Nephilim: Angels, giants, or God's eugenics program? [Archive]

Tricky

29th January 2008, 07:31 AM

The bible never says the Nephilim were "angel-human hybrids". That is just one interpretation.

LLH
It's not real clear. Genesis 6:4 says:

4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
Not clear whether the Nephilim were the Sons of God or the children of the Sons of God and Daughters of Men.

King James says:
4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
That makes it look like the Nephilim or "giants" were different from the Sons of God. So yes, it's very confusing.

But what is even more confusing is the very next verses.

5 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.
6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain.
7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them."
or in the KJV:

5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
So it is quite apparent that having the "Sons of God" interbreeding with the Daughters of Man (the earliest recorded evidence of eugenics) did nothing to improve the stock. In no time flat, they're so wicked that they have to be destroyed. Perhaps God only sent his juvenile delinquent sons, thus saving his pride-and-joy to clean up after them.

It's also not mentioned whether or not Noah is one or is descended from one of these half-breeds, but since God finds favor with him, one would suspect that he was. That would of course mean that the people on earth were NOT all descended from Adam and Eve, but from one of Noah's female ancestors and an unnamed Nephilim. It really throws a monkey wrench into things.

And I have to wonder why God didn't have any daughters to go mess around with the Sons of Man. Doesn't seem quite fair to either sex.

In any case, I must thank Radrook for bringing Nephilim into the equation. It really puts a much more pagan look onto the whole Christianity myth. Zeus and his children were always messing around with mortals too.

Tricky

29th January 2008, 07:33 AM

Genesis doesn't say that the earth is 6000 years old.
Well duh! It wasn't 6000 years old at the time of Genesis.

Radrook

29th January 2008, 08:04 AM

Well duh! It wasn't 6000 years old at the time of Genesis.

Good semantic point! LOL

Radrook

29th January 2008, 08:12 AM

The bible never says the Nephilim were "angel-human hybrids". That is just one interpretation.

LLH

Yes the Bible does say it in the book of Jude 1

6And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
7Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Notice that the angels leaving the habitation is compared to what happened in Sodom and Gommorah. Even as in Sodom and Gomorrah the scripture says. Or just like it happened in Sodom and Gomorrah. The flesh that these rebel angels went after was strrange due to its being prohibited to them. In short, it was unnatural for this relationship to happen. Notice thatr both are set as an example in reference to this.

So ypou see, not all interpretations are equal. Some are out of harmony with what the rest of the Bible clearly tells us about the subject. So when these interpretations prove to be out of harmony with the rest of the Bible-then they identify themselves as erroenous. It's as simple as that.

Now, if we ignore what the rest of the Bible tells us and insist on our own understanding, then we are writing our own version of the Bible. Essenbtially, that's what has happened in relation to the preflood Genesis account in relation to the sons of God mentioned there. The only time the Bible uses te term sons of God is in reference toi angels.

Here is a description of a heavenly assembly where the asngels are called sons of god.

Job 1 6Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

Below the sons of God are said to have been present when God created the earth.

(King James Version)

Job 38

4Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

7When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Nogbad

29th January 2008, 08:18 AM

All interpretations aren't equal. How do we know? Because some interpretations are out of harmony with what the rest of the Bible clearly tells us about the subject. So when these interpretations prove to be out of hartmony with trhe rest of the Bible-then they identify themselves as erroenous. It's as simple as that.

Now, if we ignore what the rest of the Bible tells us and insist on our own understanding, then we are writing our own version of the Bible. Essenbtially, that's what has happened in relation to the preflood Genesis account in relation to the sons of God mentioned there.

Indeed so. Didn't Jesus say in response to a question about whose wife a woman would be in heaven if she remarried after her first husband's death that we would be like Angels and there would be no husband and wife. I take this to mean that the Angels are asexual and therefore there could be no Nephilim ....either that or heaven is a free for all sexytime ...hadn't thought of it like that before..:boggled: How does one join again?

LordoftheLeftHand

29th January 2008, 08:19 AM

Radrook

29th January 2008, 08:39 AM

Chapter and verse ?

The nephilim mentioned in Genesis were the hybrid offspring of humans and rebel angels.

Genesis 6:3-5 (King James Version)

4There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Nogbad

29th January 2008, 08:41 AM

The nephilim mentioned in Genesis were the hybrid offspring of humans and rebel angels.

Genesis 6:3-5 (King James Version)

4There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

To be fair it doesn't say that they were rebels does it?

It also contradicts what Jesus said about Angels not really have such inclinations.

LordoftheLeftHand

29th January 2008, 08:43 AM

The nephilim mentioned in Genesis were the hybrid offspring of humans and rebel angels.

Genesis 6:3-5 (King James Version)

4There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

You'll note in the verses you quoted the word "angel" did not appear.

LLH

Radrook

29th January 2008, 08:47 AM

Indeed so. Didn't Jesus say in response to a question about whose wife a woman would be in heaven if she remarried after her first husband's death that we would be like Angels and there would be no husband and wife. I take this to mean that the Angels are asexual and therefore there could be no Nephilim ....either that or heaven is a free for all sexytime ...hadn't thought of it like that before..:boggled: How does one join again?

Jesus was referring to angels as they are in heavenb in their natural spiritual state.
Angels in their natural spirit state are asexual. But the angels who did what they did left their natural stae and materialized bodies in order to enjoy carnal pleasures. This materialization was of itself not sinful since we are told that angels such as Gabriel and others did materialize to bring messages to mankind. However, the purpose of the preflood
angelic use of this power was sinful.

Nogbad

29th January 2008, 08:55 AM

Jesus was referring to angels as they are in heavenb in their natural spiritual state.
Angels in their natural spirit state are asexual. But the angels who did what they did left their natural stae and materialized bodies in order to enjoy carnal pleasures. This materialization was of itself not sinful since we are told that angels such as Gabriel and others did materialize to bring messages to mankind. However, the purpose of the preflood
angelic use of this power was sinful.

There is a fair bit of supposition there because I can't recall any comment in the Bible that says any of that or that God had a particular issue with the "mighty men of old" - am I forgetting something?

LordoftheLeftHand

29th January 2008, 08:55 AM

Jesus was referring to angels as they are in heavenb in their natural spiritual state.
Angels in their natural spirit state are asexual. But the angels who did what they did left their natural stae and materialized bodies in order to enjoy carnal pleasures. This materialization was of itself not sinful since we are told that angels such as Gabriel and others did materialize to bring messages to mankind. However, the purpose of the preflood
angelic use of this power was sinful.

So from one tiny vague snippet you have derived the above "facts"? Are you 100% sure?

LLH

Ladewig

29th January 2008, 09:06 AM

How's chances of putting the whole angels, human, and hybrid angels argument in its own thread and using this thread to discuss the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin?

Nogbad

29th January 2008, 09:08 AM

How's chances of putting the whole angels, human, and hybrid angels argument in its own thread and using this thread to discuss the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin?

Picky.

Ocelot

29th January 2008, 09:10 AM

Indeed so. Didn't Jesus say in response to a question about whose wife a woman would be in heaven if she remarried after her first husband's death that we would be like Angels and there would be no husband and wife. I take this to mean that the Angels are asexual and therefore there could be no Nephilim ....either that or heaven is a free for all sexytime ...hadn't thought of it like that before..:boggled: How does one join again?

yes that the common interpretation of Matthew 22:30 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2022:30&version=9)

This leads us to the scene in Kevin Smith's Dogma where Alan Rickman a the Archangel Metatron hoists his robe to show that he is "ill equipped"

Great film by the way.

Anyway people who study the crazy making Bible reckon that this apparent contradiction can be fixed by assuming that fallen angels (demons) possessed the bodies of ungodly men to produce evil offspring.

Nogbad

29th January 2008, 09:18 AM

yes that the common interpretation of Matthew 22:30 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2022:30&version=9)

This leads us to the scene in Kevin Smith's Dogma where Alan Rickman a the Archangel Metatron hoists his robe to show that he is "ill equipped"

Great film by the way.

Anyway people who study the crazy making Bible reckon that this apparent contradiction can be fixed by assuming that fallen angels (demons) possessed the bodies of ungodly men to produce evil offspring.

A fair bit of assuming though because I am fairly sure neither are described as evil in a book not averse to ascribing a bit of blame. My own view is that the rather more fluid concept of dieties and their interaction with man were not completely ironed out of the earlier stories. These stories are rather more comparable with the myths of say Greece and similar mythologies and lack the rather heavy handed value judgements of later works.

Ocelot

29th January 2008, 09:52 AM

The only time the Bible uses the term "sons of God "is in reference to angels.

Well that's not really true is it. In Hosea 1:10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=HOsea%201:10;&version=9;) the poeple of Isreal are called the sons of the Living God

10Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.

God tells David that his offsping will be God sons in II Samuel 7:14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Samuel%207:14;&version=9;)

14I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:

Jesus refered to himself as the Son of God numerous times. To be fair Jehovah's Witness's believe that Jesus had a pre human existance as the Archangel Michael. - being the only archangel and the first being created by God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_(archangel)#Jesus.2C_the_son_of_God

So no contradiction there if you follow the JW's take on that doctrine but otherwise it's a problem to your assertion. Jesus also tells us that we're all Sons of God, or at least capable of becoming so. John 1:12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:12;&version=9;)

12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

So apart from not being true it's also pretty dodgy logic. You say that the "Sons of God" refered to in Genesis 6:4 are angels and to support that you suggest that the phrase "Sons of God" in the bible only relates to angels, however this supporting predicate assumes the truth of your conclusion.

It's like saying that the Duck billed platypus doesn't lay eggs because it suckles it's young with milk and no creature which suckles it's young with milk lays eggs.

One might as easily say that Nephlim or Giants is only used in the bible to discuss the offspring of humans and fallen angels, yet what of the post flood Nephlim in Numbers 13:33

33And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.

I don't know your take on this but many claim that these at least were human otherwise how did they survive the flood?

Tricky

29th January 2008, 09:58 AM

Jesus was referring to angels as they are in heaven in their natural spiritual state.
Angels in their natural spirit state are asexual. But the angels who did what they did left their natural stae and materialized bodies in order to enjoy carnal pleasures. This materialization was of itself not sinful since we are told that angels such as Gabriel and others did materialize to bring messages to mankind. However, the purpose of the preflood angelic use of this power was sinful.
So let me get this straight. God loses control over his angels, they become material, sprout penises and start fornicating all over the place. So because He can't control His randy "sons" the world becomes a hotbed of sin, even worse than Las Vegas. To correct His mistake, God punishes every living thing on earth. Is that about right?

And people wonder why atheists don't look to the bible for moral guidance.

Nogbad

29th January 2008, 10:08 AM

Belz...

29th January 2008, 10:16 AM

7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them."

That omniscient deity should've seen that coming.

not all interpretations are equal. Some are out of harmony with what the rest of the Bible clearly tells us about the subject.

It's difficult for the bibble to be in harmony with itself, though. See Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.

The nephilim mentioned in Genesis were the hybrid offspring of humans and rebel angels.

So I take it "sons of God" means angels ? Are we sure about that, and how do we know they were rebels ?

Jesus was referring to angels as they are in heavenb in their natural spiritual state.
Angels in their natural spirit state are asexual. But the angels who did what they did left their natural stae and materialized bodies in order to enjoy carnal pleasures. This materialization was of itself not sinful since we are told that angels such as Gabriel and others did materialize to bring messages to mankind. However, the purpose of the preflood
angelic use of this power was sinful.

And, exactly where do you find evidential support for that bit of explanation ?

Nogbad

29th January 2008, 10:34 AM

If Angels rebelled and took physical form does that mean they free will? If so what is man's role in the Divine Comedy? In what way are we different if at all?

Radrook

30th January 2008, 06:31 AM

Except there is one thing about your statement that isn't simple. Determining which interpretations are in conflict with other parts is also an opinion.

If the Bible were a a hodge podge of unrelated writings, having no central theme as you imagine it to be, then your statement might be applicable, But since it isn't, it is not.

1 Corinthians 14:33
For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace,....

No matter what crazy system you come up with your going to be left with opinions and lots of them.

And the crazy ones will be out of harmony with basic biblical theology and make themselves immediately identifiable because they cause biblical disharmony.

That is unless god speaks directly to you, in which case you don't need the bible.

LLH

That's your idea, not mine.
The scriptures are sufficient in providing us with the clear accurate knowledge that is needed.

2 Timothy 3:15
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Radrook

30th January 2008, 06:37 AM

The bible never says the Nephilim were "angel-human hybrids". That is just one interpretation.

LLH

First, do you need to put the "laughing out loud" comment in your response? What purpose does it serve to do that-further the diuscussion-or discourage further diuscussion? The only thing I see it accomplishing is terminating the discussion With YOU and continuing the discussion with someone who doesn't have that irritating obnoxious need.

BYE!

BTW

I have a choice as to what I allow to appear on my computor screen or not. Ever occur to you?

Nogbad

30th January 2008, 06:41 AM

volatile

30th January 2008, 06:57 AM

Except there is one thing about your statement that isn't simple. Determining which interpretations are in conflict with other parts is also an opinion. No matter what crazy system you come up with your going to be left with opinions and lots of them. That is unless god speaks directly to you, in which case you don't need the bible.

LLH

He's a Jehovah's Witness. God talks directly to the Watchtower Council, 12 old white guys in Brooklyn, who then pass on the teachings in pamphlet form. No opinions needed in Radrook's reality, just obedience to the party line.

Tricky

30th January 2008, 07:15 AM

And the crazy ones will be out of harmony with basic biblical theology and make themselves immediately identifiable because they cause biblical disharmony.
Who determines which ones are out of harmony? (And don't say "God" because he has the annoying tendency to tell people exactly what they already believed.)

The scriptures are sufficient in providing us with the clear accurate knowledge that is needed.
Is it so clear that is no disagreement among Christians about what knowledge is revealed by the scriptures?

Nogbad

30th January 2008, 07:22 AM

Who determines which ones are out of harmony? (And don't say "God" because he has the annoying tendency to tell people exactly what they already believed.)

Is it so clear that is no disagreement among Christians about what knowledge is revealed by the scriptures?

Or indeed what they were just intending to believe.

I think it would be fair to say that Christians have disagreed quite unpleasantly about what the Bible says a number of times. The Catharists felt the full brunt of what disagreement means.

Radrook

30th January 2008, 07:27 AM

Well that's not really true is it. In Hosea 1:10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=HOsea%201:10;&version=9;) the poeple of Isreal are called the sons of the Living God

God tells David that his offsping will be God sons in II Samuel 7:14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Samuel%207:14;&version=9;)

Jesus refered to himself as the Son of God numerous times. To be fair Jehovah's Witness's believe that Jesus had a pre human existance as the Archangel Michael. - being the only archangel and the first being created by God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_(archangel)#Jesus.2C_the_son_of_God

So no contradiction there if you follow the JW's take on that doctrine but otherwise it's a problem to your assertion. Jesus also tells us that we're all Sons of God, or at least capable of becoming so. John 1:12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:12;&version=9;)

So apart from not being true it's also pretty dodgy logic. You say that the "Sons of God" refered to in Genesis 6:4 are angels and to support that you suggest that the phrase "Sons of God" in the bible only relates to angels, however this supporting predicate assumes the truth of your conclusion.

It's like saying that the Duck billed platypus doesn't lay eggs because it suckles it's young with milk and no creature which suckles it's young with milk lays eggs.

One might as easily say that Nephlim or Giants is only used in the bible to discuss the offspring of humans and fallen angels, yet what of the post flood Nephlim in Numbers 13:33

I don't know your take on this but many claim that these at least were human otherwise how did they survive the flood?

You are right. My premise was faulty. Thanx for bringing that premise fallacy to my attention.

BTW

I realized it was faulty and could easily be refuted but inexplicably did not delete it. A fact which at the moment is baffling me. In any case, thanx once again. : )

Radrook

30th January 2008, 07:32 AM

He's a Jehovah's Witness.

Go tell that to my local JW elders so they can LOL. Better yet, go tell my kids.

God talks directly to the Watchtower Council, 12 old white guys in Brooklyn, who then pass on the teachings in pamphlet form. No opinions needed in Radrook's reality, just obedience to the party line.

Obedience to the party line? What party line? And you know all this based on what? Your feverish imagination-of course.

BTW
Is this all you have to add to the discussion? Snide remarks about personal matters you know nothing about?

Well, OK then.
Bye!

Ocelot

30th January 2008, 07:38 AM

You are right. My premise was faulty. Thanx for bringing that premise fallacy to my attention.

BTW

I realized it was faulty and could easily be refuted but inexplicably did not delete it. A fact which at the moment is baffling me. In any case, thanx once again. : )

Your thanks are appreciated.

Do you still believe that the Nephilim in the story of Genesis were the offspring of angels though? If so would you accept that a solely human origin still a valid alternative interpretation of scripture? What about the Nephlim of Numbers?

Radrook

30th January 2008, 07:54 AM

Your thanks are appreciated.

Do you still believe that the Nephilim in the story of Genesis were the offspring of angels though? If so would you accept that a solely human origin still a valid alternative interpretation of scripture? What about the Nephlim of Numbers?

Sure! An alternate explanation that would correct one that is faulty is acceptable. I try to illuminate but I can also benefit from illumination if it is legitimate. Actually, since the issue is a non-salvational one it is certainly open to modification if modification is deserved. In short, believing or not believing that they were angels doesn't in any way affect my status before God whatever that status might chance to be. : )

However, I still tend to believe they were angels based on 2 Peter and Jude. The nephilim mentioned in the Exodus account by the Israelite spies could have been an exaggeration on the part of the spies due to their fear of the size of the warriors they saw.
As to the reference of Nephilim in Numbers, I have read about the interpretation of their tribal names as being indirect references to Nephilim. I always discounted such conclusions on the fact that the flood was intended to wipe out the seen and that the angels involved had been prevented from repeating their pre-flood activity. Their restriction I understood to be made mention in Jude where tartarus is mentioned.

volatile

30th January 2008, 08:01 AM

Go tell that to my local JW elders so they can LOL. Better yet, go tell my kids.

Oh, sorry. I was a pretty obvious conclusion though - I just presumed that when you were supporting JW doctrine and dogmatic interpretations of scripture, dealing out apologetics for the Watchtower and castigating any alternative opinions all over this forum, it was because you were a JW. You're not? Were you ever?

Obedience to the party line? What party line? And you know all this based on what? Your feverish imagination-of course.Based on your posts on the subject of Witnesses, and my knowledge of the organisational practices of the Watchtower organisation, wherein disobedience from the approved thoughtline results in disfellowshipping.

If you're not a JW, you do a damn fine impression of one.

Radrook

30th January 2008, 08:07 AM

So let me get this straight. God loses control over his angels, they become material, sprout penises and start fornicating all over the place. So because He can't control His randy "sons" the world becomes a hotbed of sin, even worse than Las Vegas. To correct His mistake, God punishes every living thing on earth. Is that about right?

The problem is that you are not getting it straight. You are twisting it to fit your anti-Christian ant-biblical agenda.

If I said that it was impossible for aliens somewhere in space to sprout penises then you would jump up and object by saying "Um. and how do you know that?" I would then say "Because it's ridiculous!" Whereupon you would again jack-box up and say????

As for control, it's been explained a thousand or more times but to no avail that God is permitting these things with the purpose of giving mankind what they wanted, the right to choose their own ways. They sided with Satan from the start and that's what they received.

Whose mistake then was it?

Which of course will only serve to provoke another barrage of ill-conceived conclusions and totally irrelevant questions.

And people wonder why atheists don't look to the bible for moral guidance.

You are as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. I could very well say No wonder Christians tend to avoid turning into atheists in view of their crazy ideas. From a Chrsitian standpoint, of course. But I won't because that comment derails the subject away from context into the personal criticism of freedom of choice area which is not open to negotiation.

volatile

30th January 2008, 08:08 AM

Ocelot

30th January 2008, 08:20 AM

Interesting, Why is it that we can presume that the spies in numbers exagerated but not peter or jude?

Beerina

30th January 2008, 08:26 AM

...but "siding with Satan" seems to include things definitely bad, like murder and theft, and things that modern society doesn't consider bad at all, like varied sexuality and sexual freedom. And, apparently, enslaving people was not considered as part of "siding with Satan".

So at this point, if the God hypothesis is true, then we're all in for a world of hurt, siding-with-Satan-wise, because clearly God is immoral.

Nogbad

30th January 2008, 08:27 AM

Wait, wait. Some of us seem to be having a "Is Deckard a Replicant?" conversation, and others seem to be having one more akin to "Who built Stonehenge?".

You really believe that the Nephilim actually existed, in reality, don't you, Radrook? Can we rewind to that bonkers assertion before we get onto discussing what colour hats they wore?

Party hats with the coloured tips?

I think the argument was they didn't :)

I do have a slight issue with the "whose fault is that" line. Firstly, I am not sure the serpent was Lucifer and secondly aren't the innocent easy to take advantage of and a protective parent knows this? God didn't cut them much slack did he? One mistake and death and pain are theirs for ever - not just them but all their descendents. It is not that I have a big gripe about this but rather that it just doesn't ring true as a working theology. It seems too small and petty to be literally true to my poor brain.

Tricky

30th January 2008, 08:30 AM

If I said that it was impossible for aliens somewhere in space to sprout penises then you would jump up and object by saying "Um. and how do you know that?" I would then say "Because it's ridiculous!" Whereupon you would again jack-box up and say????
I responded to what appeared to be the way you described Nephilim and in keeping with what the bible said. You said they were asexual in heaven, but became sexual on earth. The bible says they interbred with women. The very next thing the bible says is that God has found that the earth has grown too wicked. Now maybe that's making an intuitive leap, but I can't help but think that if anything else important happened in that gap, then the bible would have mentioned it, don't you think? How many generations were there between the coming of the Nephilim and Noah? (And did Bishop Usher take them into account?)

So don't give me your straw man. I'm trying to discover what you think the Nephilim have to do with anything. I even asked you if it was right. If it is wrong, I would expect you to tell me what you think really happened.
As for control, it's been explained a thouisand or more times that God is permitting these things with the purpose of giving mankind what they wanted, the right to choose their own ways.
How does releasing horny angels fit in with what mankind wanted? How does sending Nephilim or giants or whatever give mankind a choice? It sounds like he is allowing celestial beings (his own sons) to dominate mankind.

Whose mistake then was it?God made the mistake, obviously, unless you can show me where humans asked for the Nephilim.

