - That's enough to cover the entire earth. And it makes no reference about the "fish" drowning. Just the chemical dillusion of the ocean due to the extensive addition of fresh water (rain that is) would be enough for them to perish. Put a tuna in a swimming pool and see how long it lasts. Now - you were saying.... Why do you believe that it's my assumption that man was centrally located - add up the generations of which are stated to and including Noah, approx 7,443 yrs, if birth rates were even 10 times the normal for today and lets say 100 children per family there would only have been 74,000 people. even if a thousand per family, it would only have been 740,000 people living in communities not spread out all over the place for the largest part, that does not even equate to the population of Columbus Ohio yet alone the whole world, take a look at early census' done by the romans - at the time of christ - what were the populatins then?, your statement does not hold up to historical statements written in ancient times.. I do not believe the "whole earth" was populated, just the vicinity i spoke of. you may believe as you will. As to the fish or aquatic life, if your correct and all was "DESTROYED" then how does it continue to be now? was it resurrected? Did it just spring up again automatically into existence? IF all aquatic life ceased to exist, then why do we have it now or any time past the flood? Or do you subscribe to darwin's theory to explain this? I read nowhere in the book that god "RE_CREATED" life in the water eljay, if i have missed this please show me. As to "all" the animals on Noah's ark - what is meant by "ALL ANIMALS"? all we know of today, or what were present then? if you mean then - tell me how many and what kinds were there? 2 butterflies, 2 bees, 2 praying mantises, etc. ad infinitum ad naseum, and how big was this arc?? two and two don't make 4 here eljay. even if we think in terms of the very first of animal life, just one species of each not black bears and polar bears etc, all the original species we see today would not fit the dimensions of the arc. if so draw me a picture of how you think they were crammed into those dimensions outlined for the arks size there. Tribo; Earlier in these posts you asked me if I thought man had inhabited the whole earth - introduced the premise that they likely had not (which we agree on) and therefore asked why flood the whole earth. My response to this was because it was not God's intention to merely wipe out man. Animals, fish, and birds were included - and the world could very easily been populated by such. It is quite possible that the fossel records discovered in this hemisphere are just the very "proof" (as it were) that the animal kingdom had actually spread this far - even if man had not. Therefore, this would be the reason "why" the whole earth was flooded. As to "all the animals" on the ark - (though I prefer to think of a better description as "species" - those of like kind), anything we can discover at the present time, would have been on the ark. There is no evidence of a re-creation, so we can dismiss that. As to the size of the ark being in question - why couldn't it hold everything? Most people who question this idea - think that Noah brought all adult animals on the ark - yet, a number of species could have been brought in a basket in the form of eggs. It would be more logical to think that he brought the youngest of each species. Then over a period of time - micro evolution would account for the numbers within a species. In other words - It may not have been necessary to bring a Lion, Tiger, occelot, cheeter, linx, tabby, panther, etc - as these are varieations of a single species. Same with a wolf, fox, dog, cayote, Hyena... you get the point. Without having to make a lst of every "type" of animal, a list of species could have very well fit on the ark. As to fish - that's an interesting question. But I don't think it stands in the way of accepting the possibility that the flood is indeed - not a myth. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No information is either all true or all false. None. You may live in a black and white world Eljay but this is not a black and white world. Another platitude. So it's not all true that you are a woman? Do you have a penis? It's just ridiculous the silly, thoughtless things that pass as beliefs in these forums. I'm sure you will have a great response to this and I won't pretend to know what it is...probably something like "Gender is an illusion, it changes with every life we live in the holographic universe". Spider, please don't be ridiculous. I am talking about a body of information like a book. I am not talking about single statements of agreement like whether a person is male or female. What Eljay is proposing is that I should believe that the Bible is either true in its entirety or completely false. That is illogical and ridiculous. He also proposes that if a body of information is true, then every detail should be considered