Spirituality
17 Apr 10
22 Apr 10
1 edit
In studying the Genesis flood story the serious researcher should be governed by the original language account. A study of the Hebrew verbs and nouns is in order rather than jumping to possibly faulty conclusions.
He or she should not be governed mainly by the art work in children's Bibles or the popular pictoral reprentations of artists' of the story.
22 Apr 10
Originally posted by Proper KnobCurious, indeed. When we last touched on the subject (in the thread titled "Sensual History," last posted to back earlier this year), you cited the Bradshaw Foundation, which had mapped out a speculative tracing of genetic progression, as it relates to man's history.
Curious.
Yet again our discussion on the biblical flood has taken exactly the same course. I tell you there is no genetic evidence for the flood myth, you tell me the genetic evidence backs up the biblical account, i ask you what your version of the biblical account is and........................you disappear. Although this time you did crack a joke. ...[text shortened]... houghts on flood mythology, maybe you could do the same and reveal what you think happenned?!
My response after viewing the information therein was that nothing within that information was in any way at odds with the account given in the Bible. Your response? Well, go back seven or so pages and see who was the last person to post. Hint: it wasn't you.
23 Apr 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHFair enough.
Curious, indeed. When we last touched on the subject (in the thread titled "Sensual History," last posted to back earlier this year), you cited the Bradshaw Foundation, which had mapped out a speculative tracing of genetic progression, as it relates to man's history.
My response after viewing the information therein was that nothing within that informa ...[text shortened]... ll, go back seven or so pages and see who was the last person to post. Hint: it wasn't you.
But my questions still stands, what's your version of the biblical flood account?
23 Apr 10
Originally posted by Proper KnobFollowing the promise to the woman (renamed Eve, as in mother of all living), man was banished from the Garden and sent to make his way in the world by the sweat of his face--- the knowledge of foreboding death on his mind.
Fair enough.
But my questions still stands, what's your version of the biblical flood account?
He propagated the race, having sons and daughters, themselves having sons and daughters and so forth. After some time, some of the fallen angels began to notice the beauty of the women. Emboldened by their beauty while also realizing that the seed of the woman was to come from one of them, they began a policy of colonization as it were. By impregnating women with their seed, they could effectively choke off anything resembling the human race, thereby rendering God's promise null, void.
This was nearly accomplished: by the time of Noah, there were left only eight fully human believers on the earth, which itself was overflowing with arrogance and rejection of God.
To continue the human race, God commanded Noah to build an ark big enough to house two or seven of every animal required for re-population of the earth once the flood receded. The ark was also large enough to accommodate the eight people from his family and their provisions.
As the rain began to fall and the waters from both beneath and above the earth burst forth, the ark was closed. The earth was covered so that no mountain could be seen. After a passage of time, the water receded and the ark eventually settled in the mountains near Ararat.
Noah sacrificed some of the animals from the ark, and then both he and his family went from the ark to repopulate the earth, as did the animals therein.
If you want more details, simply read what I have summarized in Genesis 7, 8.
23 Apr 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThis remarkable explanation perhaps also applies to the beast and those things that crawl on the earth - they were impregnated by fairy dust and hardly the authentic beasty at all so had to go.
Following the promise to the woman (renamed Eve, as in mother of all living), man was banished from the Garden and sent to make his way in the world by the sweat of his face--- the knowledge of foreboding death on his mind.
He propagated the race, having sons and daughters, themselves having sons and daughters and so forth. After some time, some of the ...[text shortened]... imals therein.
If you want more details, simply read what I have summarized in Genesis 7, 8.
At any rate, this account of Creation now requires a complex web of Angels and other "spiritual" beings, good and bad, which begins to take us away from Monotheism and into Polytheism. At least, it suggest that Polytheism was not inherently inferior, in so far as the Monotheists cannot in the end account for things by relying strictly on the One God. Maybe the One is bigger and prior to the others, and maybe the term "god" is up for debate, but the principle remains - we have here a polytheist type of scenario and the Greeks or Romans would have found it quite intelligible.
However, if we are debating with someone having such a very unusual interpretation of the Bible are we really debating reasonably at all or talking at cross purposes? Mine are very cross by now. It somewhat discounts the opinions and beliefs of generations of Christian and Muslims over Centuries - millenia nearly - and it suggest that, whatever the Bible means is open to review and revision interminably. From this it seems to me and others that the claim to be a source of reliable and consistent teaching is suspect. It is not reliable since it is constantly revised.
23 Apr 10
Originally posted by finneganThere is no other God besides Him. The Nephilim described in Genesis 6:4 were a class of fallen angels... who were, themselves, on the scene prior to the re-creation of the earth or the creation of man.
This remarkable explanation perhaps also applies to the beast and those things that crawl on the earth - they were impregnated by fairy dust and hardly the authentic beasty at all so had to go.
At any rate, this account of Creation now requires a complex web of Angels and other "spiritual" beings, good and bad, which begins to take us away from Monothei ...[text shortened]... iable and consistent teaching is suspect. It is not reliable since it is constantly revised.