But another thing strikes me as odd. Whether called giants or Nephilim, these creatures are described as "the sons of God". Given how much of the bible is devoted to just one of God's progeny, it seems quite odd that all these other sons get only a single verse. And what about these children they sired? Jesus was the son begotten by God himself, but all these others are, at worst, begotten grandchildren of God. Don't you think they'd be aware of that? If so, why would they be so wicked? Is the seed of God that bad?

Really, this is a fascinating part of the bible that I never realized the implications of before. It doesn't do God any credit either that his own sons have so little respect for him.

Radrook

30th January 2008, 08:31 AM

If Angels rebelled and took physical form does that mean they free will? If so what is man's role in the Divine Comedy? In what way are we different if at all?

Free will within the parameters of law just as we have freedom under democracy within the aameters of law.

The difference betwen angels and man is that we are material and they are spirit. They have greater power and are physically closer to God .

2 Peter 2:10-12 (King James Version)

11Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord.

Hebrews 2:6-8 (King James Version)

6But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man that thou visitest him?

7Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:

Psalm 104:4
Who maketh his angels spirits; ....

This Guy

30th January 2008, 08:42 AM

SNIP

God made the mistake, obviously, unless you can show me where humans asked for the Nephilim.

As I understand it, there was a miscommunication and a time slip of some sort.

It was Moses, when he was trying to deal with the Pharaoh. He asked for Napalm, and the requisition got fouled up, and, well, you know the rest.

:boxedin:

Ocelot

30th January 2008, 08:47 AM

As I understand it, there was a miscommunication and a time slip of some sort.

It was Moses, when he was trying to deal with the Pharaoh. He asked for Napalm, and the requisition got fouled up, and, well, you know the rest.

:boxedin:

"I seem to be having tremendous difficulty with my lifestyle"
- Arthur Dent

Radrook

30th January 2008, 09:08 AM

I responded to what appeared to be the way you described Nephilim and in keeping with what the bible said. You said they were asexual in heaven, but became sexual on earth. The bible says they interbred with women.

First, It was Jesus who said that angels did not marry in heaven. From that we can safely assume that they are neither male nor female although the Bible refers to them as sons and Genesis tells us that they took INTEREST only in women and not men as far as carnal relations were concerned which from my viewpoint is understandable. You need not be sexual being to take interest in the sexual activity of sexual beings and wonder just how such things would be experienced. There are humans who take interest in animals for sexual purposes. Or taking the example a bit further, I might not be an alien but I might take INTEREST in a certain activity which the aliens seem to find extremely pleasurable and if I had the power I might want to experience that activity and even be willing to face the consequences to experience it if another human who had would constantly brag about it in my presence as I am sure Satan did.

The very next thing the bible says is that God has found that the earth has grown too wicked. Now maybe that's making an intuitive leap, but I can't help but think that if anything else important happened in that gap, then the bible would have mentioned it, don't you think? How many generations were there between the coming of the Nephilim and Noah? (And did Bishop Usher take them into account?)

The earth growing wicked is said to have occurred simultaneously with the sons of God taking interest in the daughters of men. Clearly there is a contrast being made here between these sons of God[b] and mankind since otherwise the human females would not have been referred to as daughters [b]of men as OPPOSED TO sons of God.

So don't give me your straw man. I'm trying to discover what you think the Nephilim have to do with anything. I even asked you if it was right. If it is wrong, I would expect you to tell me what you think really happened.

Strawman?

How does releasing horny angels fit in with what mankind wanted? How does sending Nephilim or giants or whatever give mankind a choice? It sounds like he is allowing celestial beings (his own sons) to dominate mankind.

What you describe as horniness you do so because you are looking at the matter through human eyes. It could just as well be described as intense curiosity interest. What you express as releasing can also be expressed as allowing or permitting freedom of choice. Mankind's choice was to go it on their own while siding with the enemy of God Satan. The consequences of disobedience they knew would be death. At least Adam knew. Eve was deceived into believing the tripe Satan spewed out. In any case, Adam's choice was to rebel. He knew that would put him in league with whatever it was that was using the serpent as a puppet but he chose to take his chances.

As for mankind's being dominated. It sounds to me like mankind was having a party with these rebel angels. Even going so far as to cooperating with them in producing hybrids.

God made the mistake, obviously, unless you can show me where humans asked for the Nephilim.

When you choose to reject divine protection and guidance those bad things happen which you might not have expected but should have. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

grandchildren[/I] of God. Don't you think they'd be aware of that? If so, why would they be so wicked? Is the seed of God that bad?
Really, this is a fascinating part of the bible that I never realized the implications of before. It doesn't do God any credit either that his own sons have so little respect for him.

When God created he proclaimed his creation good. In order for him to proclaim it good, it could not be a programmed robotic creation incapable of making choices. If it were robotic then he would have viewed it as bad. God did what he had to do. From that point on, the creatures he created had to used their faculties as they were carefully instructed to stay witthin the parameters of God's advice. That this creation made the wrong choices is its responsibility.

God could not allow sin without a negative consequence because that would encourage sin in HIS universe. So the freedom given had to be a relative one just as the freedom we enjoy under our democracies has to be a relative in order to encourage people to abide by conduct which is not harmful to others and themselves.

Being sons of God means only that their life can be traced to God. Some sons choose to be obedient-others choose not to be. The majority of the angels or sons of God chose to remain faithful. What does that say about God? Or better said, how much credit does that do him?

There are parents who bring up their kids with love and yet their kids grow up to be ingrates anyway. What does that say about the parents?

BTW

When I say that his creation could not be robotic and be considered good I am referring to intelligent creatures who would be made in his image. Obviously ants and other insects are robotic and are still considered good.

Akhenaten

30th January 2008, 09:09 AM

Didn't Lara Croft kill off the last of the Nephilim?

Gord_in_Toronto

30th January 2008, 09:09 AM

Free will within the parameters of law just as we have freedom under democracy within the aameters of law.

The difference betwen angels and man is that we are material and they are spirit. They have greater power and are physically closer to God .

2 Peter 2:10-12 (King James Version)

11Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord.

Hebrews 2:6-8 (King James Version)

6But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man that thou visitest him?

7Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:

Psalm 104:4
Who maketh his angels spirits; ....

So angels rebel and they still get to hang around heaven all day and their leader, Satan, gets to make bets with God (vide Job) but we poor humans, who were created by God as less than angels, get screwed around on Earth before being sent to Hell.

Cognative Dissonance anyone?

:boggled:

Ocelot

30th January 2008, 09:50 AM

The majority of the angels or sons of God chose to remain faithful. What does that say about God?

Do you have a biblical reference for that. I've variously seen numbers from a tenth to a third of angels sided with Satan but I don't know if that's from the bible or from peripheral sources like Milton.

Also you cited Jude 6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jude%201:6;&version=9;) as evidence that the Nephilim of Numbers could not be the son of fallen angels as these were now chained beneath the earth.

If that so what of Satan being in God presence and wandering the earth in Job?

Furthermore what about exocism? Was the unclean spirit cast out by Jesus in Mark 1:21-28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%201:21-28;&version=9;) a fallen angel.

Does this suggest to you that angels continue to turn their back on God even after the fall of Satan.

If so what does this tell you?

edge

30th January 2008, 09:56 AM

After Adam And Eve sinned, God cast down to Earth, Satan and his Rebel Angels.
They had more influence up untill the flood and less after.

The word which is translated, "giants", in the King James version of the Bible is, in Hebrew, "Nephilim", which means, "Those who fell, or ... the fallen ones". Jude, the brother of Jesus describes them as "angels, having left their first estate in heaven". These fallen angels came to earth for a serious purpose.
The "fallen ones" sought to merge with the bloodline of Adam, because of the promise to send a redeemer through Adam's kinsman. The Hebrew says that the Sons of God saw that the women were a fit "extension", for they sought to extend themselves into this realm from the spirit realm, as well as to extend themselves into the "children of the promise" the lineage of Adam. Satan tried to prevent the eventual birth, in the distant future, of the Messiah.

The mating of human beings with angels resulted in hybrid creatures, evil spirits with human bodies. The human \ angel hybrids began to corrupt and destroy the human race, resulting in the Deluge, "the end of all flesh" except Noah and his family.

http://www.mt.net/~watcher/chamishgiants.html
http://www.mt.net/~watcher/enoch5.html

Nogbad

30th January 2008, 10:17 AM

Do you have a biblical reference for that. I've variously seen numbers from a tenth to a third of angels sided with Satan but I don't know if that's from the bible or from peripheral sources like Milton.

Also you cited Jude 6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jude%201:6;&version=9;) as evidence that the Nephilim of Numbers could not be the son of fallen angels as these were now chained beneath the earth.

If that so what of Satan being in God presence and wandering the earth in Job?

Furthermore what about exocism? Was the unclean spirit cast out by Jesus in Mark 1:21-28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%201:21-28;&version=9;) a fallen angel.

Does this suggest to you that angels continue to turn their back on God even after the fall of Satan.

If so what does this tell you?

It has been suggested that the verse in Revelation 12:4

And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

indicates that a third of the heavenly host fell with him. (Reveleation is a bit weird though so it could mean loads of other things too)

Any rebellion that pulls a third of Government, Army or whatever is significant. It begs the question why? Why would so many having seen heaven and God rebel?

LordoftheLeftHand

30th January 2008, 11:28 AM

Madalch

30th January 2008, 02:00 PM

It appears to me that Adam was not the first human, but simply the first Hebrew- the first of the chosen people. His kids found plenty of non-Hebrew women to marry.

I'm not surprised that the early Hebrew (or Hebrewish tribes, if you prefer) would have considered themselves proper "men" and other people as not men. There are cultures today who have no word for themselves other than the equivalent of "the people" (which I guess makes foreigners "not-really-people").

Garrette

30th January 2008, 02:09 PM

Frankly, were I to become a believer again, I'd toss in with Old Nick (or the god of this world, according to 2 Cor 4:4). He got bad press, but a close reading of his actions reveals him to be a damned site more straightforward and trustworthy than the opposition.

Tricky

30th January 2008, 02:21 PM

First, It was Jesus who said that angels did not marry in heaven. From that we can safely assume that they are neither male nor female although the Bible refers to them as sons and Genesis tells us that they took INTEREST only in women and not men as far as carnal relations were concerned which from my viewpoint is understandable.
Well, FIRST of all, the only one that says the Nephilim were angels is you. Certainly the bible doesn't mention it. Of course, the bible mentions Nephilim a grand total of one time. But yes, that description calls them male and they "came in unto the daughters of men". But just because things don't marry does not mean "they are neither male nor female." Not by a long shot. On an unrelated note, do you think God is "neither male nor female"?

You need not be sexual being to take interest in the sexual activity of sexual beings and wonder just how such things would be experienced.
LOL. You think? Are you aware of the role excitement plays in impregnating women? What you are suggesting makes no sense at all.

There are humans who take interest in animals for sexual purposes. Or taking the example a bit further, I might not be an alien but I might take INTEREST in a certain activity which the aliens seem to find extremely pleasurable and if I had the power I might want to experience that activity and even be willing to face the consequences to experience it if another human who had would constantly brag about it in my presence as I am sure Satan did.
If you find sexual acts (with anything) pleasurable, then you are sexual. That's how it works.

The earth growing wicked is said to have occurred simultaneously with the sons of God taking interest in the daughters of men. Clearly there is a contrast being made here between these sons of God and mankind since otherwise the human females would not have been referred to as daughters of men as OPPOSED TO sons of God.
Where is it said that this occurred simultaneously? It looks as if a few chapters fell out of the book. And why would females be referred to as "sons of God" anyway? I can't understand what you're trying to say here.

Strawman? Yes. Your presumption of what I would "jump up and say" is what is called a "strawman" (i.e. it is your creation that you then burn). It is you criticizing me for something you only imagine I would do.

What you describe as horniness you do so because you are looking at the matter through human eyes. It could just as well be described as intense curiosity interest.
No it can't, at least not rationally. They impregnated the women. That isn't curiosity. That is sexuality.

What you express as releasing can also be expressed as allowing or permitting freedom of choice. Mankind's choice was to go it on their own while siding with the enemy of God Satan. The consequences of disobedience they knew would be death. At least Adam knew. Eve was deceived into believing the tripe Satan spewed out. In any case, Adam's choice was to rebel. He knew that would put him in league with whatever it was that was using the serpent as a puppet but he chose to take his chances.
This isn't man you are talking about. These are Gods sons. Did he make them naturally sinful too, or did they have their own "Garden of Eden" incident where they chose Satan? If they are angels, as you suggest, then there is no reason you should ever trust what an angel says because they might be a free agent, exercising their free will. They appear to be quite susceptible to Satan.

As for mankind's being dominated. It sounds to me like mankind was having a party with these rebel angels. Even going so far as to cooperating with them in producing hybrids.
Co-operating? Where does it say that? These are Sons of God, mind you. Do you think that women would have the will or even the ability to resist them? You're saying humans are at fault for not being able to resist demigods. Or is this like a "blame the women for the rape" thing?

When you choose to reject divine protection and guidance those bad things happen which you might not have expected but should have. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Ah, I see. So they deserved it.

When God created he proclaimed his creation good. In order for him to proclaim it good, it could not be a programmed robotic creation incapable of making choices. If it were robotic then he would have viewed it as bad. God did what he had to do. From that point on, the creatures he created had to used their faculties as they were carefully instructed to stay within the parameters of God's advice. That this creation made the wrong choices is its responsibility.
This is yet another definition of "good" that I am not familiar with. God gives them the ability to choose, puts temptation in their path, and then blames them for the fall? If this is the way God really is, then I would have a hard time describing Him as "good".

God could not allow sin without a negative consequence because that would encourage sin in HIS universe. So the freedom given had to be a relative one just as the freedom we enjoy under our democracies has to be a relative in order to encourage people to abide by conduct which is not harmful to others and themselves.
I fail to see where the God you describe is particularly adept at determining what is a "sin". He is cruel and manipulative, a terrible father, a mass murderer, (yes, that flood must have destroyed quite a number of innocent and even unborn babies) and psychotically vain. But eating certain fruit gets you punished for eternity. Is this who you look to for answers on right and wrong? :boggled:

Being sons of God means only that their life can be traced to God. Some sons choose to be obedient-others choose not to be. The majority of the angels or sons of God chose to remain faithful. What does that say about God? Or better said, how much credit does that do him?
LOL. Were are you getting your numbers? How do you know how many Nephilim there were? Besides, any good parent knows that obedience isn't an "off/on" thing. Children are obedient in some things and not in others and the amount they are obedient varies from child to child and as they grow. I realize such a concept doesn't fit into a set of beliefs where everything is either "good" or "sinful", but that's reality. It is much different from myths.

There are parents who bring up their kids with love and yet their kids grow up to be ingrates anyway. What does that say about the parents?
It depends. We usually hear these stories from parents. Ask the kids if they grew up with love and you may get a different story. But again, kids aren't either all good or all evil. Neither are parents. That only happens in fairy tales.

When I say that his creation could not be robotic and be considered good I am referring to intelligent creatures who would be made in his image. Obviously ants and other insects are robotic and are still considered good.
Again, another use of "good" that makes no sense. Ants just do what they do, whether it be cleaning up the detritus lying all over the earth, or stinging the living crap out of some poor baby who steps into their ant bed.

And if you think ants are robotic, then you never owned an ant farm. Don't be too proud of your big brain. It hasn't yet proved that it is a successful long-term adaptation.

LordoftheLeftHand

30th January 2008, 04:40 PM

First, do you need to put the "laughing out loud" comment in your response? What purpose does it serve to do that-further the diuscussion-or discourage further diuscussion? The only thing I see it accomplishing is terminating the discussion With YOU and continuing the discussion with someone who doesn't have that irritating obnoxious need.

BYE!

BTW

I have a choice as to what I allow to appear on my computor screen or not. Ever occur to you?

You know I've posted the letters "LLH" thousands of times on most (if not all) of my post around the internet and not once (until today) has anyone ever accused me of making fun of them (at least with that part of my post :)).

I think this misunderstanding helps make the point I and others have tried to make: That your interpretation of the vague verses of the bible MIGHT be totally wrong. After all you (and everyone else) are only human and fallible.

On a side note: Even at NCH Pakistan (a homeopathic website in Pakistan I sometimes post at) was it immediately recognized as an abbreviation for my moniker.

What evidence is there for the "law of similars"? Has this been shown to be reproducible, double blind tested, and subjected to peer review?

LLH

LordoftheLeftHand, welcome http://www.nch.ipbfree.com/html/emoticons/smile.gif

Thanks for suggesting the abbreviation (LLH) of so difficult user name.

LLH

Silentknight

30th January 2008, 05:45 PM

LordoftheLeftHand

30th January 2008, 10:07 PM

According to extra-biblical Jewish texts, such as the Book of Enoch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch#The_Book_of_the_Watchers), the Nephilim are clearly described as human-angel hybrids. In fact, The Book of Jubilees (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Jubilees) says that one of Jehovah's goals in causing the great flood was to rid the Earth of the Nephilim. Point is, you do have to go outside the bible to find out about their origins, because the bible itself doesn't provide all the details.

I suppose the real lesson here is that the bible is not and never was meant to paint a complete picture. There are numerous extraneous writings available to the Jews of the time, such as the books I mentioned, which the biblical authors assumed the target audience would be familiar with. Some extraneous books are even mentioned in biblical passages, like how Kings and Chronicles mention the "Annals of the Kings of Israel."

But now you've opened a can of worms. Since you accept "non biblical" sources, you now have to make a judgment on what non biblical sources you are going to accept and which ones you won't. Lets see where this leaves us:

1. Must use an opinion to determine which non biblical books are valid sources.

2. Must use an opinion to determine what the source really means.

With the above criteria i think you could support any statement, no matter how ludicrous.

LLH

halofish2000

30th January 2008, 11:32 PM

These extraneous writings may not be inspired but are inspiring. Especially if one wants to read some Hebrew history. No, the Bible was never meant to be a complete history lesson. Besides, the boook of Enoch is quoted over 100 times in the NT.

Radrook

31st January 2008, 12:34 AM

So angels rebel and they still get to hang around heaven all day and their leader, Satan, gets to make bets with God (vide Job) but we poor humans, who were created by God as less than angels, get screwed around on Earth before being sent to Hell.

Cognative Dissonance anyone?

:boggled:

Wow! With that understanding-no wonder you are an atheist!

Radrook

31st January 2008, 01:50 AM

It has been suggested that the verse in Revelation 12:4

And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

indicates that a third of the heavenly host fell with him. (Reveleation is a bit weird though so it could mean loads of other things too)

Any rebellion that pulls a third of Government, Army or whatever is significant. It begs the question why? Why would so many having seen heaven and God rebel?

Numbers are not an indicator of rightness. The majority of Germans under Hitler supported his policies. What does that say about the rightness or morality of his policies. Nothing except that they agreed with them.

In reference to God, it's no mystery why they rebelled. They preferred to do things their way instead of the way God said things should be done. Why? Because as Satan said, in that way they would become like God being able to say what was good or evil. Which essentially meant that they could do things in any manner they pleased regardless of consequences.

Now, if we agree with Satan and these rebels that God is wrong and they were right in this matter. Then we would have to agree with theft, murder, and even with demon possession, which they were quite willing to inflict-and a host of other things which are generally recognized as crimes by mankind in general.

So even if the majority had rebelled and only a third had remained faithful that still would not prove the rightness of their rebellion nor that God was being unjust.

Radrook

31st January 2008, 02:50 AM

Do you have a biblical reference for that. I've variously seen numbers from a tenth to a third of angels sided with Satan but I don't know if that's from the bible or from peripheral sources like Milton.

The book of Revelation tells us that a third joined the rebellion. The reference to a tenth must be from a non-biblical source. I don't recall reading it in Milton's Paradise Lost, but perhaps in one of his poems? Here is a scripture which does give us specific numbers of angels present in heaven.

Daniel 7:10
A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened.

Also you cited Jude 6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jude%201:6;&version=9;) as evidence that the Nephilim of Numbers could not be the son of fallen angels as these were now chained beneath the earth.

About the tribes encountered in Canaan, which some presently say proves they were of Nephilim descent, these could have been erroneously referred to as Nephilim by the Hebrew scouts sent to spy out the land due to the fear they had of fighting these big men. Of course even if they had been Nephilim that would have been no justification for their lack of faith and cowardice.

If that so what of Satan being in God presence and wandering the earth in Job?

Prior to Noah's day no mention of other angels joining Satan in his rebellion is made. So prior to this act these angels enjoyed privileged positions in God's service in heaven under God''s guidance which is referred to in the Bible repeatedly as light. When they rebelled, they lost their privileged position and were now far from the source of light which is God Himself since they had gained His disapproval. In short, they were now symbolically in deep spiritual darkness. Or Tartarus.

However, they were not restriction from wandering the earth or even entering heaven. This conclusion isn't just based on the book of Job. The book of Revelation which spoke of things that would tale place in the future, tells us that the hurlling of Satan and his demons out of heaven would be in the future. In other words, during the first century Satan and his angelic followers still had access to heaven and their restriction from entering heaven would need to wait until the time of the end since that is what John's vision is about.

In short, Revelation provides the answer to the question. It also guides us in our understanding of what tartarus did not mean. It did not mean a restriction from access to heaven or wandering about on the earth.

Furthermore what about exocism? Was the unclean spirit cast out by Jesus in Mark 1:21-28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%201:21-28;&version=9;) a fallen angel.

Does this suggest to you that angels continue to turn their back on God even after the fall of Satan. If so what does this tell you?

Actually, it doesn't tell me anything concerning the time when the angels involved in that possession rebelled. It could have been either during or after the flood. One thing is for sure, however, they also were in the spiritual darkness far from God's light as represented by tartarus.

What partnership does righteousness have with immorality, or what fellowship does light have with darkness?
2nd Corinthians 6:14

But you are an elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people to be preserved in order that you might proclaim the virtues of Him who called you out of the darkness into His marvelous light.
1st Peter 2:9

But you, brothers, are not in darkness that the day [of the Lord] should catch you like a thief. For you are all sons of light and sons of day. We are not of night nor of darkness.
1st Thessalonians 5:4-5

In Him was life, and this life was the light of men. And this light is shining in the darkness, and the darkness has not quenched it.
John 1:4-5

And this is the message which we have heard from Him and report to you, that God is light, and in Him is there is no darkness.
1st John 1:5

Every good gift and every perfect present is from above, coming down from the Father of lights.
James 1:17

And the city has no need of the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God illuminated it and the Lamb was its lamp. And the nations will walk by its light.
Revelation 21:23-24

Ocelot

31st January 2008, 03:39 AM

The majority of the angels or sons of God chose to remain faithful. What does that say about God?