to be true, and if it is false then every detail must be considered false. That is a foolish and very limiting way to evaluate information. I don't think I will subscribe to that method. Thank you very much but no thanks. You can if you want. That is not how I evaluate information. It is the same as saying that if you ever told a lie, then everything you ever utter is to be considered a lie. JB Actually Jeannie, what I am proposing is that if you are going to establish a premise about a biblical topic - in this case, the Nephilim - than you should be bound by the parameters of the source of your reference. Here, you wish to state that the Nephilim are somehow walkng the earth to this day. This contradicts the reliability of the source you are wishing to quote - because to accept that the Nephilim existed through logic, you must conclude they could not have survived the flood. And since the reference to both the Nephilim and the flood are not only in the same book of the bible - but the same chapter, it is asking too much to accept that you believe one is true while the other isn't. THAT would be illogical and rediculous. To assume that there is a possibility that the Nephilim existed, and exists today - but the flood is a myth would indicate that your original premise to support the Nephilim comes from an un-reliable source and is unacceptable as an accepted premise. It's not a matter of thinking one could be possible and the other not. Especially in the circumstance being discussed. For you to extend that to me claiming it's all or nothing when referencing a book of any sort is a Strawman argument at best. I made no such claim. Just a point to the specific argument at hand. Eljay, Did you even read or understand my previous posts about the problem and possibilities of the flood and how people could have escaped it? Did you even read where I suggested that they had no way of knowing if the flood covered the entire globe? You never addressed those responses. Do you just pick certain statements I make and only respond to them? If you want to make requirements on me about my personal conclusions and theories that these human--alien(angel) hybrids still exist on the earth today, which I believe they do, --then you are telling me that if I use the Bible at all I have to believe and accept every book, every word, and every interpretation in the Bible, and I have to accept all the stuff about the flood. No I do not. Excuse me for giving the Bible a thread of credibility. I have always used every kind of information available to make my conclusions including the Bible. What you are telling me is that I can't use the Bible at all if I don't believe the entire thing and your interpretations of the flood and what happened or what people thought happened. I do not assume that the flood is a myth. Where did I say that? I don't know if there was a flood, or if it covered the entire globe or just appeared to. I don't think it is logical that a flood happened all over the world at that time and science supports that belief. Forget the Bible then. Forget the references to Nephilim in the Bible then. Forget the flood. I still have concluded that alien-human hybrids exist in the world today. There is a lot of evidence to support that to include DNA evidence and people who admit that they are of the dragon race. They call themselves "royalty." JB Having stated the existance of these "alien hybrids" that you believe in as a possibility outside of the realm of the bible, I can offer no reference to refute you. But that is not the same thing as calling them "Nephilim". Here is where the misunderstanding is coming. As to the Nephilim - as described in the biblical account, they would have perished in the flood. And would not be walking the earth today. Whatever you think it is that still exists - would not be the Nephilim of scripture. We would need to call them something else. And I can't see how a flood, which is described to cover the earth - and more specifically the bible states that all the high mountains under the heavens were covered. So - given this fact - no one would have survived the flood of scripture if they were not on the ark. I have no idea how to assess a flood that would be outside of the biblical account. I would wonder what purpose that would have served. One that only flooded where the extent of man lived (as in Tribo's scenario) - in order to justify "some who managed to survive it". I wouldn't see a purpose in assuming that premise - unless I were developing a script for Hollywood. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
