1 2 3 4 5 7 9 10 11 18 19
Topic: The Third Testament
Eljay's photo
Sun 08/03/08 06:40 PM







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.


Agreed - but I was refering to location of the fossels as anexample of the entirety of the earth being covered with water as opposed to - say - just the middle east.

Eljay's photo
Sun 08/03/08 06:43 PM
Tribo;

I wasn't trying to make an argument that I know how Noah chose the species to take on the Ark - just offering an explination to whether it was possible for the Ark to hold everything that God intended it to. In this circumstance, God could have had Noah trip over the eggs he wished him to pick up - who can say. But I don't see "The ark couldn't have been big enough" as a valid point to disprove the flood did not occur.

tribo's photo
Sun 08/03/08 06:50 PM

Tribo;

I wasn't trying to make an argument that I know how Noah chose the species to take on the Ark - just offering an explination to whether it was possible for the Ark to hold everything that God intended it to. In this circumstance, God could have had Noah trip over the eggs he wished him to pick up - who can say. But I don't see "The ark couldn't have been big enough" as a valid point to disprove the flood did not occur.


then will drop the ark, not hard though, might break some eggs - laugh


MirrorMirror's photo
Sun 08/03/08 08:11 PM
:smile: Why attack God? :smile:


:smile: He may be as miserable as we are.:smile:

tribo's photo
Sun 08/03/08 08:33 PM

:smile: Why attack God? :smile:


:smile: He may be as miserable as we are.:smile:


boy that'd really suck huh? :tongue:

no photo
Mon 08/04/08 08:17 AM
Edited by funches on Mon 08/04/08 08:17 AM


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 waving


geez .."Tribo" now why are you acting crazy this time? ....as Mr. Spock would say...your response is fascinating but totally illogical

tribo's photo
Mon 08/04/08 09:58 AM



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 waving


geez .."Tribo" now why are you acting crazy this time? ....as Mr. Spock would say...your response is fascinating but totally illogical


sorry Funch, I'm just being serious, it really does not interest me, I logically conclude that the subject i thought i would be interested in discussing which was - "is the bible the inspired word of god", by your statement and definitions, has no real interest to me personally, for me, it's already a given that i don't think so, therefore, why even bother, I'll wait for other subjects to come about that do interest me and then i will participate. But i hope you get some answers from others - I'm sure you will.

no photo
Mon 08/04/08 11:02 AM

sorry Funch, I'm just being serious, it really does not interest me, I logically conclude that the subject i thought i would be interested in discussing which was - "is the bible the inspired word of god", by your statement and definitions, has no real interest to me personally, for me, it's already a given that i don't think so, therefore, why even bother, I'll wait for other subjects to come about that do interest me and then i will participate. But i hope you get some answers from others - I'm sure you will.


"Tribo" did anyone point a gun to your head or something to make you particate in this thread or any thread? ..which is why I find it fascinating that everytime a subject doesn't fit into your belief you then choose to leave the thread and find an illogical reason to whine about it ..

where in the thread was this an indication that the subjects discuss in the thread was truth ..it was merely an attempt to discuss christianity logically by setting a frame of reference of absolutes "according to the bible" and coming to a logical conclusion that could not be disputed by either believers and non-believers ...once again you are letting your beliefs limit your thinking

tribo's photo
Mon 08/04/08 11:24 AM


sorry Funch, I'm just being serious, it really does not interest me, I logically conclude that the subject i thought i would be interested in discussing which was - "is the bible the inspired word of god", by your statement and definitions, has no real interest to me personally, for me, it's already a given that i don't think so, therefore, why even bother, I'll wait for other subjects to come about that do interest me and then i will participate. But i hope you get some answers from others - I'm sure you will.


"Tribo" did anyone point a gun to your head or something to make you particate in this thread or any thread? ..which is why I find it fascinating that everytime a subject doesn't fit into your belief you then choose to leave the thread and find an illogical reason to whine about it ..

where in the thread was this an indication that the subjects discuss in the thread was truth ..it was merely an attempt to discuss christianity logically by setting a frame of reference of absolutes "according to the bible" and coming to a logical conclusion that could not be disputed by either believers and non-believers ...once again you are letting your beliefs limit your thinking


thnx Funch, have fun.

no photo
Mon 08/04/08 11:44 AM

thnx Funch, have fun.


why thank you "Tribo" but since your Panthiest God doesn't differentiate from right or wrong or seriousness or fun then you are contradicting your own beliefs by telling me to have fun ...so maybe the term to use to keep you from violating your beliefs is to say "be natural"

Eljay's photo
Mon 08/04/08 11:56 AM



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


One of the biggest myths in the history of man kind and they haven't already done it? What are they waiting for? Surely they can't be waiting for ME to contact them.

Perhaps they believe it isn't a myth.