I think it's worth revisiting this question now that you have provided your own answer...

So even if the majority had rebelled and only a third had remained faithful that still would not prove the rightness of their rebellion nor that God was being unjust.

It says nothing.

Nogbad

31st January 2008, 03:48 AM

Numbers are not an indicator of rightness. The majority of Germans under Hitler supported his policies. What does that say about the rightness or morality of his policies. Nothing except that they agreed with them.

In reference to God, it's no mystery why they rebelled. They preferred to do things their way instead of the way God said things should be done. Why? Because as Satan said, in that way they would become like God being able to say what was good or evil. Which essentially meant that they could do things in any manner they pleased regardless of consequences.

Now, if we agree with Satan and these rebels that God is wrong and they were right in this matter. Then we would have to agree with theft, murder, and even with demon possession, which they were quite willing to inflict-and a host of other things which are generally recognized as crimes by mankind in general.

So even if the majority had rebelled and only a third had remained faithful that still would not prove the rightness of their rebellion nor that God was being unjust.

I am far from convinced that the majority of Germans supported Hitler but it is true that those with reservations kept silent. However, that is by and by. It is of course true that in itself a majority does not necessarily confer an automatic pass into being right.

The question I was actually posing was that one assumes Angels are not stupid. Why did they rebel if they knew that God merely had to say a word and they would cease to exist? (assuming omnipotence for God). It does not make sense. If one were to argue that they had no option but to rebel because it was God's will then that opens one huge can of worms.

There also appears to be an automatic assumption that rebelling Angels automatically favour stealing, rape etc, etc, Why would this be the case? Their rebellion might be because they thought God was too soft on such matters. Is it a case of demonising the demons?

I would consider myself an agnostic leaning towards atheism but if I were to lean the other way I would find it hard to accommodate such a maze of woolly concepts like angelic rebellions, the "fall" not to mention floods and arks which are way beyond the pale. I cannot see any logic in the train of thought at all.

Ocelot

31st January 2008, 03:54 AM

However, they were not restriction from wandering the earth or even entering heaven. This conclusion isn't just based on the book of Job. The book of Revelation which spoke of things that would tale place in the future, tells us that the hurlling of Satan and his demons out of heaven would be in the future. In other words, during the first century Satan and his angelic followers still had access to heaven and their restriction from entering heaven would need to wait until the time of the end since that is what John's vision is about.

Now I'm really confused. Perhaps you could clarify. In post 35 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3385021&postcount=35) You said that you didn't beleive that the Nephilim of Numbers were the spawn of fallen angels as God had chained the bad angels in Tartarus as descibed in Jude 6 and 2 Peter and all the other Nephilim had been wiped out in the flood

Now your suggesting that the fallen angels of that time of Numbers still had access not only to earth but to heaven. And that the chaining of the fallen angels in Tartarus hasn't even happend yet but is a prediction for the end times. Surely then new Nephilim could have been sired after the flood and the Nephilim of Numbers could indeed be angel/deamon spawn.

When even approximately did/will the fall of Satan and his rebel host occur?

Nogbad

31st January 2008, 04:01 AM

LordoftheLeftHand

31st January 2008, 04:07 AM

When even approximately did/will the fall of Satan and his rebel host occur?

I'm telling you, he's gonna say 1917 (+/- 5 years).

LLH

Belz...

31st January 2008, 10:47 AM

First, It was Jesus who said that angels did not marry in heaven. From that we can safely assume that they are neither male nor female

How does that follow ?

if I had the power I might want to experience that activity and even be willing to face the consequences to experience it if another human who had would constantly brag about it in my presence as I am sure Satan did.

Do you have anything but speculation ?

arthwollipot

31st January 2008, 02:32 PM

First, It was Jesus who said that angels did not marry in heaven. From that we can safely assume that they are neither male nor female.How does that follow ?Clearly by this reasoning, since I am unmarried, I must be neither male nor female.

My son will be so surprised...

RobRoy

31st January 2008, 04:55 PM

I'm not certain what the OP is supposed to be asking, but from the thread topic it seems to ask what the Bible is referencing.

The answer for Nephilim, depends on who you ask.

If it's the Catholics, then they are an aboriginal population who inhabited Palestine "around the fourth millenium B.C.": We hear occasionally of them also as Rephaim, Enacim, Emim, Zuzim, Zamzommim, and Horites, these last, whose name means "cave-dwellers", being confined to the deserts of Idumæa. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06428c.htm)

The Lutheran answer seems to reference Nephilim as mere strangers and outsiders:

"Moses calls them ‘Nephilim,’ a word which seems to come from a Hebrew word meaning ‘to fall upon, to attack.’" (The People’s Bible / Genesis by John Jeske, Northwestern Publishing House, 1991. Page 75)

The reference I came up with for the Jewish view seems to be the same as most Creationists and Fundamentalists, that the Nephilim were not angels, but were the offspring of a class of angels called Grigori or Watchers. These references all seem to be second-hand, so I'm not certain if this is actually the Jewish view (especially since I had thought the Grigori were only part of the Catholic tradition of angels). If there's a Jewish Rabbi here, can you please step forward?

Then there's the view that the Nephilim or their parents were alien in nature, which quickly develoves into a ton of conspiracy theories, such as those put forth by Dimosthenis Liakopoulos. Liakopoulos claims that there were two alien races, the El who supported the Greeks and the Nephilim who supported the Jews. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_and_Nephilim)

I, personally, like the concept of angels and their offspring, but I don't think there's any actual credence to this concept, and I have a tough time finding anything but second-hand support for it in the Bible.

halofish2000

31st January 2008, 05:34 PM

Here is a good read about the fallen angels http://www.piney.com/DSSBkGiants.html
This site has lots of the legends of old.

Silentknight

31st January 2008, 09:54 PM

Given that the books I mentioned previously were written by the Jews in the same time as the biblical scripture, and that scripture and these books refer back and forth to each other repeatedly, I think it's a safe bet that they were meant to go with it. If anyone should know how Jewish scripture ought to be interpreted, it's the Jews themselves from whom the scripture originated. The Midrashes and the Talmud would also be good references for that same reason, although I've heard the Talmud takes more than 7 years to read, and I'm not sure how a non-Jew would gain access to one.

Oroborus

1st February 2008, 03:52 AM

a bit like arguing dwarves are taller than gnomes isn't it?

Radrook

1st February 2008, 04:28 AM

How does that follow ?

How does what follow?

Do you have anything but speculation ?

Not if the whole Bible speculation is considered speculation.

Nogbad

1st February 2008, 04:32 AM

a bit like arguing dwarves are taller than gnomes isn't it?

You saying they are not like?

http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/images/smilies/sly.gif

Oroborus

1st February 2008, 04:43 AM

[quote=Nogbad;3391994]You saying they are not like?
/quote]

Well gosh I mean first we have to decide if we're talking about gully dwarves and lawn gnomes or what! This epic and very important debate could last for eons :p

Nogbad

1st February 2008, 04:46 AM

Radrook

1st February 2008, 05:26 AM

Now I'm really confused. Perhaps you could clarify. In post 35 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3385021&postcount=35) You said that you didn't beleive that the Nephilim of Numbers were the spawn of fallen angels as God had chained the bad angels in Tartarus as descibed in Jude 6 and 2 Peter and all the other Nephilim had been wiped out in the flood. Now your suggesting that the fallen angels of that time of Numbers still had access not only to earth but to heaven.

I am not suggesting anything, I am showing you directly with scripture that the Devil is spoken of as having access to heaven after the flood and that such access was also still available to the other rebel angels during the first century of our common era because Revelation tells us that their expulsion from heaven was still scheduiled to take place in the future.

What other conclusion would YOU reach after reading those two references. That they didn't have access to heaven after the flood?

Angels thrust into tartarus were stripped of their heavenly privileges and spiritually distanced from God. WE jknow that this is so becausae Of the scriptures wghich tell us that the restrictions placed on such angels did not restrict their physical access to heaven as mentioned in Job[in reference to the Devil] and Revelation [in reference to the rest of the angels] where their activity in heaven is described as an accusatory one.

And that the chaining of the fallen angels in Tartarus hasn't even happend yet but is a prediction for the end times. Surely then new Nephilim could have been sired after the flood and the Nephilim of Numbers could indeed be angel/deamon spawn.

I didn't say that the Tartarus situation of angels hasn't happened yet, nor did I say that the prophecy about their expulsion from heaven hasn't been fulfilled. I said that their expulsion from heaven was prophesied as a future event at the time that Revelation was written. John spoke of it as scheduled to happen during the Lord's Day or the time the Bible refers to as the time of the end spokeen about in Matthew chapter twenty-four where the conditions on earth described match the conditions Revelation describe would be present as a consequence of that expulsion.

When, even approximately did/will the fall of Satan and his rebel host occur?

By "fall" I will assume that you probably mean their expulsion from heaven as described in Revelation as a future event. That is spoken of in Revelation as occurring in the time of the end. Since we are presently understood to be in that time period, and the consequences of that expulsion have occurreed and are occuring, it seems that the expulsion has already taken place.

BTW

Before the chortling begins or increases into a frensied disonant bedlam, I am merely responding to questions and not evangelizing. Each has a right to his opinion be it atheistic, agnostic or theistic. That others choose to reject what I believe is OK by me. Also, If my views need a bit of modification I will modify them. However, salvational issues-are non-negotiable..

Belz...

1st February 2008, 05:30 AM

How does what follow?

Err... you said:

First, It was Jesus who said that angels did not marry in heaven. From that we can safely assume that they are neither male nor female

How does it follow that they are neither male nor female if they don't marry.

I'm not married.

Not if the whole Bible speculation is considered speculation.

Yes, usually speculation is considered speculation. You are claiming things without evidence. I can do that, too.

volatile

1st February 2008, 05:36 AM

By "fall" I will assume that you probably mean their expulsion from heaven as described in Revelation as a future event. That is spoken of in Revelation as occurring in the time of the end. Since we are presently understood to be in that time period, and the consequences of that expulsion have occurreed and are occuring, it seems that the expulsion has already taken place.

You'll note, of course, that the date for Armageddon according to Watchtower doctrine has been changed a number of times (http://www.towerwatch.com/Witnesses/Prophecies/failed_prophecies.htm , http://www.bible.ca/jw-1914-generation.htm).

Exactly why should we take your word for it now that this time we really, really (honestly!) in the End Times? Remember the 1914 Doctrine? 1975? How the World will end within one generation?

If the Revelation scripture is so clear, why have the Witnesses changed their interpretations of what it means so many times?

volatile

1st February 2008, 05:41 AM

How does it follow that they are neither male nor female if they don't marry.

I'm not married.

I knew it!

Radrook

1st February 2008, 06:34 AM

Err... you said:
How does it follow that they are neither male nor female if they don't marry.

I'm not married.

First, you are right in a strictly logical sense since. It doesn't follow because the premise does not obligatorily lead to that conclusion and I thank you for pointing that out. : )

There is also the issue of meaning of male and female. The angels, of course, are referred to as sons of God. Which can lead us to conclude that being sons of God they would have the same physical needs as human males do. But that would also be a false premise since just like my premise it does not necessarily follow.

But what really provides us with the answer is biblical context. God created the sexes which lead to the category of male and female for procreation purposes. Since that was the function of the sexes, then we have to ask ourselves whether the angels also were to procreate in the same manner.

When we consider the rest of the Bible as context, which we always should, we find that angels are always referred to as sons. That in itself automatically indicates that there are no differences in gender among them. The only differences we are informed about are those of rank. There is the general category of angel, followed by cherubim, seraphim and archangel.

The following articcle provides further information:

Angels
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-acb/acb-t005.html

Yes, usually speculation is considered speculation. You are claiming things without evidence. I can do that, too.

Sorry I gave that impression and you are right in bringing it to my attention and keeping me on my toes.

BTW
The Bible describes the desire of these angels for female humans as unnatural. In other words God did not place that desire in their makeup. Based on that we can rightly concludec that if they did participate in that activity it was not because of an inherent sexual drive but based more on curiosity leading to an abuse of theit freedom of choice. Otherwise we would have to conclude that God himself made them that way and that is unscriptural.

This Guy

1st February 2008, 07:01 AM

SNIP

By "fall" I will assume that you probably mean their expulsion from heaven as described in Revelation as a future event. That is spoken of in Revelation as occurring in the time of the end. Since we are presently understood to be in that time period, and the consequences of that expulsion have occurreed and are occuring, it seems that the expulsion has already taken place.

SNIP

Please explain why we should believe those that "understand" that we are in the "end time" today, anymore than those listed at the link below that believed they lived in the "end time". I don't think there has been many generations that have lived and not had someone forecast the end of the world in their lifetime. Even Paul had to correct the thinking of some in his day that believed they were in the end times (of course Jesus saying "Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." might have had something to do with that.).

End Time Predictions (http://www.abhota.info/end1.htm)

If an explanation would be considered off topic for this thread I (and I suspect others) would be interested in a thread devoted to discussing why these are considered the "end times", and why we should believe those that say it today, above those that said it in times past.

Ocelot

1st February 2008, 07:03 AM

I am not suggesting anything, I am showing you directly with scripture that the Devil is spoken of as having access to heaven after the flood and that such access was also still available to the other rebel angels during the first century of our common era because Revelation tells us that their expulsion from heaven was still scheduiled to take place in the future.

What other conclusion would YOU reach after reading those two references. That they didn't have access to heaven after the flood?

I might come up with the conclusion that the bible was faulty. Is that a possibility you've considered?

You have suggested certain things. As well as pointing to references in the Bible you also offered your interpretations.

One was that the nephilim of Numbers couldn't have been sired by angels as this possibility was clsoed by the time of the flood. John's revelation was after the flood. It was after Numbers. It was after the Gospels. So therfore the chaining in Tartarus was/is to be after the time of John's revelation therefore after the flood.

That's a huge window of opportunity for new nephilim to be created. Therefore the Nephilim of Numbers being Angel Spawn is not opposed by the two quotes you provided.

I realise that you're free to change you mind on this as it's a non-salvational issue. (As far as I'm concerned you're free to change you mind on those as well if only you'd realise it) I realise that as far as your concerned you'd be happy for someone else to believe that the Nephilim of Number were angel spawn.

All I'm interested in is your thought processes on the matter. Do you now realise that the quotes you provided do not have the implication you suggested they did or is there something in those or other quotes that causes you to reassert your opinion that they were not Nephilim in that sense?

My opinion for what it's worth is that I have no reason to value any of it any as more or less of a folk tale than venus emerging fully formed from the ocean or Ganesh's mother restoring life to her beheaded son him with the only suitable head at the time being that of an elephant. They're great tales and who knows, buried within them might be some kernal of metaphorical truth distilled by generations of storytellers. Internal consistency is a great attribute for a story to have and an absolute necessity for believing to be completly true.

I didn't say that the Tartarus situation of angels hasn't happened yet, nor did I say that the prophecy about their expulsion from heaven hasn't been fulfilled. I said that their expulsion from heaven was prophesied as a future event at the time that Revelation was written. John spoke of it as scheduled to happen during the Lord's Day or the time the Bible refers to as the time of the end spokeen about in Matthew chapter twenty-four where the conditions on earth described match the conditions Revelation describe would be present as a consequence of that expulsion.

By "fall" I will assume that you probably mean their expulsion from heaven as described in Revelation as a future event. That is spoken of in Revelation as occurring in the time of the end. Since we are presently understood to be in that time period, and the consequences of that expulsion have occurreed and are occuring, it seems that the expulsion has already taken place.

I'm sorry I didn't realise that you understood us to be in that time period. Not that it's in the slightest bit relevent to the window of oportunity for the Nephilim of Number to have been spawned by angels.

I'm suprised not to have noticed the begining of the end times, all that trubulation, rapture, and great imagery from revalation. Though people have been despairing of the misery around them and declaring the end of the world top be nigh from the earliest days of these prophesies.I didn't realise that you were an anhilist.

Your beliefs really are quite similar to those to the Jehovah's Witnesses after all.

So if you don't believe that we are long for this earth I supposed you feel little need to do anything about gloabl warming, over popualtion, peak oil or any of the other long term issues facing society. It's a worry for the rest of us who hope that the human race has a long future ahead of us that so many are not inclined to agree. Imagine if you will what it might sem like to one of us.

Radrook

1st February 2008, 08:04 AM

Interesting, Why is it that we can presume that the spies in numbers exagerated but not peter or jude?

Because one leads to internal biblical disharmony while the other creates harmony. Would you choose to interprete a statement in Darwin's writings which would be out of harmony with the rest of the context? Or would you instead seek to understandthe statement by reviewing the context? Same thing with the Bible.

Belz...

1st February 2008, 08:06 AM

But what really provides us with the answer is biblical context. God created the sexes which lead to the category of male and female for procreation purposes.

I gathered from Genesis that it was for companionship. The "multiply" bit only happens after the fall, and way after the sexes were created.

When we consider the rest of the Bible as context, which we always should, we find that angels are always referred to as sons. That in itself automatically indicates that there are no differences in gender among them.

But then, why would he create only males ? Is he a mysoginist ? :D

The following articcle provides further information:

The Bible describes the desire of these angels for female humans as unnatural. In other words God did not place that desire in their makeup.

Impossible. If it isn't in their makeup then it can't happen, unless there is some "free will" crap we don't know about that can make up stuff from nothingness.

Otherwise we would have to conclude that God himself made them that way and that is unscriptural.

But what you just did IS unscriptural because some things are NOT written in the bible and we either HAVE to speculate or presume that we'll never know.

Belz...

1st February 2008, 08:09 AM

Haven't we been in the end times for two millenia now ? You'd think the man could keep an appointment. He DID say he'd be back within the apostles' lifetimes...

Belz...

1st February 2008, 08:10 AM

Because one leads to internal biblical disharmony while the other creates harmony.

Unfortunately that's only preferable if you assume that the bible SHOULD be harmonious. I don't hold such a contention.

Ocelot

1st February 2008, 08:51 AM

Because one leads to internal biblical disharmony while the other creates harmony. Would you choose to interprete a statement in Darwin's writings which would be out of harmony with the rest of the context? Or would you instead seek to understand the statement by reviewing the context? Same thing with the Bible.

I see. You're aware that the truth must be internally consistent. As an article of faith you believe that the Bible is the inerrant and so you believe that the bible is internally consistent - harmonious. I get that. It's obvious that on the face of it there are apparent inconsistencies and so we must slightly modify your article of faith. We acknowledge that the bible is open to alternative interpretations and say rather then the bible being internally consistent the correct interpretation of the bible is internally consistent.

It is a true testament to human ingenuity that such an interpretation even seems possible. In a way I respect your efforts in attempting this seemingly thankless task.

This is of course all based on an article of faith - that the bible is inerrant.

It's article of faith I'm sure you're aware I don't share. My exploration of your "harmonious interpretation" is a solely intellectual exercise and I'm grateful to you for indulging my questions.

It interests me that you are prepared to accept that the spies in Numbers were mistaken and that their mistake is not immediately clarified in the bible. It seems to me that a more harmonious explanation is that new Nephilim were created after the flood.

For me of course the important thing is not whether books such as the Bible or the Origin of the Species are internally consistent but whether they are consistent with reality. Reality is my benchmark.

Reality shows archaeological evidence of human occupation of the Canaan by the Hebrew tribes during and prior to the time of the Exodus. It doesn't show any evidence of them in Egypt or Sinai. It doesn't show any expected evidence for giants.

This suggests to me that the Biblical account may simply be the recording of inaccurate folk tales. Simply put, the writers recorded what they believed at the time but were prone to exaggeration or uncritical belief.

It seems to me that if you're prepared to accept that the spies may have exaggerated then what of Moses or whoever wrote Genesis. He wasn't around at the time of the flood. Might he have exaggerated that the flood covered the whole world. Or might he have reported Noah's exaggeration - after all Noah couldn't have known one way or the other.

It is more difficult to find alternative interpretations of Origin of the Species. As a scientist, Darwin wrote less ambiguously. This is further helped by the fact that his works are those of a single author and haven’t been retranslated over millennia. When Darwin wants to say many millions of years he says "many millions of years" he doesn't say six days and leave it to later interpretation as to whether day means a day, month year or a thousand years. However lets say that he did in one place write something where one interpretation was contradictory to an interpretation of what he wrote elsewhere. Which would I choose to be my favoured interpretation? Well the internal harmony argument is only relevant to the historical interest of what Darwin believed. If the interpretations required to make those beliefs consistent with one another were too strained I should have to entertain the notion that he had changed his mind. As for which was correct, experiment would tell me that. Reality is the ultimate arbiter of truth.

It seems to me that your are somewhat prepared to alter you interpretation of the bible to be harmonious with reality. In other threads you've distanced yourself from the young earth creationist viewpoint common in previous generations and shamefully still extanct amongst those whose education is lacking or has been sabotaged.

Radrook

1st February 2008, 08:57 AM

First let me say that I appreciate the calm and logical approach you are using in discussing this subject. I also understand that you disagree and that you have a right to reject and suspect anything that is said. That is after all the theme of this forum, to be skeptical and place everything under a scrutinizing light of logic. That's is perfectly OK by me.

I might come up with the conclusion that the bible was faulty. Is that a possibility you've considered?

The Bible was written with the purpose of providing mankind an explanation about our present condition and the plan which God put into motion help us escape our condition of bondage to sin and death via the offering of Jesus as a Ransom sacrifice. If the Bible has fulfilled that mission then it hasn't failed in its purpose. Since millions have accepted Christianity, I would say that the Bible has done its job with flying colors. As for all other tidbits, they are really of lesser importance to its central theme.

You have suggested certain things. As well as pointing to references in the Bible you also offered your interpretations.

And I asked you how you would conclude that the angels had no access to heaven after reading in Job and Revelation that they still had access to heaven and that such access was still to be cut short and would happen in the future. A question which you seem to ignore and prefer to continue to accuse me of merely interpreting as if the information in those two scriptures were not clear-which it is. That is frustrating because it misrepresents what I say as mere conjecture and being my view when the scriptures DEMAND that we conclude what they say, Might as well accuse me of interpreting Jesus as being the son of God as my idea as well-right? Or that Moses was the one leading Israel out of Egypt as merely my idea. Or that Jesus had twelve Apostles as merely my idea. Put yourself in my place and maybe you will realize just how annoying such accusations can become.

that the nephilim of Numbers couldn't have been sired by angels as this possibility was closed by the time of the flood. John's revelation was after the flood. It was after Numbers. It was after the Gospels. So therefore the chaining in Tartarus was/is to be after the time of John's revelation therefore after the flood. hat's a huge window of opportunity for new nephilim to be created. Therefore the Nephilim of Numbers being Angel Spawn is not opposed by the two quotes you provided.