that's just it Funches, the bible does state in the psalms and in peter that a day is like a thousand years to god, and again, the evening watch is like a thousand years - so it actually could mean each day is 2000 yrs. thats strictly from the book. So again it can be argued from those 3 standpoints internally. 144hours (6 literal days), 1000 yrs or 2000 yrs per god day.but i have to know what everyone who is discussing believes firstly to continue forward with my thoughts on the subject - agreed? II Peter 3-8, psalm 90-4 KJV peter said that a day to God is like a thousand years and that a thousand years to God is like a day ..that only mean that the concept of time doesn't apply to God but does apply to us and that statment wasn't meant to claim that a day was anything more then what Gensis described it to be...a day Tribo; As a matter of consistency in understanding - I am in total agreement with Funches here. What matters to us is what WE understand a day to be, not what God does. Perhaps for the sake of reference to Biblical topics - we should agree that the creation was 144 hours. This way we have a standard to apply our premises to. If it appears that we have to return to this matter - we can bring it up when the need arises. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Eljay" does bring up a good point that can't be overlooked ..The Flood ...clearly God meant to drown everyone that wasn't on the ark and had already foreseen that it would take exactly 40 days and nights to accomplish this ..so no matter where anyone hid including the Nephilim the water would find them
If there was a flood, the people had no way of knowing if it was covering the entire globe, they just assumed it was because they assumed and thought the world was flat and there was water every direction they looked. If you go out into the ocean you can see the same thing. Water in every direction you look, no land to be seen. You might be convinced that the world was all water. Also, some of the people may have been saved and taken to underground cities along with the Nephilim. There can be no way to really be sure. People like to think they all got killed in the flood, but I seriously doubt that. If it weren't for the fact that they are mentioned briefly in the Bible Christians would scoff at their existence entirely. But because they are of the mind set to believe anything in the Bible they have to admit they existed and believe in them. JB JennieBean this is according to the bible ..to discuss the belief logically nothing in the belief should be dismiss unless one can show that it's a falsehood or a contradiction or show a third option ..so according to the bible there was a great flood that possibly drown the Nephilim ..or maybe you can debate that some of them could have survived because maybe Noah or someone on the ark was a Nephilm as i stated to eljay, Funch: nope not at all - think eljay, - where was man located then? upon "all" the known earth as we know it today? of course not it was there in the beginning where the flood took place not the entire globe, unless you believe that man in such a short time had populated the entire planet as we know it today, do you? since were only talking a "few generations of man at that point this does not hold truth in my estimation of what i read. This would hold true for other life also, why bother flooding the whole globe? Had all the animals present in the garden and vicinity produced at such speed that the inhabited the entire earth by then? Did Adam really name all the animals as we know of today? Or just the ones present in the garden? Your thinking is to modernistic eljay, put yourself in the time and circumstances that were - not present day times. If you want to believe it's true, be my guest, but it's not in my opinion. Even Paul when stating the gospel had been preached around the world did not mean the whole globe, only the world that was know by him and all others 'AT THE TIME" therefore it becomes a moot point for debate as to whether or not the flood destroyed everything on the "entire planet" IMHO "Tribo" you may be right or you may be wrong but you just can't assume you are right and claim moot-ism..all we can do is to go with according to the bible but if you feel that the bible is wrong in certain instances then that is exactly what this thread is about but the point has to be debated first so that it can be accurately place into The Third Testament if you and JennieBean believe that Nephilim survived then this should be debated logical with according to the bible along side with the evidence you have..but even if you have no direct evidence you can still debate the point into a logical conclusion .. so since the Flood is in the bible it can not be dismiss but you can debate if the flood actually cover the entire world and/or drown all nephilim ..but you also have to realize that some things are absolute ..like the hand of God drowning everyone ...God ususally don't make mistakes when they make a committent to kill And just as easily - if JB and Tribo dismiss the flood, than Spider and I dismiss the Nephilim, which removes the entire debate from the 3rd Testiment. You can't have it both ways. well of course the Great Flood can not be dismiss, also because the Nephilim were making babies with humans was according to Genesis 3:16 a union forbidden by God and was one of the reasons that God caused the great flood in order to get rid of them ..so according to the bible the flood wiped out the Nephilim atleast on land also "Eljay" there's a snag in that theory because one of the passengers on Noah's Ark was "Og" King of Bashan that was a giant and was probably a Nephilim and he even had a 13 foot bed to accomadate him on the Ark ... also what about the story of David and Goliath ...wasn't Goliath a Nephilim and was most likely a decendant of King Og Well - "Og" would have had to have been the wife of either Noah, Shem, Ham or Japheth - else "Og" didn't make it onto the ark. Also - Og was a contemporary of Moses - if he were on the Ark he would have been older than Methuselah. Also - Goliath was a Philistine - not a Bashan. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
since The Great Flood cannot be dismiss and God intentions were to destroy all life except what was on the ark in which animals of flight could have reach far reaches of the world then the flood had to have emcompass the entire world
since God viewed the Nephilm to be an abomination he wouldn't have allow any to survive no matter where they tried to hide neither would God have allowed Nephilim passengers such as King Og on the ark.. since God is omniscient as in all knowing then God would have known if Noah and crew carried the Nephilim gene .... therefore the logical conclusion is the great flood did cover the entire world and that no Nephilim survived |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
tribo
on
Sun 08/03/08 09:01 AM
|
|
ELJAY:
Tribo; Earlier in these posts you asked me if I thought man had inhabited the whole earth - introduced the premise that they likely had not (which we agree on) and therefore asked why flood the whole earth. My response to this was because it was not God's intention to merely wipe out man. Animals, fish, and birds were included - and the world could very easily been populated by such. It is quite possible that the fossil records discovered in this hemisphere are just the very "proof" (as it were) that the animal kingdom had actually spread this far - even if man had not. Therefore, this would be the reason "why" the whole earth was flooded. TRIBO REPLY: i wont argue with that E, it is possible As to "all the animals" on the ark - (though I prefer to think of a better description as "species" - those of like kind), anything we can discover at the present time, would have been on the ark. There is no evidence of a re-creation, so we can dismiss that. As to the size of the ark being in question - why couldn't it hold everything? Most people who question this idea - think that Noah brought all adult animals on the ark - yet, a number of species could have been brought in a basket in the form of eggs. It would be more logical to think that he brought the youngest of each species. Then over a period of time - micro evolution would account for the numbers within a species. In other words - It may not have been necessary to bring a Lion, Tiger, ocelot, cheetah, lynx, tabby, panther, etc - as these are variations of a single species. Same with a wolf, fox, dog, coyote, Hyena... you get the point. Without having to make a lst of every "type" of animal, a list of species could have very well fit on the ark. Tribo,reply: If you read some of my earlier post you will see that i had stated that i WAS talking of just a per species basis, "a" bear - not every type of bear, "a" cat, not every type of cat, i have no argument of that. though the bible does not state whether the animals were eggs or very young animals as your suggesting, there is enough evidence to support my suggestions over yours, 1) how would Noah know what what sex the EGGS were for sure? since god gave him strict instructions on how many and what gender they were to be, i do not see that as a good candidate for understanding what is written. Also it states clearly that at least one dove was a full grown bird! 2) if only very young mammals were taken aboard they would have needed there mothers care, especially elephants and other species that rely on them for long periods of time. Who do you think would have nursed "ALL" these animals Noah's family? feed them all by hand and bottle? were there even bottles back then with nipples? NOT! Feeding youngsters by hand 2 or 3 times a day is out of the question. The same would be true of any birds that may have hatched and needed their moms help to be fed. sorry Eljay, cant agree with you on this premise - nope - any other ideas? As to fish - that's an interesting question. But I don't think it stands in the way of accepting the possibility that the flood is indeed - not a myth. I already answered that one for myself, on a close read god nowhere mentions he will destroy sea life, not one time, only land life, the term earth he uses there in Strong's is not often used and definitely refers to dry ground not to the waters. So your off the "FISH" hook on that one - 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The story of the Ark, of course, is not to be taken literally.