23 Apr 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThere is no genetic evidence be it mtDNA or Y Chromosone to back this story up at all. Your claim that the genetic evidence backs up the biblical account is unfounded as far as i understand it, but if you have a peer-reviewed scientific paper which backs up your claim i would be most intrigued to peruse over it.
Following the promise to the woman (renamed Eve, as in mother of all living), man was banished from the Garden and sent to make his way in the world by the sweat of his face--- the knowledge of foreboding death on his mind.
He propagated the race, having sons and daughters, themselves having sons and daughters and so forth. After some time, some of the ...[text shortened]... imals therein.
If you want more details, simply read what I have summarized in Genesis 7, 8.
23 Apr 10
2 edits
Originally posted by Proper KnobProper Knob,
There is no genetic evidence be it mtDNA or Y Chromosone to back this story up at all. Your claim that the genetic evidence backs up the biblical account is unfounded as far as i understand it, but if you have a peer-reviewed scientific paper which backs up your claim i would be most intrigued to peruse over it.
I am not qualified to know how to address your genetic concerns.
If you have some training in that area and want a scientific discussion with Christian scientist about the Noah story, I would suggest that you go to the website Reasons to Believe. Contact Dr. Hugh Ross, Phd. astrophysicist and ask his opinion on your objections.
I am sure that Ross is at least conversant on that subject matter on the level that you need. This is not intended as my personal endorsement of everything written by his team. But I recall him talking about genetic evidences for Bible issues in his lecture Who Was Adam?
http://www.reasons.org/
23 Apr 10
Originally posted by jaywillThanks, i'll take a look.
Proper Knob,
I am not qualified to know how to address your [b]genetic concerns.
If you have some training in that area and want a scientific discussion with Christian scientist about the Noah story, I would suggest that you go to the website Reasons to Believe. Contact Dr. Hugh Ross, Phd. astrophysicist and ask his opinion on y ...[text shortened]... tic evidences for Bible issues in his lecture Who Was Adam?
http://www.reasons.org/[/b]
23 Apr 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI have no desire to recommence argument with you Freaky, but am curious to know what your confidence level in this account is. Do you believe this 100 per cent?
Following the promise to the woman (renamed Eve, as in mother of all living), man was banished from the Garden and sent to make his way in the world by the sweat of his face--- the knowledge of foreboding death on his mind.
He propagated the race, having sons and daughters, themselves having sons and daughters and so forth. After some time, some of the ...[text shortened]... imals therein.
If you want more details, simply read what I have summarized in Genesis 7, 8.
23 Apr 10
Originally posted by avalanchethecatAs much as I'm certain you would be encouraged in your disbelief were I to give you a figure less than what it is, I'm afraid you will have to continue with the nagging knowledge that the world still contains folks who believe the word of God is just as advertised. I am one of 'them.'
I have no desire to recommence argument with you Freaky, but am curious to know what your confidence level in this account is. Do you believe this 100 per cent?
23 Apr 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHEdifying, I am obliged. Alas I must also admit that my disbelief fares tolerably well without encouragement.
As much as I'm certain you would be encouraged in your disbelief were I to give you a figure less than what it is, I'm afraid you will have to continue with the nagging knowledge that the world still contains folks who believe the word of God is just as advertised. I am one of 'them.'
23 Apr 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou are not really taking my point. Polytheism by definition requires many gods, Monotheism only one. I do not dispute that much. However, we are often told that polytheism is a more primitive and less satisfactory theology than monotheism. For example, the conversion of the Arab peoples to Islam is represented as an advance, just as the conversion of the Romans to Christianity is seen as an advance and an improvement.
There is no other God besides Him. The Nephilim described in Genesis 6:4 were a class of fallen angels... who were, themselves, on the scene prior to the re-creation of the earth or the creation of man.
That said, it transpires that Christians and Muslims are not able to settle for their single God and feel drawn to introduce a whole plethora of other spiritual entities. These include Saints, Demons, Angels and I am not in the mood for the finer details.
A clever aphorism is that if we did not have a God we would have to invent one. Seems to me, that if we do not have a plethora of gods then we end up inventing a plethora and call them whatever name suits the prevailing orthodoxy. Saints, angels, Jinns....
23 Apr 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThis is weird - do you have any idea how weird this is? Any idea how symptomatic of disturbed and unhealthy thinking?
He propagated the race, having sons and daughters, themselves having sons and daughters and so forth. After some time, some of the fallen angels began to notice the beauty of the women. Emboldened by their beauty while also realizing that the seed of the woman was to come from one of them, they began a policy of colonization as it were. By impregnating w ...[text shortened]... lly human believers on the earth, which itself was overflowing with arrogance and rejection of God.
24 Apr 10
Originally posted by finneganI can think of weirder things, but they don't bother me too awful much, either. I assume that when the yardstick is unbelief/rejection of the Bible, pretty much anything remotely close to belief/acceptance of the same must appear downright sick.
This is weird - do you have any idea how weird this is? Any idea how symptomatic of disturbed and unhealthy thinking?
What's truly ironic in the whole bizarre scenario is how totally well adjusted I am--- or maybe that's only due to knowing the right answers when called upon. Barring the latter, how do you think that someone with such disturbed and unhealthy thinking such as myself can appear so normal and balanced, can actually contribute to society on so many levels?
I really look forward to your response.