John spoke of things that were to happen in the future. Jude was speaking of things that had occurred in the past and as a consequence of angelic rebellion during Noah's day.
Please read the book of Jude and see for yourself.

As for the Nephilim being still around after the flood, that would require several unacceptable conclusions.

1. God failed in his attempt to genetically cleanse mankind for some reason making the flood an unnecessary event.

2. The angels who sinned were free to continue gallivanting about as they had previously and the chaining of them doesn't apply to their ability to contaminate mankind in direct opposition to God.

Since those two conclusions are unacceptable, the interpretation you seem to prefer I choose to reject.

[ realise that you're free to change you mind on this as it's a non-salvational issue. (As far as I'm concerned you're free to change you mind on those as well if only you'd realize it) I realize that as far as your concerned you'd be happy for someone else to believe that the Nephilim of Number were angel spawn.

I am happy merely to give an explanation and let the person decide for himself what he or she prefers to believe. Neither am I viewing anyone who disagrees with me as tagged for destruction or as being beyond all hope or being morally inferior before God. That is for God to decide not us. I merely dispense the knowledge and it either takes root or it doesn't.

All I'm interested in is your thought processes on the matter. Do you now realize that the quotes you provided do not have the implication you suggested they did or is there something in those or other quotes that causes you to reassert your opinion that they were not Nephilim in that sense?

I believe I provided an explanation to that in my answer above.

My opinion for what it's worth is that I have no reason to value any of it any as more or less of a folk tale than Venus emerging fully formed from the ocean or Ganesh's mother restoring life to her beheaded son him with the only suitable head at the time being that of an elephant. They're great tales and who knows, buried within them might be some kernal of metaphorical truth distilled by generations of storytellers. Internal consistency is a great attribute for a story to have and an absolute necessity for believing to be completely true.

OK I guess we disagree on that.

....
I'm suprised not to have noticed the beginning of the end times, all that tribulation, rapture, and great imagery from revalation. Though people have been despairing of the misery around them and declaring the end of the world top be nigh from the earliest days of these prophesies.I didn't realise that you were an anhilist.Your beliefs really are quite similar to those to the Jehovah's Witnesses after all.

I never claimed that my beliefs were not similar.

Revelation's imagery is predominantly symbolic. So if you expected seeing a seven-headed wild beast galloping down the street after rising from the ocean and a drunken woman riding while drinking the blood of the saints, or expect to see Jesus to come charging out of heaven riding a white horse with a sword protruding out of his mouth or expect to see a woman in the heavens with stars around her head giving birth while a dragon is waiting to devour her offspring, then I guess you will be a bit disappointed.

BTW
Not all people can see or understand what is happening just as the majority of of Jews in Jesus time didn't understand what was really happening when Jesus was among them. So inability to understand is only evidence of inability to understand.

So if you don't believe that we are long for this earth I supposed you feel little need to do anything about global warming, over population, peak oil or any of the other long term issues facing society.

That assumption is a false premise. There being little time doesn't give mankind the authority to ruin the earth or to take on an uncaring attitude. Mankind was given earth as his home, to care for it and to make it a global paradise.

"Then the LORD God placed the man in the Garden of Eden to Cultivate it and Guard it" ("to tend and care for it" - The Living Bible2) - Genesis 2:15

emphasis mine

So the attitude you describe is not a biblical or a Christian one. How do you arrive at such conclusions?

It's a worry for the rest of us who hope that the human race has a long future ahead of us that so many are not inclined to agree. Imagine if you will what it might seem like to one of us.

It's a sin to ruin the earth from a Christian viewpoint. Not inclined to agree with what? I can imagine what that and a host of other misunderstandings based on misinterpretations seem like.

Revelation 11:18 ". . . God will bring to ruin those ruining the Earth."

Notice the the end times would be characterised by people ruining the earth? Or is that too cryptic also?

BTW
I once heard a woman conclude that certain Christians were erasing parts of the bible with their pens and markers when they were merely underlining in order to make locating them easier.

Belz...

1st February 2008, 10:02 AM

The Bible was written with the purpose of providing mankind an explanation about our present condition and the plan which God put into motion help us escape our condition of bondage to sin and death via the offering of Jesus as a Ransom sacrifice. If the Bible has fulfilled that mission then it hasn't failed in its purpose. Since millions have accepted Christianity, I would say that the Bible has done its job with flying colors.

I would like to add that it has been very successful, but only because people accept things without critical thinking. Otherwise it fares no better than other religious books, popular or otherwise.

Belz...

1st February 2008, 10:04 AM

1. God failed in his attempt to genetically cleanse mankind for some reason making the flood an unnecessary event.

I'm sorry, I must've missed the post where you showed that this was the reason of the flood.

Ocelot

1st February 2008, 10:45 AM

Radrook, I assure you that I mean no offence when I refer to your interpretations. You say that it is an interpretation demanded by the text but surely you acknowledge that different people have differing interpretations even amongst those who believe the bible to be inerrant.

I merely hope to gain some insight into your understanding.

Here's is where you earlier told me of your understanding and why you tended towards disregarding the spies account of post flood Nephilim.

However, I still tend to believe they were angels based on 2 Peter and Jude. The Nephilim mentioned in the Exodus account by the Israelite spies could have been an exaggeration on the part of the spies due to their fear of the size of the warriors they saw.
As to the reference of Nephilim in Numbers, I have read about the interpretation of their tribal names as being indirect references to Nephilim. I always discounted such conclusions on the fact that the flood was intended to wipe out the seen and that the angels involved had been prevented from repeating their pre-flood activity. Their restriction I understood to be made mention in Jude where Tartarus is mentioned.

So I look at Jude and indeed Jude 6 refers to angels being chained in Tartarus.

However Jude is after Genesis.

As far as I can see. The chaining in Tartarus may have happened after the flood. It may have happened after the time of Numbers. Perhaps during the later part of Genesis, or the time of Exodus or Leviticus or the earlier part of Numbers these angels were unchained.

Jews of the first century before Christ would have had access to these books and the Book of Enoch but obviously not Jude, the penultimate book of the penned no earlier than AD70.

Neither Does Jude place the chaining in Tartarus prior to the flood. All we know was that it was prior to AD70.

This is why I asked you when this event took place.

It appears that I caused confusion by mentioning the fall of Satan. I had believed that this referred to Satan first questioning God's wisdom and leading other angels to do the same and closely followed by God banishing them.

http://www.new-life.net/faq205.htm (http://www.new-life.net/faq205.htm) attempts to clarify.

I guess when you identified this time as during the end times you were not referring to the chaining in Tartarus but a second battle with Satan and the fallen host.

Now I had assumed that chaining angels in Tartarus would prevent angels from mating humans by denying then physical access to earth, and by implication denying them physical access to heaven.

It is clear that (morally) fallen angels still had access to both earth and heaven during the time of the Gospels, with Satan appearing in heaven in Job and in the desert to tempt Jesus in the time of the Gospels. Not to mention possessing humans appearing on earth for Jesus to cast out.

This would place the chaining after the time of Jesus but before Jude was written.

As such the Nephilm of Numbers might have been spawned by (morally) fallen angels after the time of the flood.

You have stated that you don't believe so.

That's fine.

You have stated the reasons why.

You believe that the flood was intended to cleanse the earth of the Nephilim and their corruption. Obviously for God to fail in his intentions is anathema to you. I understand that. However beyond what’s written in the Bible what do we know of God's intentions. So where in the Bible does it say that God's mysterious ways do not allow for a brief post flood resurgence of Nephilim to be wiped out by Gods chosen people, the Hebrews, and finally stopped from happening again by a chaining in Tartarus at around the time of Jesus?

Now it appears to me that your interpretation is different. That prior to, or around the time of the flood the chaining took place. This prevented the offending angels from mating with humans but did not limit their physical presence from roaming earth and heaven. The only wrinkle in that interpretation is that is the appearance of the Nephilim in Numbers which you put down to exaggeration by the spies.

I don't doubt that this is a suitably self consistent interpretation of events. I just suggest that it's not the only one.

It intrigues me that you can accept that the spies exaggerated and that their exaggeration remains an the otherwise inerrant Bible.

patnray

1st February 2008, 12:04 PM

As for control, it's been explained a thousand or more times but to no avail that God is permitting these things with the purpose of giving mankind what they wanted, the right to choose their own ways. They sided with Satan from the start and that's what they received.

Whose mistake then was it?
Another example of god as an abusive parent (the bible is full of them).

An abusive parent pretends to give their children a choice, when in fact only one choice is acceptable to the parent. When the child makes the "wrong" choice they are punished for believing that they actually had a choice and acting on that belief. And they are blamed for the wrong decision. The "choice" isn't really a choice - it's a test, dishonestly disguised as a choice.

A loving parent does not pretend to give their children a choice when only one choice is acceptable to the parent. When a loving parent does give a child a choice they truely mean it, and the parent supports the child no matter which choice they make.

Belz...

1st February 2008, 01:02 PM

Well said, patnray. That's what I always said: freedom of choice in Christianity is basically freedom of choosing with a gun to your head.

Nogbad

1st February 2008, 01:08 PM

I'm sorry, I must've missed the post where you showed that this was the reason of the flood.

As there is no geological evidence for a world wide flood it is all pretty academic. If God had wanted everything non-Noah to cease to exist he could have just said a word (assuming omnipotence). Why kill all the animals anyway what did they do? No one is arguing they had a soul before or after the flood as far as I can see. Did we really need locusts btw?

Remove a world-wide flood covering all the mountains from the equation and much of the discussion is above is moot.

RobRoy

1st February 2008, 01:41 PM

Why kill all the animals anyway what did they do? No one is arguing they had a soul before or after the flood as far as I can see. Did we really need locusts btw?

The animals were influenced by the evil of the nephilim and the people. Dogs and cats were living together, potato chips were soggy; it was utter chaos. :D

You can see how much better the world was after the flood. Things certainly have turned around.

Nogbad

1st February 2008, 01:58 PM

The animals were influenced by the evil of the nephilim and the people. Dogs and cats were living together, potato chips were soggy; it was utter chaos. :D

You can see how much better the world was after the flood. Things certainly have turned around.

Good point well presented ;)

edge

1st February 2008, 10:02 PM

Radrook

1st February 2008, 10:40 PM

I gathered from Genesis that it was for companionship. The "multiply" bit only happens after the fall, and way after the sexes were created.

Are we reading the same Genesis? They were imediately created male and female given the same command God had given all the anials, to multiply, become many and fill the earth. This was prior to their having sinned.

Genesis 1:

26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Humans can't do that without having sex.

Prior to Eve's appearance, Adam had seen the animals which had also been told to multiply having sex prior to being given Eve and must have wondered where was his companion. Sex itself is not a sin, it is a gift. The idea that the original sin was sex is not scriptural.

But then, why would he create only males ? Is he a mysoginist ? :D

I assume you are referring to the angels? Remember, he calls himself male as well but it doesn't mean that he is male in the human sense of the word. If he were is misogynist he would not have created females.

Impossible. If it isn't in their makeup then it can't happen, unless there is some "free will" crap we don't know about that can make up stuff from nothingness.

Obviously you refuse to acknowledge pure curiosity as a motivating factor but must insist that God created them with defect. Nothing I can say or show will change that opinion to which you have the right but which is unsceriptural as well as illogical since pure curiosity does motivate.

But what you just did IS unscriptural because some things are NOT written in the bible and we either HAVE to speculate or presume that we'll never know.

I haven't speculated on one single thing. It seems, however that your tendency to tag everything I say as speculation is based on your belief that the Bible has no theme, has no way of being properly understood, is incoherent and self contradictory, and isn't even worth reading. It also appears that you make statements about Genesis without reading Genesis. Am I correct?

Strange since one would expect a person to read a book he is making assertive statements about in order to avoid errors of interpretation.

BTW

The first account of man's creation in Genesis 1 is a brief synopsis while the second account which follows goes into the details of their falling from grace. The sceond account doesn't repeat the multoiply command because the reader already knows this from the first short account in Genesis chapter one.

Radrook

1st February 2008, 11:22 PM

Another example of god as an abusive parent (the bible is full of them).
An abusive parent pretends to give their children a choice, when in fact only one choice is acceptable to the parent. When the child makes the "wrong" choice they are punished for believing that they actually had a choice and acting on that belief. And they are blamed for the wrong decision. The "choice" isn't really a choice - it's a test, dishonestly disguised as a choice.

That's called disciplining in righteousness. That is to encourage and build the right habits in order for the child to gain the wisdom he needs to make proper choices on his own without chopping his own head off in the process. Actually, a parent which refuses to discipline his children isn't showing love. Discipline is an expression of love.

A loving parent does not pretend to give their children a choice when only one choice is acceptable to the parent. When a loving parent does give a child a choice they truly mean it, and the parent supports the child no matter which choice they make.

That's called permissive parenting.

A loving parent doesn't let his kids ruin their own lives but provides the needed discipline and advice to reduce the possibility. That is a parental responsibility. Left to themselves children are prone to stray into all kinds of trouble such as unwanted pregnancies, drug abuse, and violent crime. Finding themselves ruined, upon reaching adulthood these kids will accuse their parents for not providing them with guidance and the necessary discipline to avoid these dangerous life-ruining activities. Because of this, permissive parenting isn't recommended. At least it wasn't being recommended when I took my child psychology class.

Proverbs 3:12 For whom the Lord loveth He correcteth; even as a father does the son in whom he delighted.

BTW

Adam and Eve were never told that they had freedom to do whatever they wanted without a negative effect. So that concept of a scheming lying cruel uncaring God is your idea, not the Bible's.

John 3:16 &17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

joobz

1st February 2008, 11:44 PM

halofish2000

2nd February 2008, 12:31 AM

Radrook

2nd February 2008, 12:55 AM

Radrook, I assure you that I mean no offense when I refer to your interpretations. You say that it is an interpretation demanded by the text but surely you acknowledge that different people have differing interpretations even amongst those who believe the bible to be inerrant.

I don't reject all interpretations. Some are plausible.

I merely hope to gain some insight into your understanding.

OK Shoot! : )

So I look at Jude and indeed Jude 6 refers to angels being chained in Tartarus.However Jude is after Genesis.[quote]As far as I can see. The chaining in Tartarus may have happened after the flood. It may have happened after the time of Numbers. Perhaps during the later part of Genesis, or the time of Exodus or Leviticus or the earlier part of Numbers these angels were unchained.Jews of the first century before Christ would have had access to these books and the Book of Enoch but obviously not Jude, the penultimate book of the penned no earlier than AD70.Neither Does Jude place the chaining in Tartarus prior to the flood. All we know was that it was prior to AD70.This is why I asked you when this event took place.[/COLOR] It appears that I caused confusion by mentioning the fall of Satan. I had believed that this referred to Satan first questioning God's wisdom and leading other angels to do the same and closely followed by God banishing them.

There is Satan's fall from grace which occurred in the Garden of Eden. Then there is his being thrown out of heaven along with his angels which is a prophecy for the time of the end as explained Clearly by John. Then there is his restriction for a thousand years after Armageddon. Then there is his brief release after the thousand years. Then finally his complete destruction from which he never recovers.

http://www.new-life.net/faq205.htm (http://www.new-life.net/faq205.htm) attempts to clarify.I guess when you identified this time as during the end times you were not referring to the chaining in Tartarus but a second battle with Satan and the fallen host.

That battle described in Revelation is the first and only battle with the fallen host that occurs. No other battle occurs prior to that one. The final battle takes place a thousand years after the first when Satan is temporarily released.

Now I had assumed that chaining angels in Tartarus would prevent angels from mating humans by denying then physical access to earth, and by implication denying them physical access to heaven. It is clear that (morally) fallen angels still had access to both earth and heaven during the time of the Gospels, with Satan appearing in heaven in Job and in the desert to tempt Jesus in the time of the Gospels. Not to mention possessing humans appearing on earth for Jesus to cast out.This would place the chaining after the time of Jesus but before Jude was written.As such the Nephilm of Numbers might have been spawned by (morally) fallen angels after the time of the flood.

The problem with that interpretation is that it contradicts what John tells us, that their being cast out definitely from heaven occurs during the time of the end.

There ability to visit earth doesn't mean that they still had the ability to materialize bodies as they had prior to the flood. Please notice that never again are the sons of God said to be taking women. Neither is demon possession the same as materialization or human-like bodies. It is merely using another creature as a puppet in the same way Satan had done with the serpent in Eden.

[quote]You have stated that you don't believe so.

That's fine.

You have stated the reasons why.

You believe that the flood was intended to cleanse the earth of the Nephilim and their corruption. Obviously for God to fail in his intentions is anathema to you. I understand that. However beyond what's written in the Bible what do we know of God's intentions. So where in the Bible does it say that God's mysterious ways do not allow for a brief post flood resurgence of Nephilim to be wiped out by Gods chosen people, the Hebrews, and finally stopped from happening again by a chaining in Tartarus at around the time of Jesus?

The chaining could not have been their being cast out of heaven during the time of Jesus because John tells us that was still to happen in the future. Are you taking that into consideration?

Now it appears to me that your interpretation is different. That prior to, or around the time of the flood the chaining took place. This prevented the offending angels from mating with humans but did not limit their physical presence from roaming earth and heaven. The only wrinkle in that interpretation is that is the appearance of the Nephilim in Numbers which you put down to exaggeration by the spies.

Where in numbers does it say that the nephilim were present? Are you referring to the tribes which had names which scholars today say indicate they were nephilim? Please provide the exact scripture.

I don't doubt that this is a suitably self consistent interpretation of events. I just suggest that it's not the only one.It intrigues me that you can accept that the spies exaggerated and that their exaggeration remains an the otherwise inerrant Bible.

Yes I am familiar with the other view in which the nephilim are said to have been occupying the promised land and which is viewed as explaining why God ordered the Caananite removal. However, the reasons given for this was immoral conduct and not Nephilim presence. If indeed Nephilim contamination had been the motive, then it would have been clearly stated.

About the spies' statement contradicting Bible innerancy,
There are many statements in the Bible which aren't made by people who were in God's favor. The Devil himself makes false statements several times to Jesus. The mean who spoke to Job were making false statements in order to make Job lose his integrity. One even admitted that a spirit had told him what to say. Satan accused God of being a liar in Eden. The messenger of king Sennacherib made a speech challenging God. Peter denied Christ three times. All of these statements were made in the Bible. Do they affect the Bible's innerancy? If not, then why should the statement of misguided spies?

Radrook

2nd February 2008, 01:23 AM

I would like to add that it has been very successful, but only because people accept things without critical thinking. Otherwise it fares no better than other religious books, popular or otherwise.

Thomas Aquinas was a critical thinker as well as most other clergymen during the Catholic Church's predominance. Qualification for the priesthood required a liberal Arts education which demanded the study of Greek philosophy which involved logic, ethics, mataphysics,
and all the other branches of critical thinking.The critical thinking educational requirements for the Catholic clergy as well as most Protestan Clergy are just as strict today as they were then.

Thomas Aquinas
... all Westerners live in the shadow of Aquinas's philosophical achievements. ... existence of God, proofs which depended solely on logic, rather than blind faith. ...
www.davekopel.com/Religion/thomas-aquinas.htm

Radrook

2nd February 2008, 01:37 AM

Rad, I like your views on Genesis but what I have yet to figure out is Gen1 does not mention Jehovah. God is a generic word for many gods or els, which existed thousands in Babylon. Gen 2 the Lord God Jehovah is clearly shown to be the God. Chapter 2 begins with the Lord God finishing his work and then creating Adam. Gen 1 has god-generic- creating man before the 7th day rest. Can you clear this up for me?

The tetagrametton, YHVH or YHWH isn't used immediately. It does appear later in Genesis.
Then it is repeated in Exodus and constantly used in the Hebrew scriptures after that. There is evidence that the closer pronunciation to the original pronunciation is either Yahweh or Yahveh. As to the word "el" here is a link to a Hebrew Lexicon which will be very helpful:

Hebrew Lexicon
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/OldTestamentHebrew/heb.cgi?search=God&version=kjv&type=eng&submit=Find

The link takes you straight to the page where you can access all the ways in which the Hebrew word for God is used in the OT.

Nogbad

2nd February 2008, 04:50 AM

http://www.burlingtonnews.net/giantsb.html
Are these myths or what? Or is it confirmation also?
There is much to contemplate on this site.
At the bottom of the page is an intersting list of countries with their own stories.

From that site

Some Believe that There was a conflict of this kind in Ancient Times which drove the Reptilian Civilization deep into the Inner Earth or back to where they originated from ...Alpha Draconis and/or Altair in the Constellation Aquila. This conflict or war was a Species War between the Evadamic Seed and the "Serpent/Draconian" Seed.

and some raise a sceptical eyebrow :boggled:

Raptor Witness

2nd February 2008, 07:07 AM

The Bible incorporates old myths from various cultures into its text. It's a compilation of myths, for what purpose we can only imagine. The origin of these "giant" myths may be the fossilized remains of animals, found by our ancestors, which they were at a lost to explain. This theory has been put forward by [several researchers,] (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9406EEDF1339F937A35754C0A9669C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all) and calls into question in my own mind, the potential purpose of mixing paleontology with a religious explanation. Were the "Sons of God" Woolly Mammoth like? Where they giant mammals?

This whole possibility creeps me out more than it brings my own faith into question. It makes me wonder, however, how much of the Bible may be misleading from a scientific perspective, and why this is so. Is the truth written from a historical perspective?

volatile

2nd February 2008, 07:11 AM

This whole possibility creeps me out more than it brings my own faith into question. It makes me wonder, however, how much of the Bible may be misleading from a scientific perspective, and why this is so. Is the truth written from a historical perspective?

Nearly all of it is misleading, morally, historically, scientifically and literarily.

PixyMisa

2nd February 2008, 07:28 AM

... all Westerners live in the shadow of Aquinas's philosophical achievements. ... existence of God, proofs which depended solely on logic, rather than blind faith. ...
And one can prove the existence of chocolate ice cream the same way, but that doesn't mean I have any in my freezer.

Well, I do have chocolate ice cream in my freezer, but unless Aquinas is now working a checkout at Woolworths, I'll thank Regal Cream Products Pty Ltd for that.

edge

2nd February 2008, 09:14 AM

I want some Chocolate now, have to go to the store now, thanks.

PrincessIneffabelle

2nd February 2008, 12:18 PM

That's called disciplining in righteousness. That is to encourage and build the right habits in order for the child to gain the wisdom he needs to make proper choices on his own without chopping his own head off in the process. Actually, a parent which refuses to discipline his children isn't showing love. Discipline is an expression of love.