(An advanced civilization could have taken up DNA material but even that kind of collection process would have taken a lot of time.) I think that story, if it had any basis in truth at all, was a story of a man who built a boat to save his family and a few domestic animals for his own survival. JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No information is either all true or all false. None. You may live in a black and white world Eljay but this is not a black and white world. Another platitude. So it's not all true that you are a woman? Do you have a penis? It's just ridiculous the silly, thoughtless things that pass as beliefs in these forums. I'm sure you will have a great response to this and I won't pretend to know what it is...probably something like "Gender is an illusion, it changes with every life we live in the holographic universe". Spider, please don't be ridiculous. I am talking about a body of information like a book. I am not talking about single statements of agreement like whether a person is male or female. What Eljay is proposing is that I should believe that the Bible is either true in its entirety or completely false. That is illogical and ridiculous. He also proposes that if a body of information is true, then every detail should be considered to be true, and if it is false then every detail must be considered false. That is a foolish and very limiting way to evaluate information. I don't think I will subscribe to that method. Thank you very much but no thanks. You can if you want. That is not how I evaluate information. It is the same as saying that if you ever told a lie, then everything you ever utter is to be considered a lie. JB Actually Jeannie, what I am proposing is that if you are going to establish a premise about a biblical topic - in this case, the Nephilim - than you should be bound by the parameters of the source of your reference. Here, you wish to state that the Nephilim are somehow walkng the earth to this day. This contradicts the reliability of the source you are wishing to quote - because to accept that the Nephilim existed through logic, you must conclude they could not have survived the flood. And since the reference to both the Nephilim and the flood are not only in the same book of the bible - but the same chapter, it is asking too much to accept that you believe one is true while the other isn't. THAT would be illogical and rediculous. To assume that there is a possibility that the Nephilim existed, and exists today - but the flood is a myth would indicate that your original premise to support the Nephilim comes from an un-reliable source and is unacceptable as an accepted premise. It's not a matter of thinking one could be possible and the other not. Especially in the circumstance being discussed. For you to extend that to me claiming it's all or nothing when referencing a book of any sort is a Strawman argument at best. I made no such claim. Just a point to the specific argument at hand. Eljay, Did you even read or understand my previous posts about the problem and possibilities of the flood and how people could have escaped it? Did you even read where I suggested that they had no way of knowing if the flood covered the entire globe? You never addressed those responses. Do you just pick certain statements I make and only respond to them? If you want to make requirements on me about my personal conclusions and theories that these human--alien(angel) hybrids still exist on the earth today, which I believe they do, --then you are telling me that if I use the Bible at all I have to believe and accept every book, every word, and every interpretation in the Bible, and I have to accept all the stuff about the flood. No I do not. Excuse me for giving the Bible a thread of credibility. I have always used every kind of information available to make my conclusions including the Bible. What you are telling me is that I can't use the Bible at all if I don't believe the entire thing and your interpretations of the flood and what happened or what people thought happened. I do not assume that the flood is a myth. Where did I say that? I don't know if there was a flood, or if it covered the entire globe or just appeared to. I don't think it is logical that a flood happened all over the world at that time and science supports that belief. Forget the Bible then. Forget the references to Nephilim in the Bible then. Forget the flood. I still have concluded that alien-human hybrids exist in the world today. There is a lot of evidence to support that to include DNA evidence and people who admit that they are of the dragon race. They call themselves "royalty." JB Having stated the existance of these "alien hybrids" that you believe in as a possibility outside of the realm of the bible, I can offer no reference to refute you. But that is not the same thing as calling them "Nephilim". Here is where the misunderstanding is coming. As to the Nephilim - as described in the biblical account, they would have perished in the flood. And would not be walking the earth today. Whatever you think it is that still exists - would not be the Nephilim of scripture. We would need to call them something else. And I can't see how a flood, which is described to cover the earth - and more specifically the bible states that all the high mountains under the heavens were covered. So - given this fact - no one would have survived the flood of scripture if they were not on the ark. I have no idea how to assess a flood that would be outside of the biblical account. I would wonder what purpose that would have served. One that only flooded where the extent of man lived (as in Tribo's scenario) - in order to justify "some who managed to survive it". I wouldn't see a purpose in assuming that premise - unless I were developing a script for Hollywood. since we don't know how the land masses were at that time no one can say for sure, but, the talk of seashells and other fossils is no proof of a world wide flood mountains could have appeared from underneath the water at anytime that could have fossil remains of sea-life. We see this happening even today by causes of plate movements, i believe mountains can spring up quite quickly as compared to taking billions of years. I have even seen this happen on a history movie of it in Italy taking place instantaneously on film. a rise of several feet in a matter of minutes. so any movement is capable of bringing forth land that was submerged that would have fossil remains, that to me is no proof that flooding occurred, only that land that was undersea over time due to tectonic plate movement has or did become surface land. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 08/03/08 09:32 AM
|
|
Eljay wrote:
Having stated the existance of these "alien hybrids" that you believe in as a possibility outside of the realm of the bible, I can offer no reference to refute you. But that is not the same thing as calling them "Nephilim".