I know what you mean though. I find Darwinian evolution highly unlikely, and a myth. There's no logic for it, and no scientific evidence to support the missing holes in the theory. If I were told to teach it - I would refuse.

no photo
Mon 08/04/08 12:14 PM




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


One of the biggest myths in the history of man kind and they haven't already done it? What are they waiting for? Surely they can't be waiting for ME to contact them.

Perhaps they believe it isn't a myth.

I know what you mean though. I find Darwinian evolution highly unlikely, and a myth. There's no logic for it, and no scientific evidence to support the missing holes in the theory. If I were told to teach it - I would refuse.



I just dawned on me how it could be done. Perhaps "God" helped, and "God" is an alien and he had this giant spaceship and they beamed up animals and took them into their inter-dimensional world or out into space and then came back when they saw land.

laugh laugh

tribo's photo
Mon 08/04/08 12:29 PM


thnx Funch, have fun.


why thank you "Tribo" but since your Panthiest God doesn't differentiate from right or wrong or seriousness or fun then you are contradicting your own beliefs by telling me to have fun ...so maybe the term to use to keep you from violating your beliefs is to say "be natural"


your right Funch - "be Natural" drinker

no photo
Mon 08/04/08 12:34 PM

I just dawned on me how it could be done. Perhaps "God" helped, and "God" is an alien and he had this giant spaceship and they beamed up animals and took them into their inter-dimensional world or out into space and then came back when they saw land.

laugh laugh


According to the Bible, the Ark would have had 1,518,000 cubic feet of living space. Noah wouldn't have needed every canid species, just one. Similarly for Ursidae, Felid, etc. Adults wouldn't have been necessary for any of the species.

tribo's photo
Mon 08/04/08 12:42 PM


I just dawned on me how it could be done. Perhaps "God" helped, and "God" is an alien and he had this giant spaceship and they beamed up animals and took them into their inter-dimensional world or out into space and then came back when they saw land.

laugh laugh


According to the Bible, the Ark would have had 1,518,000 cubic feet of living space. Noah wouldn't have needed every canid species, just one. Similarly for Ursidae, Felid, etc. Adults wouldn't have been necessary for any of the species.


how much of that was "floor space" spider and be exact down to the .0001 " decimal point.

tribo's photo
Mon 08/04/08 12:43 PM
sorry funches i couldn't help myself on that one - laugh

davidben1's photo
Mon 08/04/08 12:43 PM
that would be of course of if noahs "ark" was taken literally, as it seems there are many mentions of the "ark" of the covenant as well, which housed god or the truth.....

also there are many descriptions of what a flood and water mean within text that are not as physical things at all.......

no photo
Mon 08/04/08 01:05 PM



I just dawned on me how it could be done. Perhaps "God" helped, and "God" is an alien and he had this giant spaceship and they beamed up animals and took them into their inter-dimensional world or out into space and then came back when they saw land.

laugh laugh


According to the Bible, the Ark would have had 1,518,000 cubic feet of living space. Noah wouldn't have needed every canid species, just one. Similarly for Ursidae, Felid, etc. Adults wouldn't have been necessary for any of the species.


how much of that was "floor space" spider and be exact down to the .0001 " decimal point.


I don't know, because God didn't include the blueprints with the Bible. He said something about never flooding the earth again and promised we wouldn't need to build another Ark.

tribo's photo
Mon 08/04/08 01:12 PM




I just dawned on me how it could be done. Perhaps "God" helped, and "God" is an alien and he had this giant spaceship and they beamed up animals and took them into their inter-dimensional world or out into space and then came back when they saw land.

laugh laugh


According to the Bible, the Ark would have had 1,518,000 cubic feet of living space. Noah wouldn't have needed every canid species, just one. Similarly for Ursidae, Felid, etc. Adults wouldn't have been necessary for any of the species.


how much of that was "floor space" spider and be exact down to the .0001 " decimal point.


I don't know, because God didn't include the blueprints with the Bible. He said something about never flooding the earth again and promised we wouldn't need to build another Ark.



laugh laugh laugh

no photo
Mon 08/04/08 01:15 PM

that would be of course of if noahs "ark" was taken literally, as it seems there are many mentions of the "ark" of the covenant as well, which housed god or the truth.....

also there are many descriptions of what a flood and water mean within text that are not as physical things at all.......


Ark of the Convenant is "'arown", while Noah's Ark is "tebah". They are two different words translated into the same word.

"'arown" means...


1) chest, ark
a) money chest
b) Ark of the Covenant
2) (TWOT) coffin


"tebah" means...


1) ark
a) vessel which Noah built
b) basket vessel in which Moses was placed


Noah's Ark was an allegorical event, often equated with salvation through Jesus Christ. Which isn't to say that Noah's Ark didn't happen.

1 2 3 4 5 7 9 10 11 18 19