Do you understand the difference between discipline and punishment? Parental discipline is a good thing ... violent, abusive, cruel, or otherwise excessive punishment is not.

That's called permissive parenting.

A loving parent doesn't let his kids ruin their own lives but provides the needed discipline and advice to reduce the possibility. That is a parental responsibility. Left to themselves children are prone to stray into all kinds of trouble such as unwanted pregnancies, drug abuse, and violent crime. Finding themselves ruined, upon reaching adulthood these kids will accuse their parents for not providing them with guidance and the necessary discipline to avoid these dangerous life-ruining activities. Because of this, permissive parenting isn't recommended. At least it wasn't being recommended when I took my child psychology class.

(bolding mine)

I thought that unwanted pregnancies (teen? unplanned? pre-marital?), drug abuse, and violent crime rates had more to do with poverty and lack of education than "permissive parenting".

We have a disciplined household, but I do not beat my child. Frequent or harsh physical punishment is barbaric, counter-productive, bad role-modeling, and completely unneccesary.

Of course, any kind of discipline or punishment without the Word of GodTM* is probably just not good parenting either, right?

Word of GodTM meaning the collected oral traditions and borrowed mythology of illiterate bronze-age nomadic patriarchal Hebrew tribesmen.

Raptor Witness

2nd February 2008, 07:00 PM

Nearly all of it is misleading, morally, historically, scientifically and literarily.
I can understand the scientific misunderstanding, but to create a moral dogma of sorts from a fallacy is disturbing, unless it was designed as a warning to the future, of what would come. That is, we now have the ability to alter the genes of animals and make them almost any monster we want, including our own!

I can overlook a dogma built on a fallacy, if the end result is the truth.

I'm willing to give the Creator of Life the benefit of the doubt, with regard to the end of the story.

edge

2nd February 2008, 08:30 PM

I thought that unwanted pregnancies (teen? unplanned? pre-marital?), drug abuse, and violent crime rates had more to do with poverty and lack of education than "permissive parenting".

Money doesn't have a thing to do with the character of children.

See the movie Alfa Dog true story and class doesn’t have anything to do with what your children turn out like.
It’s what the parent teaches as a base.
"permissive parenting"
See where that can get you "Alfa Dog".

edge

2nd February 2008, 08:31 PM

I'm willing to give the Creator of Life the benefit of the doubt, with regard to the end of the story.

Good point, that's what will matter won't it.

PixyMisa

2nd February 2008, 09:39 PM

I can understand the scientific misunderstanding, but to create a moral dogma of sorts from a fallacy is disturbing, unless it was designed as a warning to the future, of what would come. That is, we now have the ability to alter the genes of animals and make them almost any monster we want, including our own!
Hooray!

I can overlook a dogma built on a fallacy, if the end result is the truth.
Yeah, but how will you know? A false premise can lead to a true conclusion, but it can just as well lead to a false one. How will you know?

Raptor Witness

2nd February 2008, 09:59 PM

It's possible that mankind has progressed faster than he should have. It doesn't make sense that we have snow balled like we did after the turn of the last century. It's almost as if we're being helped along, and while this may seem a little paranoid ... consider that most men didn't even understand conception a hundred years ago, and now we can clone ourselves? That's more than a little leap, that's a gigantic one, in terms of human evolution.

If we are being helped by something, or someone, whom we cannot see ... then time will tell if this entity appears in the open. I've been expecting a delusion, and the false promise of humanism may just be the "monsters" we were told had to be drowned, way back when.

Radrook

2nd February 2008, 10:02 PM

Do you understand the difference between discipline and punishment? Parental discipline is a good thing ... violent, abusive, cruel, or otherwise excessive punishment is not.

I agree that cruel punishment should not be inflicted on a child or anyone else. However, I do not agree that physical punishment cannot be part of justifiable and beneficial discipline

(bolding mine)

I thought that unwanted pregnancies (teen? unplanned? pre-marital?), drug abuse, and violent crime rates had more to do with poverty and lack of education than "permissive parenting".

We have a disciplined household, but I do not beat my child. Frequent or harsh physical punishment is barbaric, counter-productive, bad role-modeling, and completely unneccesary.

Of course, any kind of discipline or punishment without the Word of GodTM* is probably just not good parenting either, right?

Wrong, as long as the punishment isn't cruel or unjustified, is applied in a manner in which the child understands why it is being done, because we love and want a better future for him, then it need not be directly based on the Word of God.

Word of GodTM meaning the collected oral traditions and borrowed mythology of illiterate bronze-age nomadic patriarchal Hebrew tribesmen.

The Bible wasn't all written in Hebrew and neither was it written totally during the so-called Bronze age. It's compliation spans the centuries during which man entered the iron age and addvanced both technically and intellectually. It's concluding book, Hebrew book, Malachi and its concluding Greek book, Revelation were written centuries after the so-called Bronze Age had passed.

All cultures didn't enter the Bronze age simultaneously. Some cultures forged ahead while others lagged behind.

bronze age
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3397786&posted=1#post3397786

BTW
The Hebrews were not illiterate:

Exodus 17:14
And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book,

Deuteronomy 11:20

And thou shalt write them upon the door posts of thine house, and upon thy gates:

Deuteronomy 31:11
When all Israel is come to appear before the LORD thy God in the place which he shall choose, thou shalt read this law before all Israel in their hearing.

2 Kings 5:7
And it came to pass, when the king of Israel had read the letter, that he rent his clothes,

Nehemiah 13:1
On that day they read in the book of Moses in the audience of the people; and therein was found written,

2 Chronicles 34:13
....: and of the Levites there were scribes, and officers, and porters

1 Kings 4:3
Elihoreph and Ahiah, the sons of Shisha, scribes; Jehoshaphat the son of Ahilud, the recorder.

For further scriptures proving that they were not illiterate, a fact that should be more than obvious in view of their extensive writings but which in this case obviously wasn't, please use the following link.

Bible Gateway
http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/index.php?search=write&searchtype=all&version1=9&spanbegin=1&spanend=73

Radrook

2nd February 2008, 10:48 PM

Unfortunately that's only preferable if you assume that the bible SHOULD be harmonious. I don't hold such a contention.

Unfortunately, your preferred viewpoint doesn't justify the transparent policy of choosing nonsensical out-of-harmony with context interpretations in order to convey the impression of contradictions.

BTW

I fail to see the point of your post. What is the purpose for making that remark?

PixyMisa

3rd February 2008, 02:23 AM

It's possible that mankind has progressed faster than he should have.
Should have?

It doesn't make sense that we have snow balled like we did after the turn of the last century. Actually, it makes perfect sense, if you follow the history of the developments. Einstein (for example) didn't create the Theory of Relativity in a vacuum, but built on the work of Maxwell, Lorentz, and others.

It's almost as if we're being helped along, and while this may seem a little paranoid ... consider that most men didn't even understand conception a hundred years ago, and now we can clone ourselves?Both of the premises here are false.

That's more than a little leap, that's a gigantic one, in terms of human evolution.How do you mean, exactly? We haven't evolved noticeably in the past hundred years. But genetic engineering allows us to control our future evolution, if that's what you are talking about, and that is indeed a big change.

If we are being helped by something, or someone, whom we cannot see ... then time will tell if this entity appears in the open.This is absurd. Look, I'm not a scientist, I'm just a computer programmer. But let's look at my field for a moment, and consider the Y2K crisis. Passed with hardly a blip, right? So all the fear mongering was baseless, right?

Wrong. What you didn't see, because you weren't there, is just how damn hard everyone worked in '98 and '99 to make that transition go smoothly.

Similarly, yes, science is progressing rapidly, but we're not getting any help from beyond; it's down to huge amounts of damned hard work.

I've been expecting a delusion, and the false promise of humanism may just be the "monsters" we were told had to be drowned, way back when.:boggled:

Nogbad

3rd February 2008, 04:57 AM

I agree that cruel punishment should not be inflicted on a child or anyone else. However, I do not agree that physical punishment cannot be part of justifiable and beneficial discipline

(bolding mine)

Wrong, as long as the punishment isn't cruel or unjustified, is applied in a manner in which the child understands why it is being done, because we love and want a better future for him, then it need not be directly based on the Word of God.

The Bible wasn't all written in Hebrew and neither was it written totally during the so-called Bronze age. It's compliation spans the centuries during which man entered the iron age and addvanced both technically and intellectually. It's concluding book, Hebrew book, Malachi and its concluding Greek book, Revelation were written centuries after the so-called Bronze Age had passed.

All cultures didn't enter the Bronze age simultaneously. Some cultures forged ahead while others lagged behind.

bronze age
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3397786&posted=1#post3397786

BTW
The Hebrews were not illiterate:

Exodus 17:14
And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book,

Deuteronomy 11:20

And thou shalt write them upon the door posts of thine house, and upon thy gates:

Deuteronomy 31:11
When all Israel is come to appear before the LORD thy God in the place which he shall choose, thou shalt read this law before all Israel in their hearing.

2 Kings 5:7
And it came to pass, when the king of Israel had read the letter, that he rent his clothes,

Nehemiah 13:1
On that day they read in the book of Moses in the audience of the people; and therein was found written,

2 Chronicles 34:13
....: and of the Levites there were scribes, and officers, and porters

1 Kings 4:3
Elihoreph and Ahiah, the sons of Shisha, scribes; Jehoshaphat the son of Ahilud, the recorder.

For further scriptures proving that they were not illiterate, a fact that should be more than obvious in view of their extensive writings but which in this case obviously wasn't, please use the following link.

Bible Gateway
http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/index.php?search=write&searchtype=all&version1=9&spanbegin=1&spanend=73

There is a world of difference between giving a naughty child a quick spank and destroying every living creature on the planet including all the birds and animals. A parent that punishes a child and then goes and drowns the family pet for good measure is frankly deranged and we would rightly consider removing the child from that individuals care. That said I do not believe the flood occurred so if there is a deity then I do not think he/she/they actually did this. Beats me why anybody would think an all knowing all compassionate God would do something like that.

As to the Bible, very, very little, if any, was written during the Bronze Age. It stands to reason that, as much of the OT is history and is chronicling events by looking backwards, that those books themselves must have been written after the events. In fact much of it was written around 500 BC or after - well into the Iron Age and literacy (for those trained in such matters). The bulk of pre-history was compressed into a few short verses in Genesis - a common device in introducing a theme where a scene is set with minimal emphasis on detail and facts. Judaic scholars in Israel have determined several authors for the books attributed to Moses. A reasonable deduction considering Moses never set foot in the promised land and, again, are written from the perspective of looking backwards.

What is Bronze Age are the religious ideas and oral traditions handed down through Israeli culture and later put to pen and paper. Similar oral traditions later written down can be found in many cultures, including the Celts and Vikings.

Obviously none of the NT was written in the Bronze Age.

Tricky

3rd February 2008, 07:08 AM

...consider that most men didn't even understand conception a hundred years ago...
LOL. You think? Obviously you haven't read in the bible, the story of Onan (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=38&verse=8&end_verse=10&version=31&context=context).

Raptor Witness

3rd February 2008, 10:55 AM

Radrook

3rd February 2008, 11:12 AM

Nogbad

3rd February 2008, 03:39 PM

Since the literacy of ancient Hebrews has been questioned, here is an article that familiarizes us with ancient Hebrews' literacy in order to further dispel that erroneous notion.

Hebrew Education in Ancient Times

http://av.rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9ibyK..AaZHTkoArg5rCqMX;_ylu=X3oDMTBvdmM3bGl xBHBndANhdl93ZWJfcmVzdWx0BHNlYwNzcg--/SIG=12jrpgmko/EXP=1202148158/**http%3a//homeschoolinformation.com/education/jewish_education.htm

The article is a little lacking in depth and it makes no mention of women (50% of society) nor does it indicate the take up of elementary education in the pre captivity period. That there were scribes, a feature of many societies of that era, also indicates that there was a living to be made reading and writing texts on behalf of others, something not required if pretty much everyone can read and write.

That said, literacy was likely to have been increasingly common after the Captivity and most people would have known or had access to some one who could read and write. Certainly in the later Hellenic period the concept of a basic education would have been something many in the towns and cities would have aspired to and the ability to write Greek would have been considered an extremely useful skill. The extent to which literacy was common prior to the Captivity is less clear and is much more likely to have been concentrated in the hands of the scribes and priests.

Medieval Europe was literate and produced some outstanding works, such as Chaucer. However a great many ordinary men and women could not read and write.

Tricky

3rd February 2008, 03:45 PM

The rate of increase in knowledge has changed, and that's obvious to any student of history. It cannot be explained away as easily as some here are trying to do.

What's interesting is that our science is out pacing our ability to control our emotions, which suggests that some power or force could be trying to help us self destruct. You don't even have to be a cynic to see the danger we are to ourselves, at this juncture. This fact alone suggests progress beyond what nature may have intended.
I do not see how it is possible to make any reasonable speculation as to nature's intent. Nature is not some anthropomorphic being with a plan. One could have just as easily said that blue-green algae were pooping out oxygen at a rate beyond their ability to control, thus ensuring that they destroyed much of their own habitat.

And made ours.

PixyMisa

3rd February 2008, 03:58 PM

The rate of increase in knowledge has changed, and that's obvious to any student of history. It cannot be explained away as easily as some here are trying to do.
I didn't explain it away. I explained it.

What knowledge, specifically, do you think came from "beyond", and why? If you're just upset about the rate of increase of knowledge, then I'd have to ask if you've ever considered that your computer and internet connection can be used for things other than posting illogical metaphysical arguments on message boards.

What's interesting is that our science is out pacing our ability to control our emotions, which suggests that some power or force could be trying to help us self destruct.Number of cities nuked since 1946: 0.

If something out there is trying to help us self destruct, they must be disappointed with their progress.

You don't even have to be a cynic to see the danger we are to ourselves, at this juncture.We're significant as a danger to ourselves only because nothing else is.

This fact alone suggests progress beyond what nature may have intended.And Tricky already fielded that bit of nonsense.

arthwollipot

3rd February 2008, 09:24 PM

You know, I'm really not as interested in this discussion as I thought I would be.

Tricky

3rd February 2008, 09:41 PM

Radrook

3rd February 2008, 10:06 PM

Well said, patnray. That's what I always said: freedom of choice in Christianity is basically freedom of choosing with a gun to your head.

Show me one government in all human history that has offerred its citizens the right to do as they please without consequences. Even the democracies don't allow that. Yet they are praised as paragons of human freedom. Actually, in order for you to remain consistent you would have to say that freedom of choice under such democracies is merely freedom to choose with a gun to your head.

BTW

The only alternative to the thing you are criticizing is anarchy.

halofish2000

3rd February 2008, 10:07 PM

Okay, let's just assume it was the Nephilim spreading evil and causing the world to become evil. Why then did God let it progress so far? Why couldn't He just kill the Nephilim as soon as He saw they were spreading evil? Why wait until he is "forced" to kill almost every living creature on earth? Is He stupid? Does He prefer a massacre to a surgical strike?

This is just one more example of why the God of the Bible (or at least the Old Testement) is not an entity to worship, but is either incompetent or evil.

I don't think it matters if you get answer to your questions. If you are to assume there is a God, who are we to question what he does. Being omnipotent and omniscient from eternity past to eternity future allows him to do what he wants. There is not much info in the Bible as to what was going on at this time. But, there is some interesting stories by the Jews that go beyond the sacred page that explains this time period.
If you are a spiritual being that has existed forever, time is no factor.

Couldn't God just as easily killed satan in the garden?

Tricky

3rd February 2008, 10:14 PM

I don't think it matters if you get answer to your questions. If you are to assume there is a God, who are we to question what he does. Being omnipotent and omniscient from eternity past to eternity future allows him to do what he wants. There is not much info in the Bible as to what was going on at this time. But, there is some interesting stories by the Jews that go beyond the sacred page that explains this time period.
If you are a spiritual being that has existed forever, time is no factor.

Couldn't God just as easily killed satan in the garden?
Yes, of course. But every little piece of illogic and every demonstration of God's fallibility is a flaw in the morter which makes the temple crumble. Rarely, but not without precident, the weight of so much rationality and evidence against the God they describe will cause a fundamentalist to actually doubt their basic and previously unquestioned faith. It's a beginning.

Tricky

3rd February 2008, 10:18 PM

Show me one government in all human history that has offerred its citizens the right to do as they please without consequences. Even the democracies don't allow that. Yet they are praised as paragons of human freedom. Actually, in order for you to remain consistent you would have to say that freedom of choice under such democracies is merely freedom to choose with a gun to your head.
In democratic governments, the consequences are determined by the people. They make the laws and the consequences of the laws. Even in tyranny, the people have sometimes had the power to topple a cruel tyrant who chose unfair consequences.

So is God the tyrant who can't be toppled? His consquences are not to be questioned or changed by free people? Nice.

Radrook

3rd February 2008, 10:20 PM

[quote]....Couldn't God just as easily killed satan in the garden?

Only if Satan had merely challenged God's power, then the appropriate response would have been a demonstration of superior force. But Satan's challenge and the issues raised in Eden were not power-related.

halofish2000

3rd February 2008, 10:23 PM

I know I do not have the wisdom, intellect or even synapses to formulate the thoughts of how I would create life were I God. Why create a mortal that will die and possibly reject your counsel? That is not for me to figure out. Way beyond my paygrade. I have no intention of changing anyone's mind about God. I actually enjoy reading what the other pov is by many here who are much smarter than I.

halofish2000

3rd February 2008, 10:29 PM

[QUOTE=halofish2000;3400711]

Only if Satan had merely challenged God's power, then the appropriate response would have been a demonstration of superior force. But Satan's challenge and the issues raised in Eden were not power-related.

Of course they were power related. This challenge is what got him evicted from heaven to begin with. It was the usurping of God's authority and wanting to bleed praise to him. God could just have destroyed him then instead of proceeding with another "experiment"
Wanting to be like God and know all things like God was the temptation.
Weren't the Assyrians called the "tallest trees in Eden" What means these words?

Radrook

3rd February 2008, 10:57 PM

The possibility of rejection or acceptance of God's instructions is a necessary and inevitable consequence of freedom to choose.

There are those who choose to do good-as required by God, because they find it to be the wiser course of action. Such persons find righteousness pleasurable and would have it no other way. In fact, they are willing to die on behalf of righteousness.

Others do good in order to gain eternal life but envy evildoers. These are on flimsier ground since their hearts are not completely in favor of their choice but are making their choice with the gun-pointed-at-head-mentality.

Others use freedom of choice to create their own moral parameters and determine for themselves what is good and what is evil. Such persons would find a universe requiring righteousness unbearable and prefer death to being restricted in that way.

Unfortunately for the latter, arbitrary choices lead to victimization of the weaker by the stronger and in order to prevent such abuse God must set rules which protect those who seek peace from those who do not. And that's when the accusations of not being allowed to do anything and everything we might want to comes in.

Nogbad

4th February 2008, 03:36 AM

Ocelot

4th February 2008, 04:18 AM

Where in numbers does it say that the nephilim were present? Are you referring to the tribes which had names which scholars today say indicate they were nephilim? Please provide the exact scripture.

Numbers 13:33 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%2013:33;&version=9;) KJV calls them Giants, as it does in Genesis.

The Hebrew source says Nephilim

Belz...

4th February 2008, 08:08 AM

Are we reading the same Genesis? They were imediately created male and female given the same command God had given all the anials, to multiply, become many and fill the earth. This was prior to their having sinned.

That's true, then. My mistake.

Prior to Eve's appearance

Only in the version of the tale in which they WEREN'T created simultaneously.

And in that version, women are there for companionship...

I assume you are referring to the angels? Remember, he calls himself male as well but it doesn't mean that he is male in the human sense of the word.

That doesn't answer my question. Why only males ?

If he were is misogynist he would not have created females.

He didn't for angels, that's for sure. And he did for females but basically just for companionship and child-bearing. How ISN'T that mysoginistic ?

Obviously you refuse to acknowledge pure curiosity as a motivating factor but must insist that God created them with defect. Nothing I can say or show will change that opinion to which you have the right but which is unsceriptural as well as illogical since pure curiosity does motivate.

What the hell triggered that little piece of vitriol ? How do you know I won't change my mind ? Is it because you have no evidence ?

I haven't speculated on one single thing.

Of course you have, at least once.

It seems, however that your tendency to tag everything I say as speculation

What ? How would you say it's a "tendency" ? Can I say something ONCE without you saying it's a compulsive obsession ?

is based on your belief that the Bible has no theme

Oh, the bibble has plenty of themes, for sure.

has no way of being properly understood

I have never said that. NOW you're speculating.

is incoherent and self contradictory

It is.

and isn't even worth reading.

Again, you're making stuff up. I don't know why you're struggling against that strawman, but it looks fun!

It also appears that you make statements about Genesis without reading Genesis. Am I correct?

Bad recollection. So sue me.

Strange since one would expect a person to read a book he is making assertive statements about in order to avoid errors of interpretation.

Gosh, Radrook. Do you ever get tired of listening to yourself ?

The first account of man's creation in Genesis 1 is a brief synopsis while the second account which follows goes into the details of their falling from grace.

That's your interpretation. The order of events in the two chapters is incompatible in a litteral reading.

Belz...

4th February 2008, 08:13 AM

Thomas Aquinas was a critical thinker as well as most other clergymen during the Catholic Church's predominance.

And ? Lots of smart people believe in stupid stuff.

Unfortunately, your preferred viewpoint doesn't justify the transparent policy of choosing nonsensical out-of-harmony with context interpretations in order to convey the impression of contradictions.

There are litterally hundreds of contradictions in the bible. It seems unreasonable to assume that there SHOULD be harmony in all that.

Radrook

4th February 2008, 08:44 AM

[QUOTE=Radrook;3400745]

Of course they were power related. This challenge is what got him evicted from heaven to begin with. It was the usurping of God's authority and wanting to bleed praise to him. God could just have destroyed him then instead of proceeding with another "experiment"
Wanting to be like God and know all things like God was the temptation. Weren't the Assyrians called the "tallest trees in Eden" What means these words?

You are misunderstanding me: Let me state it differently:
Satan was not challenging God to a test of who is more powerful. If so, then it could have been settled immediately by a direct confrontation proving Satan wrong. So the issue wasn't merely who is stronger.

Also, the only mention of rebellion after creation is in reference to the Garden of Eden. So there really is no scriptural support for assuming that Lucifer had rebelled prior to that. In fact, all the angels are shown in Job as happily praising God when he created the earth.