I do not believe that the name of the creature (or angel/human hybrid is important, but more the description of where they came from that matters in the evaluation of information. In the Bible the "fallen angels" were the Elohim which meant "from the sky." Elohim is a plural word which meant "Those who came from above." So apparently they had flying machines. This does not mean that they came from another planet. It only means that to the people who witnessed them "coming from the sky" saw them in flying machines. Elohim is sometimes translated in the Bible as "Gods" then changed later to "God" (after men decided there should only be one God.") So whether you call them angels or aliens or an advanced race of humanoids, they mated with humans and the result was the hybrid. It does not matter what you call it. Here is where the misunderstanding is coming. As to the Nephilim - as described in the biblical account, they would have perished in the flood. And would not be walking the earth today. Whatever you think it is that still exists - would not be the Nephilim of scripture.
Why not? Does scripture say that all of them were killed? Who wrote that part of scripture and how did they know that all of them were killed and none of them survived by going underground or "back to the sky?" If you expect me to accept that idea just because it is written in your Bible (the paper pope) you expect too much. We would need to call them something else. And I can't see how a flood, which is described to cover the earth - and more specifically the bible states that all the high mountains under the heavens were covered.
So - given this fact - no one would have survived the flood of scripture if they were not on the ark. That is an assumption I think. Here are the IFS: If there was an ark and if there was a flood on the entire earth, and if there was no other escape, like underground cities deep beneath the oceans..... A lot of ifs there, which depend entirely on whether you want to believe scripture literally or not. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MirrorMirror
on
Sun 08/03/08 10:05 AM
|
 Everyone needs to believe in something. I believe I'll have another beer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The story of the Ark, of course, is not to be taken literally. (An advanced civilization could have taken up DNA material but even that kind of collection process would have taken a lot of time.) I think that story, if it had any basis in truth at all, was a story of a man who built a boat to save his family and a few domestic animals for his own survival. JB ..er.. Mistress.. we're going "According to the Bible" ...not "According to L. Ron Hubbard" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eljay wrote: Having stated the existance of these "alien hybrids" that you believe in as a possibility outside of the realm of the bible, I can offer no reference to refute you. But that is not the same thing as calling them "Nephilim".
I do not believe that the name of the creature (or angel/human hybrid is important, but more the description of where they came from that matters in the evaluation of information. In the Bible the "fallen angels" were the Elohim which meant "from the sky." Elohim is a plural word which meant "Those who came from above." So apparently they had flying machines. This does not mean that they came from another planet. It only means that to the people who witnessed them "coming from the sky" saw them in flying machines. Elohim is sometimes translated in the Bible as "Gods" then changed later to "God" (after men decided there should only be one God.") So whether you call them angels or aliens or an advanced race of humanoids, they mated with humans and the result was the hybrid. It does not matter what you call it. Here is where the misunderstanding is coming. As to the Nephilim - as described in the biblical account, they would have perished in the flood. And would not be walking the earth today. Whatever you think it is that still exists - would not be the Nephilim of scripture.
Why not? Does scripture say that all of them were killed? Who wrote that part of scripture and how did they know that all of them were killed and none of them survived by going underground or "back to the sky?" If you expect me to accept that idea just because it is written in your Bible (the paper pope) you expect too much. We would need to call them something else. And I can't see how a flood, which is described to cover the earth - and more specifically the bible states that all the high mountains under the heavens were covered.