Neither is there scriptural support for believing that he was totally banned from heaven immediately after the rebellion since he is described as entering heaven during Jobs day and his banishment from heaven is still spoken of as in the future in Revelation.

I'm not sure what you mean by another experiment since I see no evidence for it in the Bible. Unless you call further angelic rebellion God's experiment in which case you are reading more into the Bible than it teaches. In fact, you are creating your own god with a personality based on those concepts.

Can you please provide the scripture where it says that the Assyrians were tall trees in Eden? Try as I might I just can't seem to recall having read that.

BTW
Satan called God a liar by saying that if they sinned they would not die. That God preferred to keep them in ignorance because if he didn't want them to be like him. That they would be better off without his guidance. That without divine guidance they would be godlike. Also, as is evident from the accusations Satan hurled against Job, that man or any other intelligent creature for that matter, would only obey God for selfish reasons.

When Adam and Eve disobeyed they provided a certain initial evidence for Satan's argument. So time was needed to prove that this was not always the case and thus proving Satan a liar on both counts, that mankind could prosper without God's guidance and protection, and that there are creatures who serve God not because of materialistic reasons but because they are convinced that God's way is the correct one and they genuinely respect and love him as their heavenly Father.

Destroying Satan and mankind would leave these issues unresolved

Radrook

4th February 2008, 09:59 AM

That's true, then. My mistake.
Only in the version of the tale in which they WEREN'T created simultaneously.And in that version, women are there for companionship... That doesn't answer my question. Why only males ?

Synopsis prior to more detailed account is an accepted literary device. That you wish to make the synopsis seem as a separate account contradicting the more detailed one is simply your modus operandi. Nothing unusual.

BTW

I did answer your question about angels. They aren't male they are spirits. They are described as male in order for us to understand heavenly things despite our inability to perceive them directly via our senses. A simplification if you will of things within another real, the spiritual one.

He didn't for angels, that's for sure. And he did for females but basically just for companionship and childbearing. How ISN'T that misogynistic ?

He didn't what?

The word you are using means hatred of women. When God created mankind he identifies mankind as male and female. He didn't say that males were mankind. He said that both were mankind and that both were made in his image. Being in his image meant having the ability to reason, a sense of morality, ability to express wisdom and power. God had no innate hatreds for his own creation made in his own image. That would be self hatred.

As for Eve's responsibilities, if you read carefully, you will see that he gave Eve as a HELPER. Not just a mere companion. Childbearing was seen as a blessing by Hebrew women.
In fact, they consider themselves cursed of unable to bear children. So the idea that it was a degradation is not scriptural. A further reading the Bible will also reveal that women are constantly being praised. The last chapter of Proverbs for example, is dedicated totally to praising women. A whole book, the Song of Solomon is dedicated to praising the beauty of women's both physical and mental attributes. Two other books, Ruth and Esther, are dedicated to women. One as an ancestress of our Lord Jesus Christ and the other as the vehicle God used to save Israel from being destroyed by its enemies. Women were also given the privilege of prophecy in the OT and mentioned repeatedly as valuable members of society.

The NT also gives a positive picture of how God considers women. His heavenly organization is represented as a woman with seven stars about her head. The church of Christ as a virgin. Mary-a woman-was used to bring God's Son Christ to earth. Husbands are told to treat women with respect as if they were their own bodies.

What the hell triggered that little piece of vitriol ? How do you know I won't change my mind ? Is it because you have no evidence ?

It wasn't meant to be taken that way. My apologies if I said such a thing about your inability to change your mind. However, curiosity is definitely a motivating force. As for evidence, that depends what you mean by evidence. Some persons wll accept nothing in support of the Bible as evidence but will cast doubt on everything presented in one way or another and if they have no means of casting doubt they will invent something so that rthey can cast doubt.

Of course you have, at least once.

?????

What ? How would you say it's a "tendency" ? Can I say something ONCE without you saying it's a compulsive obsession ?

I didn't say it is an obsessive compulsion. I said it seems like a tendency. Also, it's not the saying of somethimng once that convinces me of a tendency. It is the repeated phenomena observed which forms a pattern thatleads to that conclusion.

Oh, the bibble has plenty of themes, for sure.

I didn't say it didn't have sub-themes-that's something you are making up. I said it had a main theme. Does saying that a book, has a main theme automatically mean that I am denying sub-themes?

I have never said that. NOW you're speculating.
It is.Again, you're making stuff up. I don't know why you're struggling against that strawman, but it looks fun!

What you refer to as mere speculatiuon is a conclusion or inductive leap based on an observation of a behavioral pattern which justifies that conclusion.

[Bad recollection. So sue me.

When one doesn't recollect properly such simple passages it's bcause one has given those passages a cursory reading buttressed by preconceptions which will predominate when one attempts to recollect. So what one recollects as a consequence are preconceptions resulting in glaring innacuracies. The subject matter deserves better. IMHO

Gosh, Radrook. Do you ever get tired of listening to yourself ?

No, but I do get tired of listening to unfounded claims constantly being made against the Bible, claims which indicate clearly that the person making them hasn't taken the time to even read the book he has chosen to attack. That indeed is exceedingly tiresome and it's a wonder I just don't throw up my hands and leave such individuals to their ideas.

A recent suggestion, for example, that the Bible can be taken all literally or all symbolically is one of those suggestions that indicates this. Anyone even minimally familiar with the book knows that there are whole books which are didactic, others that are predominantly historical, others that are partially prophetic and historical, others which are poetic, while being partially prophetic, etcetera. So the suggestion in itself gives evidence that the one seeking to portray the Bible that way is speaking from ignorance of the very book he is striving to criticize. Now that is tiresome!

That's your interpretation. The order of events in the two chapters is incompatible in a literal reading.

The only way that those passages and their order can cause confusion is if one automatically decides that they are describing totally different events. If I say I went to the store and bought food and then came home. Using such ads a type of topical sentence, and then proceed to describe in detail what happened on my way there, what type of food I bought, or how much I paidI for each item, you would readily understand that my first statement was a general reference followed by a detailed account. As a matter of fact, if you did not, you might be considered as having a reading comprehension problem. However, the very persons who routinely are easily capable of distinguishing between a synopsis and a more detailed statement when reading non-bilblical passages are suddenly the very ones claiming that such passages when found in the Bible are contradictions. A very tiresome and annoying thing to see happen since it smacks of ill concealed bias at worse or a refusal to reason properly when it comes to the Bible at the least.

Belz...

4th February 2008, 10:03 AM

Show me one government in all human history that has offerred its citizens the right to do as they please without consequences.

Show me one government in all human history who condemns me for an ETERNITY of suffering because of a misunderstanding.

Even the democracies don't allow that. Yet they are praised as paragons of human freedom. Actually, in order for you to remain consistent you would have to say that freedom of choice under such democracies is merely freedom to choose with a gun to your head.

Gosh, you do love those strawmen. Do they dance, too ?

The only alternative to the thing you are criticizing is anarchy.

No, it isn't.

Belz...

4th February 2008, 10:04 AM

Only if Satan had merely challenged God's power, then the appropriate response would have been a demonstration of superior force. But Satan's challenge and the issues raised in Eden were not power-related.

Gosh, you have to love Christian philosophy. Might makes right.

Belz...

4th February 2008, 10:15 AM

Synopsis prior to more detailed account is an accepted literary device.

Not if one contradicts the other.

That you wish t make the synopsis seem as a separate account contradicting the more detailed one is simply your modus operandi. Nothing unusual.

You have no idea what my M.O. is. Please stop attacking me and start taking down my points, as per your membership agreement.

The word you are using means hatred of women.

Yes. God decides that ALL women will bear extreme suffering during childbirth because ONE of them was fooled by a snake. How is that not hatred ?

He didn't say that males were mankind.

No, he made a male and gave him a companion because the poor thing was lonely.

As for Eve's responsibilities, if you read carefully, you will see that he gave Eve as a HELPER. Not just a mere companion. Childbearing was seen as a blessing by Hebrew women.

Yeah, especially the painful bits and the part when you throw up every day. Real fun. You'd think God could've made it so we could share the burden.

A further reading the Bible will also reveal that women are constantly being praised.

...or stoned.

The last chapter of Proverbs for example, is dedicated totally to praising women. A whole book, the Song of Solomon is dedicated to praising the beauty of women's both physical and mental attributes.

Do I need to point out that those books were written by men. God's actions speak differently.

The NT also gives a positive picture of how God considers women. His heavenly organization is represented as a woman with seven stars about her head. The church of Christ as a virgin. Mary-a woman-was used to bring God's Son Christ to earth.

I wonder why she needed to be a virgin... maybe because a woman is seen as having been "soiled" if she's not a virgin. How empowering!

My apologies if I said such a thing.

You did.

?????

You do know what a strawman is, don't you ?

I didn't say it didn't have sub-themes-that's something you are making up.

What ? Are you having a completely different conversation ? Please QUOTE ME saying that you said there weren't any themes. I WAS AGREEING WITH YOU.

You really should start reading more carefully.

?????

Bad memory, I said. Sheesh. I didn't remember. I don't bring a bible with me to work, okay ?

No, but I do get tired of listening to unfounded claims constantly being made against the Bible, claims which indicate clearly that the person making them hasn't taken the time to even read the book he has chosen to attack.

What part of "FORGOT" didn't you understand ? Do you even read what I write ?

The bible doesn't need me to make claims about it. The book is full of contradictions. One blind man or two ?

Aside from self-contradictions, of course, there are those wonderful bible facts that contradict reality. Of course, those are only problems if you're a litteralist, but if you're not, it creates a new problem: how can you tell what's true, and what isn't ?

Anyone even minimally familiar with the book knows that their are whole books which are didactic, others that are predominantly historical, others that are partially prophetic and historical, others which are poetic, while being partially prophetic, etcetera.

And the same people know that it's nigh-impossible to tell which part is which.

Now that is tiresome!

What is getting tiresome are your apologetics.

The only way that those passages and their order can cause confusion is if one automatically decides that they are describing totally different events.

They are describing different events because they are mutually exclusive.

However, the very persons who routinely are easily capable of distinguishing between a synopsis and a more detailed statement when reading non-bilblical passages are suddenly the very ones claiming that such passages when found in the Bible are contradictions.

Except the "more detailed" account isn't longer than the "summary".

Radrook

4th February 2008, 10:42 AM

Gosh, you have to love Christian philosophy. Might makes right.

I would really aspreciate it if you can get yourself to desist from misrepresenting what I say.
It gives the impression that you really don't care what I say and are merely out to misrepresent. That isn't a good policy since people on this forum can readily see through the ruse and you accomplishing nothing except to discourage further diuscussion.

Belz...

4th February 2008, 10:53 AM

Anything you say, Rad.

No, wait. Weren't YOU the one who mentioned POWER ?

ETA: Yes you did!

Only if Satan had merely challenged God's power, then the appropriate response would have been a demonstration of superior force. But Satan's challenge and the issues raised in Eden were not power-related.

Radrook

4th February 2008, 11:06 AM

Not if one contradicts the other. You have no idea what my M.O. is. Please stop attacking me and start taking down my points, as per your membership agreement.

They don't look contradictory to me-they complement one another very nicely.

Yes. God decides that ALL women will bear extreme suffering during childbirth because ONE of them was fooled by a snake. How is that not hatred ?

He's just describing the consequence of her genetic deterioration. Snake to you-the Devil, a spirit creature, according to the Bible.

No, he made a male and gave him a companion because the poor thing was lonely.

Man was physicallydesigned to require a female. That was planned thousands of years prior to his being created.

Yeah, especially the painful bits and the part when you throw up every day. Real fun. You'd think God could've made it so we could share the burden.
...or stoned.

?????

Do I need to point out that those books were written by men. God's actions speak differently.

God inspired his servants to write down his thoughts.

Job 26:7
He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

I wonder why she needed to be a virgin... maybe because a woman is seen as having been "soiled" if she's not a virgin. How empowering!

Sexual relations within marriage is a gift to mankind. But since mankind has abused sex, sex has gotten certain negative connotations while virginity has taken on other connotation.

You did.You do know what a strawman is, don't you ?

Sure, all the arguments that you arer putting forth against the Bible.

What ? Are you having a completely different conversation ? Please QUOTE ME saying that you said there weren't any themes. I WAS AGREEING WITH YOU.
You really should start reading more carefully.Bad memory, I said. Sheesh. I didn't remember. I don't bring a bible with me to work, okay ?What part of "FORGOT" didn't you understand ? Do you even read what I write ?

I read what you write and that's why I respond the way I do, because I read what you write. Why mention sub-themes then? Sounded to me like you were saying that ther Bible has no main theme but merely is a hodge podge of little themes totally unrelated to one another. Another unfounded misconception usually put forth by persons who haven't really taken te time to read the good book.

No Bible needed when it has to do with the very basic creation account given in Genesis. It's like saying I forgot how the pieces in chess are supposed to move because I don't have a board on hand.

The bible doesn't need me to make claims about it. The book is full of contradictions. One blind man or two ?Aside from self-contradictions, of course, there are those wonderful bible facts that contradict reality. ?

Things which appear to be contradictions to those who are unwilling to accept explanations.

Of course, those are only problems if you're a litteralist, but if you're not, it creates a new problem: how can you tell what's true, and what isn't

Easy, I can tell because contrary to popular opinion, the Bible isn't open to any and all interpretations just like the US Consititution or any other book for that matter isn't open to all interpretations. It was written to convey meaning and it does convey the meaning it was intended to convey.

BTW
You brandish the woird literalist about as if a literalist has to take all things in the Bible literally. That is not so. No literalist worth his salt would assume that the Bible has to be taken completely literally. Revelations and the Parables of Jesus is sufficient to dispel that notion.

And the same people know that it's nigh-impossible to tell which part is which.
What is getting tiresome are your apologetics.

Then don't read what I write! Also, apply the same rule about attacking the idea and not the person that you insist I abide by.

They are describing different events because they are mutually exclusive.
Except the "more detailed" account isn't longer than the "summary".

But it is still more detailed and they dovetail very nicely in giving us the full picture intended.

Radrook

4th February 2008, 11:19 AM

Anything you say, Rad.

No, wait. Weren't YOU the one who mentioned POWER ?

ETA: Yes you did!

Rightness of rule was challenged based on lies. Statements concerning motives why God's creatures served him and why God insisted on giving rules in his universe. In short, the rightness of God's rule was challenged and not his power. If his power had been challenged then he ad the right and obligation to protect his universe just as you have a right to protect your property and your family. Could you rightfully be accused of might makes right when protecting your property?

halofish2000

4th February 2008, 12:30 PM

Rad, Eze 31 is what you are lookig for regarding tha Assyrians being the tallest rees in Eden
Hope this helps. Let me know your thoughts.

RobRoy

4th February 2008, 01:32 PM

Rightness of rule was challenged based on lies. Statements concerning motives why God's creatures served him and why God insisted on giving rules in his universe. In short, the rightness of God's rule was challenged and not his power. If his power had been challenged then he ad the right and obligation to protect his universe just as you have a right to protect your property and your family. Could you rightfully be accused of might makes right when protecting your property?

By far the best post of this entire discussion. It makes God sound like a hill-billy, with a shotgun just waiting for someone to cross his "No Tres'passin'" posted fence-line.

The number of questions it also begs is also quite fun. Like: Who could possibly challenge an omniscient, omnipotent's being's power? Does God favor a sawed-off or a pump-action? Knowing the inevitable outcome, why would someone want to challenge God? Does God rock on the porch listening to Dueling Banjos? Where does the "right and obligation" come from? A higher power than God? Does God chew tabbaco? Is Nevada His spittoon?

RobRoy

4th February 2008, 01:33 PM

Double-post.

Tricky

4th February 2008, 02:28 PM

By far the best post of this entire discussion. It makes God sound like a hill-billy, with a shotgun just waiting for someone to cross his "No Tres'passin'" posted fence-line.

The number of questions it also begs is also quite fun. Like: Who could possibly challenge an omniscient, omnipotent's being's power? Does God favor a sawed-off or a pump-action? Knowing the inevitable outcome, why would someone want to challenge God? Does God rock on the porch listening to Dueling Banjos? Where does the "right and obligation" come from? A higher power than God? Does God chew tabbaco? Is Nevada His spittoon?
It's a little known biblical fact that the full name of God's nemesis is "Satan Hatfield".

RobRoy

4th February 2008, 02:47 PM

It's a little known biblical fact that the full name of God's nemesis is "Satan Hatfield".

So God's real name is Old Man "Yahweh" McCoy?:catfight:

Nogbad

4th February 2008, 03:10 PM

BTW
You brandish the woird literalist about as if a literalist has to take all things in the Bible literally. That is not so. No literalist worth his salt would assume that the Bible has to be taken completely literally. Revelations and the Parables of Jesus is sufficient to dispel that notion.

A fair point - I would consider Noah and the Ark to be morality tale rather than a literal fact.

Belz...

4th February 2008, 03:42 PM

They don't look contradictory to me-they complement one another very nicely.

Do they, now ? I guess you only see what you want to see, because Genesis 1 seems to claim that man and woman were created simultaneously.

He's just describing the consequence of her genetic deterioration.

Her what ?

Please cite the chapter and verse of Genesis that mentions DNA.

Snake to you-the Devil, a spirit creature, according to the Bible.

Irrelevant. It was still a snake.

And I might remind you that the snake was telling the truth, and that God lied.

Man was physicallydesigned to require a female. That was planned thousands of years prior to his being created.

Technically, it wasn't planned, but preordained.

?????

You don't think bearing a child is painful ? Or do you have a problem with my comment that prostitutes are treated like dirt in the bible ?

God inspired his servants to write down his thoughts.

Irrelevant. Men wrote the bible.

Job 26:7
He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

Please don't quote scripture at me, Rad. It has no effect.

Sexual relations within marriage is a gift to mankind.

That's not what you said a moment ago. You said man was DESIGNED to require a woman. Making sure a basic need, and indeed a requirement to obey His command to "be fruitful and multiply" isn't a gift.

But since mankind has abused sex, sex has gotten certain negative connotations while virginity has taken on other connotation.

That we have "abused" sex is your opinion. The connotations are the bible's, and it changes nothing of what I said.

Sure, all the arguments that you arer putting forth against the Bible.

I will take that as a "no".

I read what you write and that's why I respond the way I do, because I read what you write. Why mention sub-themes then?

YOU mentioned sub-themes, Rad. Not me. Again, there's your reading comprehension, right there.

Sounded to me like you were saying that ther Bible has no main theme but merely is a hodge podge of little themes totally unrelated to one another.

You should try to stop putting words into my mouth. You are very bad at it. I agreed that the bible had themes.

If you spotted a hint of sarcasm in what I said, you didn't understand why it was there.

Another unfounded misconception usually put forth by persons who haven't really taken te time to read the good book.

I prefer to call it the "evil" book, myself. It describes the god-ordered massacres, rapes and thefts much more correctly.

No Bible needed when it has to do with the very basic creation account given in Genesis. It's like saying I forgot how the pieces in chess are supposed to move because I don't have a board on hand.

Actually, it's more like saying I don't remember the exact order of the moves of the last chess game I played two years ago.

Things which appear to be contradictions to those who are unwilling to accept explanations.

Really ?

"I like sugar" and "I do not like sugar" seem contradictory to me. So things which appear to be contradictions can indeed BE contradictions.

One or two blind men, Rad ?

Easy, I can tell because contrary to popular opinion, the Bible isn't open to any and all interpretations just like the US Consititution or any other book for that matter isn't open to all interpretations. It was written to convey meaning and it does convey the meaning it was intended to convey.

Then, pray tell, why are there so many different opinions of what the bible means ?

You brandish the woird literalist about as if a literalist has to take all things in the Bible literally.

That is the definition of the word, Rad. LITTERALIST. If you don't take the bible litterally, then you are not a litteralist.

That is not so. No literalist worth his salt would assume that the Bible has to be taken completely literally.

I know at least two people who do.

Revelations and the Parables of Jesus is sufficient to dispel that notion.

However, even those two would agree that things that are RECOUNTED in the bible AS metaphors ARE metaphors, Rad. Your attempt at deception is noted.

Then don't read what I write!

I have a better idea. Why don't you stop preaching and start supporting your argument ?

Also, apply the same rule about attacking the idea and not the person that you insist I abide by.

Calling apologetics by their name isn't attacking the person. Again you don't understand what you read.

But it is still more detailed and they dovetail very nicely in giving us the full picture intended.

You have no idea what the picture was "intended" to be.

Also, I'd like to have some idea of what you consider "non-litteral" in the bible, and how you can tell the difference.

Belz...

4th February 2008, 03:49 PM

Rightness of rule

Rightness of rule ? Based on what ? Democratic elections ? Good will ?

No, the God of the bible ruled because he MADE the universe and he was its dictator. Challenge God, ignore him or cross him and you PAY forever. How is that right ?

For what it's worth, and for all the criticism we hear against human justice, it's a whole lot better than divine justice.

was challenged based on lies.

No, their eyes DID open and they BECAME like gods. Hell, even God said it.

If his power had been challenged then he ad the right and obligation to protect his universe just as you have a right to protect your property and your family.

Aw, come on, Rad. The man's OMNIPOTENT. What does he care ? It's not like a territorial dispute, unless god's real petty.

Could you rightfully be accused of might makes right when protecting your property?

If my response is to blast the offender into oblivion and to curse his family to torment for thousands of generations, yes!

RobRoy

4th February 2008, 04:10 PM

Aw, come on, Rad. The man's OMNIPOTENT. What does he care ? It's not like a territorial dispute, unless god's real petty.

The God of the Bible is petty. Especially of the Old Testament. Apparently, He becomes more mellow in His old(er) age, but there it is. I don't say this to be rude, or unkempt, or even push anyone's buttons. Anyone can wish and wash away what's there, and that's fine for them. For me, it doesn't work.

Here's just a small sample:

1- God has a single chosen people. Everyone else is open to rape, murder, pillaging, plunder, etc. because they're not chosen and they don't follow. Slap 'dem heathens around, God doesn't mind.
2- For small slights, he punishes all kinds of people quite horribly, destroying towns, villages, nations, etc. Burn baby, burn!
3- Disobey Him, and watch out. There's no forgiveness there. You're slapped down and potentially, your children, their children and their children get to bear the brunt of that iniquity. Yeah, because innocent children deserve to be smacked for the mistakes of their great-grand parents.
4- To prove his greatness, he puts Job through literal hell. Way to be the bigger Guy there!

Yeah, there's very little doubt, in my mind at least, that the Old Testament God was jealous, bullying, and rather petty.

PixyMisa

4th February 2008, 04:52 PM

Not if one contradicts the other.Actually, that is an accepted literary device: The unreliable narrator. Used in some very fine works of fiction.