So - given this fact - no one would have survived the flood of scripture if they were not on the ark. That is an assumption I think. Here are the IFS: If there was an ark and if there was a flood on the entire earth, and if there was no other escape, like underground cities deep beneath the oceans..... A lot of ifs there, which depend entirely on whether you want to believe scripture literally or not. Yes Jeannie - the bible says that every living creature that was not on the Ark perished. It also does not give an account of "Elohim" mating with woman of the earth after the flood. Odd that this would be specificly noted before the flood, and forgotten to be recorded about after it. Again - underground cities accessable to man but not to water? How are they breathing? You may see "ifs" - I don't. You'll have a hard time convincing me that they were able to survive for over a year, without having to have planned for it, and if that were an "if" - why not just climb aboard the ark? As far as I can see, Noah didn't prevent anyone from getting on the ark before the rains came. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The story of the Ark, of course, is not to be taken literally. (An advanced civilization could have taken up DNA material but even that kind of collection process would have taken a lot of time.) I think that story, if it had any basis in truth at all, was a story of a man who built a boat to save his family and a few domestic animals for his own survival. JB And it is not to be taken literally - because... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The story of the Ark, of course, is not to be taken literally. (An advanced civilization could have taken up DNA material but even that kind of collection process would have taken a lot of time.) I think that story, if it had any basis in truth at all, was a story of a man who built a boat to save his family and a few domestic animals for his own survival. JB And it is not to be taken literally - because... Give the problem to the myth busters or anyone else and see if they want to try building an ark large enough to accommodate all the animals on the earth for a year, and set them out to sea and see what happens. It is just highly unlikely that a thing like that happened. It is a myth, and a legend. I find no logic or reason or science or proof that enables me to believe such a tale, and if I were told to teach people these things as facts I would refuse. But by all means, believe what you want. JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes Jeannie - the bible says that every living creature that was not on the Ark perished. It also does not give an account of "Elohim" mating with woman of the earth after the flood. Odd that this would be specificly noted before the flood, and forgotten to be recorded about after it.
So I guess you still believe everything that is written. I don't. So I guess this is where we agree to disagree. They did not want their presence known among humans, especially after they learned to look more human themselves. They were not about to allow a Biblical references reveal their presence on earth because they wanted to blend in. After all, they were "men of renown" and they held high positions in society. They had the power to influence scripture, government and the Church. Yes that is an ancient conspiracy theory.
Again - underground cities accessable to man but not to water? How are they breathing? You may see "ifs" - I don't. You'll have a hard time convincing me that they were able to survive for over a year, without having to have planned for it, and if that were an "if" - why not just climb aboard the ark? As far as I can see, Noah didn't prevent anyone from getting on the ark before the rains came.
I don't think the entire earth was ever covered with water, so I guess there is no point in continuing this conversation. JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
tribo
on
Sun 08/03/08 02:42 PM
|
|
Yes Jeannie - the bible says that every living creature that was not on the Ark perished. It also does not give an account of "Elohim" mating with woman of the earth after the flood. Odd that this would be specificly noted before the flood, and forgotten to be recorded about after it.
So I guess you still believe everything that is written. I don't. So I guess this is where we agree to disagree. They did not want their presence known among humans, especially after they learned to look more human themselves. They were not about to allow a Biblical references reveal their presence on earth because they wanted to blend in. After all, they were "men of renown" and they held high positions in society. They had the power to influence scripture, government and the Church. Yes that is an ancient conspiracy theory.
Again - underground cities accessable to man but not to water? How are they breathing? You may see "ifs" - I don't. You'll have a hard time convincing me that they were able to survive for over a year, without having to have planned for it, and if that were an "if" - why not just climb aboard the ark? As far as I can see, Noah didn't prevent anyone from getting on the ark before the rains came.
I don't think the entire earth was ever covered with water, so I guess there is no point in continuing this conversation. JB your original question funches: Funches: so the question becomes does the term "inspired by God" means that the works of the author was handed to them personally by God like when God spoke to Moses or does it mean that the author was inspire to write the works as their own interpretation that had nothing to with God personally or does it refer to the author placing themselves into the mind or into the role of God and that the works is what God would have thought or set forth tribo response: i don't care. boy it seems this whole thing is turning into a waste of time, i'll leave it to Funch and eljay to continue and anyone else - i'm outta here 
|
|
|
|
|