Tricky

4th February 2008, 05:14 PM

Actually, that is an accepted literary device: The unreliable narrator. Used in some very fine works of fiction.
"The Sound and the Fury" comes to mind. It is literally a tale told by an idiot. <looks askance>

Radrook

4th February 2008, 08:49 PM

And ? Lots of smart people believe in stupid stuff.[/qoute]

But that wasn't your original accusation was it. Your original accusation was that no intelligent person believes in the Bible. But now since youare cornered you shift. Which is to be expected of course. As for stupidity, I consider many scientists to bellieve in moronic stuff which you also believe in. So I guess we are similar in that little area in a curious sort of way.

[quote]There are litterally hundreds of contradictions in the bible. It seems unreasonable to assume that there SHOULD be harmony in all that.

Things which you choose not to understand or are unable to understand and don't really want to understand. Which is OK since not everyone was meant to understand or deserves to understand.

BTW
You are breaking forum rules with your insulting tone which I consider baiting me into a heated exchange. That is not something I look forward to nor will engage in if I can help it in one way or another.

Radrook

4th February 2008, 09:08 PM

Do they, now ? I guess you only see what you want to see, because Genesis 1 seems to claim that man and woman were created simultaneously.

Oh, you mean the synopsis? That was introductory.

Her what ? Please cite the chapter and verse of Genesis that mentions DNA.

Did I mention DNA? Obviously, or at least it should be obvious toi people of normal intelligence that we are children of Adam and Eve asnd that any defect they began to develop we being their children would also develop. All evidence proves that we did since we sin and die. A very simple concept which needs no specific mention of DNA to people who would not understand what the hell DNA is.

Irrelevant. It was still a snake.
And I might remind you that the snake was telling the truth, and that God lied.

Aha! I see! So the mask comes off and the real individsual behins all this finally reveals himself. At first your arguments were interesting coherent and had a certain merit, but now they seem only to be aiming to annoy. That to me is clutter. Sigh! Very dissapointing!

Technically, it wasn't planned, but preordained.

Preordaining a rebellion against himsewlf and screwing up his oewn creation. That's thge most riduculous idewa I have ever come accross.

You don't think bearing a child is painful ? Or do you have a problem with my comment that prostitutes are treated like dirt in the bible ?

Since I didn't say that then you are either reading someone wlse's posts or hallucinating.

Irrelevant. Men wrote the bible.

Under the guiding inspiration of God's holy spirit.

Please don't quote scripture at me, Rad. It has no effect.

That's not what you said a moment ago. You said man was DESIGNED to require a woman. Making sure a basic need, and indeed a requirement to obey His command to "be fruitful and multiply" isn't a gift.

That we have "abused" sex is your opinion. The connotations are the bible's, and it changes nothing of what I said.

I will take that as a "no".

YOU mentioned sub-themes, Rad. Not me. Again, there's your reading comprehension, right there. You should try to stop putting words into my mouth. You are very bad at it. I agreed that the bible had themes. If you spotted a hint of sarcasm in what I said, you didn't understand why it was there. I prefer to call it the "evil" book, myself. It describes the god-ordered massacres, rapes and thefts much more correctly.

What you say remains on the board for all t o see that you did say it-so your denbial tactic isn't working. As for calling God evil, what can be expectedfrom a person who defends Satan?

Actually, it's more like saying I don't remember the exact order of the moves of the last chess game I played two years ago.

False analogy!

Really ?

"I like sugar" and "I do not like sugar" seem contradictory to me. So things which appear to be contradictions can indeed BE contradictions. One or two blind men, Rad ? Then, pray tell, why are there so many different opinions of what the bible means ? That is the definition of the word, Rad. LITTERALIST. If you don't take the bible litterally, then you are not a litteralist.

Which shows just hopw unfamiliar you are with the book you have chosen to attack.

I know at least two people who do.However, even those two would agree that things that are RECOUNTED in the bible AS metaphors ARE metaphors, Rad. Your attempt at deception is noted.I have a better idea. Why don't you stop preaching and start supporting your argument ?

All support in behalf of the Bible you will cunningly tag as preaching. But I have a better idea instead of your suggestion.

Calling apologetics by their name isn't attacking the person. Again you don't understand what you read. You have no idea what the picture was "intended" to be.
Also, I'd like to have some idea of what you consider "non-litteral" in the bible, and how you can tell the difference.

I can tell the difference because God ghave me a brain to tell the differeence with. Sigh! Wow! Yikes! Bye!

Belz...

5th February 2008, 10:22 AM

But that wasn't your original accusation was it. Your original accusation was that no intelligent person believes in the Bible. But now since youare cornered you shift.

Shift ? When did I say that no intelligent person believes in the bible ?

As for stupidity, I consider many scientists to bellieve in moronic stuff which you also believe in. So I guess we are similar in that little area in a curious sort of way.

What you consider is irrelevant. Lots of smart people believe in stupid stuff.

Things which you choose not to understand or are unable to understand and don't really want to understand.

Rad, don't you see a slight problem in trying to figure out why I think they are contradictions ? Instead of trying to understand what goes on in my head you'd do well to try and explain away all of THESE contradictions:

http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/

Which is OK since not everyone was meant to understand or deserves to understand.

What a fine God you have, who decides in advance who won't understand and, therefore, who is doomed to hell. What a fine godling.

You are breaking forum rules with your insulting tone which I consider baiting me into a heated exchange.

To which insults are you refering ?

Oh, you mean the synopsis? That was introductory.

That is your interpretation. I read what the Bible says, not what I imagine it tries to convey.

Did I mention DNA?

You said genetic deterioration. What else did you mean ?

Obviously, or at least it should be obvious toi people of normal intelligence that we are children of Adam and Eve

People of normal intelligence should be able to look at the evidence and conclude that Adam and Eve never existed.

asnd that any defect they began to develop we being their children would also develop.

Why would any defect devellop ? Did God screw up, somewhere ?

All evidence proves that we did since we sin and die.

No evidence shows that we sin, since sin is, by definition, an act contrary to the will of god, and god hasn't been shown to exist.

A very simple concept which needs no specific mention of DNA to people who would not understand what the hell DNA is.

You are again speculating as to the meaning of the written words. Any other person could come to another conclusion, and as such your speculation is meaningless.

Aha! I see! So the mask comes off and the real individsual behins all this finally reveals himself. At first your arguments were interesting coherent and had a certain merit, but now they seem only to be aiming to annoy. That to me is clutter. Sigh! Very dissapointing!

What in the blue hell are you babbling about, now ?

Preordaining a rebellion against himsewlf and screwing up his oewn creation. That's thge most riduculous idewa I have ever come accross.

It's not my invention, unfortunately. Since God is omniscient, he knew in advance it would happen. You'd think he would have taken it a little more lightly.

Since I didn't say that then you are either reading someone wlse's posts or hallucinating.

Rad, you seem to have a very bad short-term memory. We were talking about God being mysogynistic. You said he didn't hate women. I said that he made them bear the pains of childbirth, and etc., etc. You replied with "?????", to which I could only surmise you didn't understand what the hell I was talking about, or you didn't agree. So which is it ?

Under the guiding inspiration of God's holy spirit.

Then it shouldn't contain any mistakes, should it ?

Also, please point to the book, chapter and verse that says that the book was inspired as you claim.

That's not what you said a moment ago. You said man was DESIGNED to require a woman. Making sure a basic need, and indeed a requirement to obey His command to "be fruitful and multiply" isn't a gift.

That we have "abused" sex is your opinion. The connotations are the bible's, and it changes nothing of what I said.

I will take that as a "no".

I notice your ignored those points...

What you say remains on the board for all t o see that you did say it-so your denbial tactic isn't working.

Good. Then you'll have no trouble giving us all a link showing that I'm the one who brought up sub-themes.

As for calling God evil, what can be expectedfrom a person who defends Satan?

Again, you're very, very bad at reading and comprehending words, Rad. Satan doesn't exist. I can't defend him, can I ? And _IF_ God exists, then he is evil by any definition of the word.

But, wait. Didn't I call the BIBLE evil, not God ?

There goes that comprehension, again.

False analogy!

One good turn deserves another.

Which shows just hopw unfamiliar you are with the book you have chosen to attack.

I don't attack the book. I attack the faith.

But, hey. Instead of dodging what I said, why don't you adress it ? What does "litteralist" mean to you, then ?

All support in behalf of the Bible you will cunningly tag as preaching.

Don't try to predict the future. That's a handy cop-out but it won't work. The only thing that could possibly convince me of anything is evidence. You are using rhetoric.

I can tell the difference because God ghave me a brain to tell the differeence with.

Circular argument. How can you tell the difference between something to be taken litterally and something that isn't ? Before you answer, please bear in mind that many OTHER theists disagree with you. You'll have to tell me why THEIR brain doesn't work properly.

Radrook

5th February 2008, 12:05 PM

That's not what you said a moment ago. You said man was DESIGNED to require a woman. Making sure a basic need, and indeed a requirement to obey His command to "be fruitful and multiply" isn't a gift.

Women are not a gift to man? Having relations with a beautiful woman is a burden? Sorry but the vast majority men would disagree with that statement. A world without women is a devastation not worth living in. IMHO

Belz...

5th February 2008, 01:08 PM

Women are not a gift to man?

Of all the self-serving, sexist remarks you could've come up with...

RobRoy

5th February 2008, 01:14 PM

Women are not a gift to man? Having relations with a beautiful woman is a burden? Sorry but the vast majority men would disagree with that statement. A world without women is a devastation not worth living in. IMHO

Do you mind if I take this for use as a classic straw man argument? :D

This isn't what Belz was pointing to at all. You made the statement, "Man was physically designed to require a female. That was planned thousands of years prior to his being created." Then, you contradicted youself by saying, "Sexual relations within marriage is a gift to mankind."

Belz (and please correct me if I'm wrong here) is contending that by creating a basic need, and establishing a command/requirement to obey (Be fruitful and multiply) removes the status of gift from the equation.

There was no mention of whether sex or women, or what have you, is enjoyable or not. That argument is all your fantasy. Classic straw man.

edge

5th February 2008, 01:15 PM

Belz...
Fiend God
Rad this explains it all.

Location: Surrounded by evidence.
He has no clue what surrounds him. What keeps him from hearing and seeing?

A very wise man named The Huntster, A poster in here said, "They purposefully reject the word".
I think he might be with the lord now, as he didn't answer my last E-mail.
He left here knowing he was going to die soon.

Everything that you explained to them was perfect and they still don't understand.
It makes me wonder who's behind some of the masks in here.

2 Thes 2:9
Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie ...
Matthew 24:24
For there shall arise false Christ’s, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

These are some smart people in here and it’s too bad.
Some times all you can do is pray for them.

Now for more evidence and with so much doesn't it make you wonder after the hoaxers and the non-believers disinformation what amounts are we looking at that is the real McCoy because it all can't be fake.
This comes from Turkey.In the late 1950's during road construction in Homs southeast Turkey, Many tombs of Giants were indeed unearthed. These tombs were 4 meters long, and when enterd in 2 cases the human thigh bones were measured to be 47.24 inches in length. They calculated that the person who owned this Femur probably stood at fourteen to sixteen feet tall. A cast of this bone is seen at the Creationist museum in Texas.

The Gediz track. A footprint found in volcanic ash, near Demirkopru, Turkey, was found in 1970. The track of a running man was found in strata dated by evolutionists at 250,000 years in the past.

Their Nation has no reason to back up what is written.
There is a whole list at the bottom of a link I posted from all nations that have the legends of Giants.
The circle of the giants is a temple that they had built in Isreal.
David and Goliath written in the Bible.

edge

5th February 2008, 01:17 PM

Heck there's one standing in my avatar, it's what we still see today, the
American Indians knew about them.

Bottom of this page.
http://www.burlingtonnews.net/giantsb.html

edge

5th February 2008, 01:43 PM

In this intellectual war that started in the 1880s, it was held that even contact between the civilizations of the Ohio and Mississippi Valleys were rare, and certainly these civilizations did not have any contact with such advanced cultures as the Mayas, Toltecs, or Aztecs in Mexico and Central America. By Old World standards this is an extreme, and even ridiculous idea, considering that the river system reached to the Gulf of Mexico and these civilizations were as close as the opposite shore of the gulf. It was like saying that cultures in the Black Sea area could not have had contact with the Mediterranean.

When the contents of many ancient mounds and pyramids of the Midwest were examined, it was shown that the history of the Mississippi River Valleys was that of an ancient and sophisticated culture that had been in contact with Europe and other areas. Not only that, the contents of many mounds revealed burials of huge men, sometimes seven or eight feet tall, in full armour with swords and sometimes huge treasures.

It seems we have both sides of the fence Hiding information.
The evidence is written in history.
If you are intrested it's off the next page of the link l provided.
This isn't the only site I have read about this, about the giants the Smithsonian Institute cover up.
So I got to wonder.
Of course people make mistakes like the GREEKS DID in the picture below, what about the one above and why in the world would we keep getting new information?

edge

5th February 2008, 01:57 PM

That argument is all your fantasy. Classic straw man.

Horse spit it's the truth because it is enjoyable.
What you create might not be.
Nullified!

Achán hiNidráne

5th February 2008, 02:19 PM

I can tell the difference because God ghave (sic) me a brain to tell the differeence (sic) with.

Apparently this perfect, flawless, super-being gave you a brain that's incapable of typing, spelling, and/or proofreading.

Sigh! Wow! Yikes! Bye!

...And Radrook puts another Hell-bound blasphemer on "Ignore." That'll show 'em!

RobRoy

5th February 2008, 02:22 PM

Horse spit it's the truth because it is enjoyable.
What you create might not be.
Nullified!

Cow cud. It's a false because it's boring.
What you write is too.
Nullified!

Wow, that's lovely power. Stand back why I nullify you!

Nullified!

Achán hiNidráne

5th February 2008, 02:26 PM

Horse spit it's the truth because it is enjoyable.
What you create might not be.
Nullified!

Worst haiku ever.

bokonon

5th February 2008, 02:55 PM

RobRoy

5th February 2008, 04:18 PM

...And Radrook puts another Hell-bound blasphemer on "Ignore." That'll show 'em!

Wait a minute, I'm going to hell because of Radrook? Maybe I should rethink my sarcastic responses.

Nogbad

5th February 2008, 05:30 PM

Heck there's one standing in my avatar, it's what we still see today, the
American Indians knew about them.

Bottom of this page.
http://www.burlingtonnews.net/giantsb.html

Edge, without wishing to appear unnecessarily mean or sceptical, you don't half have an eclectic bag of interesting ideas and, dare I say it, beliefs (I dare, I dare ;))

What route did you take to collect such varied bag of tricks?

PixyMisa

5th February 2008, 05:47 PM

Horse spit is the truth:
Whatever you create might
not be Burma Shave.

Eejit

5th February 2008, 06:42 PM

This will be my third post. My first two were in the introductions thread, so this is really my first real post.

I’ve read this thread in a single sitting and have witnessed a topic warp into a discussion that spans from Genesis to Revelations. A sure sign of goalposts being moved all over the field. I’m inspired to take part in this discussion, not because of the biblical content, I’m inspired because anarchism has been attacked and misunderstood by one of the posters in this discussion - Radrook - and nobody corrected him/her.

For the most part, anarchists like to think and reason things out. We seldom turn to violence and it would be a rarity indeed if violence topped any list that contained more than one choice. I’d suggest to Radrook that you do some research into the topic. I realise that your point did not set out to denigrate anarchists - or at least I hope it didn’t. However, it’s tiresome to see a bubble gum for the mind approach used when defending one’s own philosophy against a perceived attack.

Okay, that’s my hissy fit done with.

I’m an atheist - no surprise there I guess. I think the arguments thus far make two suppositions (strawmen) one (the latter) requiring the other to be correct before it should be considered to be a serious attempt at debate. The first supposition being that there is a God and the second being that the bible is the word of God. Normally, I’d ignore any discussion regarding the ‘truth’ contained in the bible, considering any such discussion to be pointless without first proving the existence of God. That’s quite unfair, I know, but I dislike suspending reality just for the sake of having an argument. I’ll make an exception to this rule of mine in this discussion because I’m intrigued by some of what I’ve read.

I want to look at angels ‘fancying our women’ first. Curiosity doesn’t answer this. Bestiality would be much more common if it did. That’s probably a little too gross but it illustrates a point. Sexual curiosity is sexual. The bible of course, especially in the OT is not sophisticated enough to see this - I’ll get to that next. Angels were supposedly created as higher beings in comparison to man. Curiosity could have been satiated without rolling around in the dirt as it were. Their ‘curiosity’ could have been satisfied by their higher understanding. One might be curious about hamster sex but this does not mean that one will or that one wants to take a tumble with a hamster.

Radrook has suggested that man was designed to need woman thousands of years before creation. That’s speculation and it’s wrong. One might remember in Genesis, where God parades all the creatures of the Earth before Adam, so that he might name them - an impossible feat in itself. Anyway, it emerges from this exercise that Adam doesn’t fancy any of the creatures, so God creates Eve. Eve is made out of Adam’s rib and thus shares his DNA. No wonder the offspring engaged in a bit of fratricide - I’m surprised that this was the extent of it. Adam and Eve were the first dysfunctional family and were created thus. Of course they were not the first humans as the surviving brother marries a nice girl from a local town. Which in turn proves that original sin didn't apply to everyone and in itself negates the need for Christ to be born.

Free will comes into this thread too. God told the man and his cloned female self not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil - i.e. free will. Anyone see the paradox? Don’t exercise your free will in an attempt to receive free will, or to put it another way, don’t sin in order to receive the ability to be able to sin. It’s like God took a big magnifying glass to burn the ants in his ant farm.

The flood didn’t happen. Higher beings didn’t mate with humans to beget the Nephilim. Rainbows existed prior to the non-existent flood. Deciding to take only two of every species was not a very smart idea considering the relationship between carnivores and herbivores (dietary requirements), normal mortality rates and taking into account fertility rates etc. Not to mention that the ark was not big enough to accommodate the menagerie. By the way how big was the boat that Noah used to collect all the different species from the four corners of the flat Earth?

John’s Revelations was probably written after the alleged Christ died. When Christ expired he supposedly went to hell to get the keys. Revelations cannot have been speaking about the locking up of Satan and his fiery minions as being some future event.

Aquinas was an idiot. He may have appeared smart to his fellow believers. This hardly reflects on his greatness however. The best that can be said of him is that he was the first true apologist for the Church. His line that God was a creature that was capable of anything logical as opposed to being capable of anything was a lifesaver for a church imploding under the gravity of its own false rhetoric.

I could go on and on. But it would be very unfair of me to hog my very first discussion.

Regards to all.

Radrook

5th February 2008, 10:06 PM

....I’m inspired because anarchism has been attacked and misunderstood by one of the posters in this discussion - Radrook - and nobody corrected him/her.

I'm not averse to being corrected when the correction is warranted. Also, if the thread has wandered it isn't because I am purposefully evading issues. It's because the persons who respond keep shifting away from the premise they set whenever they have no answer to my response forcing me to respond to another premise.

For the most part, anarchists like to think and reason things out. We seldom turn to violence and it would be a rarity indeed if violence topped any list that contained more than one choice. I’d suggest to Radrook that you do some research into the topic. I realise that your point did not set out to denigrate anarchists - or at least I hope it didn’t. However, it’s tiresome to see a bubble gum for the mind approach used when defending one’s own philosophy against a perceived attack.

I was not referring to anarchists. I was referring to anarchy as a consequence of absence of law.

Psalm 119:142
Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and thy law is the truth.

Neither am I out to deingrade anyone. I am merely responfding to questions or the dispensation of misinformation in relation to biblical matters. However, I cannot ad will not engage in any conversation with those who are out to be rude in order to blow off steam or get a rise. Why? Because it clutters my personal computer screen with irrelevancies and tempts me to respond in kind. So to avoid that eventuality I evade.

....The first supposition being that there is a God and the second being that the bible is the word of God. Normally, I’d ignore any discussion regarding the ‘truth’ contained in the bible, considering any such discussion to be pointless without first proving the existence of God.

Funny that you should believe in the existence of dark matter because you see its effects and are simultaneously unable to believe in the existence of God despite all creation giving its testimony that he exists. That's inexcusable from God';s standpoint.

Romans 1:20
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

That’s quite unfair, I know, but I dislike suspending reality just for the sake of having an argument. I’ll make an exception to this rule of mine in this discussion because I’m intrigued by some of what I’ve read.

The problem is that I am NOT seeking an argument nor requiring anyone to agree with me. So your premise is a bit off kilter in reference to my motives.

I want to look at angels ‘fancying our women’ first. Curiosity doesn’t answer this. Bestiality would be much more common if it did. That’s probably a little too gross but it illustrates a point. Sexual curiosity is sexual. The bible of course, especially in the OT is not sophisticated enough to see this -

You fail to understand that the Bible's theme isn't sex. So you are looking for detailed explanations in the wrong source. Try an abnormal psychology textbook.

BTW
I took a course on abnormal psychology and rape isn't considered always to be a sexually motivated behavior. It is linked more with dominance and repressed anger. So just because a behavior might seem sexually motivated it isn't necessarily so.

....Angels were supposedly created as higher beings in comparison to man. Curiosity could have been satiated without rolling around in the dirt as it were. Their ‘curiosity’ could have been satisfied by their higher understanding. One might be curious about hamster sex but this does not mean that one will or that one wants to take a tumble with a hamster.

The analogy is false since hamsters are far more distant from us than women are from angels. Humans are described in the Bible as being created a little higher than man.

Hebrews 2

6.But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man that thou visitest him?

7.Thou madest him a little lower than the angels;

Both angels and humans are created in God's image, able to reason and reflect other divine qualities while a hamster is an animal who isn't and can't.

Radrook has suggested that man was designed to need woman thousands of years before creation. That's speculation and its wrong.

All the events described in the creative days were preparatory for making the earth fit for human habitation.

Isaiah 45:18
For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited:....

So all the details well planned well ahead of time for his crowning achievement -mankind.

Psalm 139:14
I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.

One might remember in Genesis, where God parades all the creatures of the Earth before Adam, so that he might name them - an impossible feat in itself.

Funny how people try to limit what God can and can't accomplish based on their own limited powers. If God willed it Adam could have named all the stars in the universe at whatever speed God gave him the ability to do so.

Matthew 19:26
But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are

In any case, you are assuming that this was all done in a few hours and that animal diversity was as great as it is now. Both assumptions which you cannot prove. In fact, speciation alone refutes that assertion.

Anyway, it emerges from this exercise that Adam doesn’t fancy any of the creatures, so God creates Eve.

It emerges in YOUR MIND that God would have approved of Adam fancying any of those beasts? At least that's what your comment seems to imply. Adam as a son of God created in his image wasn't meant to fancy any of these beasts.

Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

His relationshjip with the beasts was to be one of caretaker as was his relation with the earth itself:

Genesis 1:
28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Neither did God parade them in front of him in hopes that he would feel physical attraction.. That is antibilblical and a direct attempt to accuse God of approving of bestiality-something he clearly condemns and tells us is punishable by death. Why not research before making such serious accusations?

Exodus 22:19
Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.

Leviticus 20:15
And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.

Leviticus 20:16
And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Eve is made out of Adam’s rib and thus shares his DNA. No wonder the offspring engaged in a bit of fratricide - .....

All God's work was perfect. The impoerfection came later after they both had chosen to reject God and face the consquences.

Ecclesiastes 7:29
Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

Free will comes into this thread too. God told the man and his cloned female self not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.....

Amazing!

You don't see a paradox when it comes to government laws do you? Neither do you see paradoxes when the government says you are free but must be law-abiding. You only see paradoxes when God tells you to abide by his laws. That's not paradoxical-that's inconsistency on your part motivated by bias.

As for the ark and the animals-again:

Matthew 19:26
But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are

I could easily respond to all this other stuff said below but fortunately, I had enough! I was sincerely hoping for a logical discussion but this information is simply unfounded accusations delivered in a smug way that attempts to convey a self-assured conviction but which merely constitutes a seemingly endless disgorging of inane ideas derived from a fertile atheistic imagination.

BTW

Ironically, a bubble gum for a mind approach, is exactly what this antibiblical anti-God shpiel turned out to be! LOL

Bye!

Achán hiNidráne

5th February 2008, 10:16 PM

Bye!

At the rate he's going, Radrook will soon have everyone except himself, and perhaps a few of his fellow Christers, on "Ignore." If he really wants an echo chamber so damn badly, then he should get a blog like the rest of us.

halofish2000

5th February 2008, 11:12 PM

I don't know if Rad is a preacher type, but this is their m.o.. They want to preach and not dialogue.

Nogbad

6th February 2008, 03:05 AM

Leviticus 20:15
And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.

Leviticus 20:16
And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

The beast having done what exactly? :boggled:

Nice "first post" Eeejit - you articulate much I was attempting to say. There is much in the Bible that one can best describe as loosely put together. Jewish scholars aware of this filled in the gaps with Midrash writings. The creation accounts are desperately unconvincely argued to be not contradictory by most modern Christian Churches despite being patently incompatible. The Jews realised this long before Christ and explained it thus.

The first account states that God created man and woman (Adam and Lilith). Lilith was equal to Adam and took unkindly to his attempts to be the boss. Finally unable to tolerate Adam any more (she sounds like a real woman btw :) ) she leaves Eden and ascends to heaven where refuses to budge from. God in his infinite wisdom and love tells her to return or he will 100 of her children every day. She refuses but pissed storms out of heaven and becomes a powerful spirit who despises and hates the children of Eve. Many traditional Jews put amulets on their children to ward off Lilith.

The second creation is when God does a bit of genetic engineering and makes Eve from Adam and makes her subsevient to Adam. The reason there were cities and what not in the Cain and Abel story is because there were still a lot of Lilith's children around. Neat eh? :) Of course Adam blows it but then he already had a track record of being a bit of prick with Lilith who sounded a nice fiesty lass.

But hey what do the Jews know? - it is only their mythology ;)

Mythologies are fun and often an entertaining read.

Belz...

6th February 2008, 05:43 AM

Rad this explains it all.

Are you an Edge, Edge ? No ? I'm not really a fiend god. It's a stage name, if you will. You know: something not real. Or don't you know the difference ?

He has no clue what surrounds him. What keeps him from hearing and seeing?

What surrounds me is a mountain range of evidence that shows that God does not exist. It's your burden to show he does, and so far all you folks have is preaching. Preaching doesn't substitute for evidence.

A very wise man named The Huntster

Huntster was a violent, hot-headed bigot. That's the antithesis of "wise". But hey! He was a believer, so who cares, right ?

"They purposefully reject the word".

Purposefully ? Wouldn't that presume that we really do, in fact, believe in God but rather choose to rebel against him ? Who are you to claim that our lack of belief is not a real lack of belief ? Are you so enamoured by your own narrow world-view that you are unable to imagine people reaching different conclusions than you ? How about all those buddhists ? Are they "purposefully" rejecting the word, too ?

Everything that you explained to them was perfect and they still don't understand.

"It has a rational explanation" isn't a rational explanation, Edge. It's a stall.

It makes me wonder who's behind some of the masks in here.

Rational people.

Some times all you can do is pray for them.

Won't change a thing, since everything's preordained, according to your dogma.

Belz...

6th February 2008, 05:47 AM

[A whole load of bible verses]

I just love when people try to support the bible with itself. Must be an interesting gymnastics.

I prefer this passage. It shows how benevolent God is towards human endeavour:

Genesis 11:5-7
And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.

"Hey! These smart humans are united, and nothing they do will be impossible for them. No, what I want are dumb, sheep-like followers. Let's put a little chaos in there..."

bokonon

6th February 2008, 07:04 AM

Bottom of this page.
http://www.burlingtonnews.net/giantsb.html

From the top of that page:
Was There a War Between the Els (Human Giants) and The Reptilian Civilizations of Long Ago.
Some Believe that There was a conflict of this kind in Ancient Times which drove the Reptilian Civilization deep into the Inner Earth or back to where they originated from ...Alpha Draconis and/or Altair in the Constellation Aquila. This conflict or war was a
Species War between the Evadamic Seed and the "Serpent/Draconian" Seed.

I guess once you can convince people of the literal truth of talking snakes, reptilian civilizations from Altair isn't much of a stretch.

RobRoy

6th February 2008, 09:37 AM

The flood didn’t happen. Higher beings didn’t mate with humans to beget the Nephilim. Rainbows existed prior to the non-existent flood. Deciding to take only two of every species was not a very smart idea considering the relationship between carnivores and herbivores (dietary requirements), normal mortality rates and taking into account fertility rates etc. Not to mention that the ark was not big enough to accommodate the menagerie. By the way how big was the boat that Noah used to collect all the different species from the four corners of the flat Earth?

An excellent first post. Thanks so much for joining what has, previously, been something of a show of head-bashing. :yahoo:

One point you missed, though, was that it was not just "two of every species", that's a misconception:

"Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth." (Genesis, 7:2-3)

So that's fourteen of the clean animals, and four of the unclean animals; counting males and females in total. The problems you poinsted out from this remain, of course, but this is where I like to bust out my favorite quote from Firefly:

"Noah's Ark is a problem. We'll have to call it early quantum state phenomenon. Only way to fit 5,000 species of mammal on the same boat."

"Hey! These smart humans are united, and nothing they do will be impossible for them. No, what I want are dumb, sheep-like followers. Let's put a little chaos in there..."

Isn't this the premise of Stargate?

edge

6th February 2008, 09:39 AM

I don't know if Rad is a preacher type, but this is their m.o.. They want to preach and not dialogue.

Dialogue ? That was blindness on the part of an athist/new/poster ...
Huntster was a violent, hot-headed bigot. That's the antithesis of "wise". But hey! He was a believer, so who cares, right ?

Ya he hated demons and seen right through you.

From the bottom of that page.

AFRICA
In South Africa, a giant footprint of a woman measuring over 4 feet long has been carbon dated at aproximately 9 million years old. Pointing to the probability of this being a female human-like species' foot, proportionally the two-legged being would need to be some 30 feet tall! The local African people commonly refer to this as a highly revered and sacred site. Giants, twice the size of gorillas, were found in Java.

The petrified remains of a giant were found in South Africa. A well-known anthropologist declared that these remains showed that these man's ancestors must have been giants.

Laetoli tracks. At a site in Kenya, called Laetoli, 30 miles south of Olduvai Gorge, Mary Leakey discovered human footprints in 1977. Although some evolutionists reject them as human, other scientists recognize them to be clearly human—and therefore date those who made the tracks to be 3.75 million years ago. But evolutionists teach that no people lived back then

AUSTRALIA
Meganthropus was a race found in Australia -estimated 12 feet tall. These people were found with mega tool artifacts, so their humaness is difficult to question.
Plaster casts of giant footprints found in Australia may be viewed at Rex Gilroy's Butterfly Museum near Tamworth, NSW, Australia, together with many other interesting artifacts.

In old river gravels near Bathurst, NSW, huge stone artifacts -- clubs, pounders, adzes, chisels, knives and hand axes -- all of tremendous weight, lie scattered over a wide area. These weigh anything from 8, 10, 15, to 21 and 25 pounds, implements which only men of tremendous proportions could possibly have made and used. Estimates for the actual size of these men range from 10 to 12 feet tall and over, weighing from 500 to 600 lbs.

A fossicker searching the Winburndale River north of Bathurst discovered a large quartzitised fossil human molar tooth, far too big for any normal modern man. A similar find was made near Dubbo, N.S.W.

Prospectors working in the Bathurst district in the 1930's frequently reported coming across numerous large human footprints fossilised in shoals of red jasper.

Even more impressive were fossil deposits found by naturalist Rex Gilroy around Bathurst. He excavated from a depth of 6 feet (2 m) below the surface a fossil lower back molar tooth measuring 67 min. in length by 50mm. x 42 mm. across the crown. If his measurements are correct, the owner would have been at least 25 ft. tall, weighing well over 1,000 lbs!

At Gympie, Queensland, a farmer, Keith Walker, was ploughing his field when he turned up the large fragment of the back portion of a jaw which still possessed the hollow for a missing lower back molar tooth. This is now in Rex Gilroy's possession. The owner of the tooth would have stood at 10 feet tall.

In the Megalong Valley in the Blue Mountains NSW, a Mr P. Holman found in ironstone protruding from a creek bank the deeply impressed print of a large human-like foot. The print was that of the instep, with all 5 toes clearly shown. This footprint measures 7 inches across the toes. Had the footprint been complete it would have been at least 2 feet (60 cm in length, appropriate to a 12 foot human. However, the largest footprint found on the Blue Mountains must have belonged to a man 20 feet tall!

A set of 3 huge footprints was discovered near Mulgoa, south of Penrith, N.S.W. These prints, each measuring 2 ft long and 7 inches across the toes, are 6 ft. apart, indicating the stride of the 12 ft. giant who left them. These prints were preserved by volcanic lava and ash flows which "occurred millions of years" before man is supposed to have appeared on the Australian continent (if one is to believe the evolutionary theory):

Noel Reeves found monstrous footprints near Kempsey, N.S.W. in sandstone beds on the Upper Macleay River. One print shows a toe 4 inches (10cm) long and the total toe-span is 10 inches (25cm) - suggesting that the owner of the print may have been 17 feet tall.

It is certain the Aborigines were not the first to reach Australia. Anthropologists maintain mainland Aborigines are in fact quite recent arrivals who ate their predecessors who were akin to the New Guinea natives.

Aborigines themselves admit in their ancient folklore that this land was inhabited by several groups of men, as well as giants, before they settled here. *See Link Giant Photos

CARRIBEANS
The Guadeloupe woman.
In 1812, on the Caribbean island of Guadeloupe, a fully human skeleton was found, lacking only the head and feet. It was found inside extremely hard, very old limestone, which was part of a formation over a mile in length.

In accordance with their theory, evolutionists date that rock at 25 million years! You will not find the Guadeloupe woman mentioned in the textbooks, since this find would disprove evolutionary strata dating.

CHINA
Four jaw fragments and thousands of teeth have been found in China of "gigantopithecus blacki"--named after the discover. Based on the size of the teeth and deep jaws, its size has been estimated at around 10 feet and as tall as 12 feet, 1200 pounds. Tools have been found in the same area as giganto as well.

The Cornwall Giants

Cornwall was known as the Land of the Giants. The Cornish giants were a six-toed, six-fingered race,

· Cormoran and his blind wife Cormelian lived on St Michael's Mount.
· Holiburn of Carn Galva protected the people of Morvah and Zennor.
· Denbras lived in the Towednack hills.
· Myen du lived at Maen Castle near Land's End.
· Dynas, a deaf and dumb giant Treryn, lived in the stronghold of Dinas.
· Bolster lived in Beacon.

How does fantasy become so well documented?
Boy there's a lot of hoaxers out there and to what benefit?

http://www.burlingtonnews.net/giantsb.html

That's just part of the list of countries.

edge

6th February 2008, 09:49 AM

Are you an Edge, Edge?
You mean like a double edge?
Living on the edge?
Kind of.
I choose that name in the beginning knowing the connotation and my stance from the beginning.

You are what you say you are, you act in that way also.
So don't give me any of your horse spit.

Belz...

6th February 2008, 10:04 AM

I choose that name in the beginning knowing the connotation and my stance from the beginning.

I chose that name because I like monster stories. See how stupid your reasoning is ?

You are what you say you are

That makes no sense, whatsoever.

you act in that way also.

I act like a demon ? Funny.

So don't give me any of your horse spit.

What the hell is that supposed to mean ?

bokonon

6th February 2008, 10:06 AM

"Noah's Ark is a problem. We'll have to call it early quantum state phenomenon. Only way to fit 5,000 species of mammal on the same boat."
Nuh uh. You could take them as frozen embryos in false-bottomed cans of shaving cream, like that Newman guy from Jurassic Seinfeld.

RobRoy

6th February 2008, 10:13 AM

Nuh uh. You could take them as frozen embryos in false-bottomed cans of shaving cream, like that Newman guy from Jurassic Seinfeld.

I sit corrected.

Were they Seraphim shaving cream cans, for that pure-as-a-baby's-bottom feel, or Nephilim shaving cream cans, for those with a giant-sized beard?! :D

Eejit

6th February 2008, 10:49 AM

Nogbad

6th February 2008, 12:14 PM

I would agree that the links to big boned things is a tad surreal and I can't make up my mind if it belongs in the religion or the conspiracy pot. It is rather too reminiscent of David Icke for comfort.

edge

6th February 2008, 12:57 PM

Don't be afriad,
Alaska

Ivan T. Sanderson, a well-known zoologist and frequent guest on Johnny Carson's TONIGHT SHOW in the 1960s (usually with an exotic animal with a pangolin or a lemur), once related a story about a letter he received regarding an engineer who was stationed on the Aleutian island of Shemya during World War II. While building an airstrip, his crew bulldozed a group of hills and discovered under several sedimentary layers what appeared to be human remains. The Alaskan mound was in fact a graveyard of gigantic human remains, consisting of crania and long leg bones. The crania measured from 22 to 24 inches from base to crown. Since an adult skull normally measures about eight inches from back to front, such a large crania would imply an immense size for a normally proportioned human. Furthermore, every skull was said to have been neatly trepanned (a process of cutting a hole in the upper portion of the skull).
In fact, the habit of flattening the skull of an infant and forcing it to grow in an elongated shape was a practice used by ancient Peruvians, the Mayas, and the Flathead Indians of Montana. Sanderson tried to gather further proof, eventually receiving a letter from another member of the unit who confirmed the report. The letters both indicated that the Smithsonian Institution had collected the remains, yet nothing else was heard.

In 1921, an Arkansan named Rowlands was digging in one of the many gravel pits on a line of small hillocks known as Crowley's Ridge, located two miles north of Finch. At a depth of 10 feet, Rowlands' shovel suddenly struck something large and solid. The object appeared at first to be a boulder, but excavating around it, Rowlands soon discovered that it was a large rock-sculptured head of a man. It stood about 4 feet high, and the figure had a squared, protruding chin, small, tight-lipped mouth, a short nose, and a furrowed brow and stare accented by two flat "buttons" of inlaid gold for eyes. Two more
gold discs ornamented the figure's ears, and a heart-shaped plug of copper was embedded in the chest. The top of the head was covered by a carved hood that draped down the nape, and attached to a piece around the neck. Near the head, and in the same layer, Rowlands dug up a number of smaller objects: a gold ring, a small coffer made of volcanic pumice (which does not exist in this region), and tiny carvings of men, animals, moons and stars. The head and artifacts soon became a local attraction, and the newspapers dubbed the glowering figure "King Crowley." Several investigators authenticated the find, though they could not explain its presence in the ten-foot layer of gravel - geologically dated at 175,000 years. The head and objects were sent to the Arkansas Natural History Museum in Little Rock. The museum curators, who also examined the artifacts and had double-checked and documented their discovery, were confident in the findings' authenticity to place them on public display. At the same time, however, some of the small carving samples were mailed to the Smithsonian in Washington. The Smithsonian - being a far more conservative institution -described the carvings as truly "unexplained items," but could not reconcile the antiquity of the strata in which they had been brought to light. Finally, after fifteen years of
vacillating on the subject, orthodoxy triumphed: The Smithsonian concluded that the Crowley Ridge artifacts could not be 175,000 years old as this contradicted established theory on the age of human civilization, and therefore declared the artifacts fakes. Conforming to this prestigious conservative pronouncement, the Little Rock museum promptly took the stone head and other objects off display, and eventually sold them to unnamed private collectors. The "King Crowley" had was shipped off to
California, and the rest of the collection was similarly scattered to the four winds. Today, the location of even a single object is unknown.

Almost every state in the union is represented on this page,
http://www.burlingtonnews.net/giants2.html

Darn hoaxers have been busy.

Ref: Strange Relics from the Depths of the Earth
by Joseph R. Jochmans, Litt. D.,
Published by: Forgotten Ages Research Society,
Lincoln Nebraska USA, 1979

Over a hundred years ago, in the 1850's, gold miners began digging tunnels into the sides and top of
Table Mountain, northwest of Needles, California. Gold was discovered, but along with it were bones
of extinct mastodons, mammoths, bison, tapirs, horses, rhinos, hippos and camels - all dating from the
Pliocene. In 1863, a physician from nearby Sonora, Dr. R. Snell, began to collect specimens from the
excavations. In that year, with his bare hands, he loosened from among the fossils a stone disc that
appeared to have been used for grinding. But Dr. Snell was not the first, or last, to unearth mysterious
objects from the mountain gravel: In 1853, Oliver W. Stevens made affidavit that he removed a large
stone bowl from the lowest level tunnel; in 1857, the Honorable Paul Hubbs, of Vallejo, dug up part of
a human crania from inside the Valentine shaft; and in 1862, Mr. Llewellyn Pierce also signed affidavit
that he had found a stone mortar 200 feet in from the mouth of the same shaft. The most dramatic find,
however, was reserved for a Mr. Mattison, one of the owners of the mines. In February of 1866,
Mattison unearthed from beneath a layer of basalt an object which - because of the encrustation's - he
first thought was the petrified root of a tree, but on closer examination discovered was a complete
human skull. The miner sent the skull to the office of the State Survey in June of the same year.
Eventually, the skull came into the possession of Dr. L. Wyman, of Harvard College, who removed the
encasing material around the cranium. Dr. Wyman, and an associate named Professor Whitney,
identified the skull as very modern in type, but also noted that, "the fragments of bones and gravel and
shells were so wedged into the cavities of the skull that there could be no mistake as to the character of
the situation in which it is found." The stickler was, however, that this meant the skull, along with all
the artifacts found, should be 12 million years old.

http://www.burlingtonnews.net/giantscalifornia.html

I find that so much is documented on this very subject that it is a likely to have some merit, and that there is more that we do not know for sure that is also fascinating.
Weird,
http://www.burlingtonnews.net/giantskentucky.html

Belz...

6th February 2008, 01:05 PM

Funny how only creationists ever bring up these "facts".

bokonon

6th February 2008, 01:12 PM

Most of the "giant facts" I decided to follow up on had been refuted, but I don't care to discuss giants. Now, if they found one with wings, like that Simpson's episode...

HghrSymmetry

6th February 2008, 01:39 PM

I spose Noah could have tied a large number of rafts onto the back of the ark too! :D

I don't feel comfortable discussing these big boned creatures that Edge insists on bringing up. Not because it wouldn't be easy to nullify the hogwash. To argue against creationism is to bestow upon it a validity it doesn't deserve. I'm reminded of Dawkins and his various God of the Gaps arguments and his aversion to getting into arguments with creationists. Suffice to say, that poking holes into science and burying God there is a pursuit doomed to failure as God must retreat from each hole as it is properly filled in. In short: creationism, despite its goal, disproves its hermit crab-like God in steps.

Thanks for the welcome folks. I felt a bit odd jumping right into this discussion without invite.

Thanks for the info on the ark RobRoy; I didn't know that. I'm glad I jumped in already.

One question about the Nephilim burns to be asked: Why were they so big? And, how many of em can dance on the head of a pin? ;)

Back to seriousness for a moment. It seems to be the opinion of the believers here that belief itself is a consequence of choice. That is of course very wrong. I cannot choose to believe in Santa Clause or the tooth fairy. I could choose to say I believed. If the belief of the believers is a consequence of choice, the believers do not truly believe themselves. It'd be wrong to act as an enabler for this act of self-delusion.
Welcome to the forum Ej.

First off, on behalf of the rational folks, I would like to apologize for the inanity you have been exposed to.
I've noticed that all skeptical type forums are infected. Lesser known forums have a much lower rate, but they too have their share.
The typical literal mythicist is easy to spot, but it's the pseudo scientific woo that can ensnare a rational person into a black hole of conversational nothingness. They have a slightly different angle of attack by taking pseudoscience and blending it with traditional superstition.

They'll give you the impression they understand some basic scientific facts, but when you engage them on that level, you find that it was mostly a ruse.
So then you try and approach them from a woo standpoint, but lo and behold,....that doesn't help either. Turns out only their woo is the correct woo and all the other woo is incorrect woo.

You might be tempted to think you're having a conversation with a child, but I'm afraid many really are adults.
Are they sincere... or simply sadistically trolling for their own amusement...or are they masochistic and enjoy being shredded by rational people?
Unknown, maybe some combination of those.

Engage for entertainment purposes, but don't expect them to remove their cranium from its dark damp warm spot. They'd rather not have their eyes adjust to the light of day. Apparently, it's just too cozy in there.

edge

6th February 2008, 02:06 PM

JUNE 1996 NBC PRESS RELEASE:CONTROVERSY SURROUNDS THE MYSTERIOUS ORIGINS OF MAN UNIVERSITY PROFS WANT SPECIAL BANNED FROM THE AIRWAVES
Program that Dares to Challenge Accepted Beliefs About Pre-Historic Man to be Rebroadcast June 8 on NBC

The following are excerpts from more than 250 email messages that flooded MOM Producer Bill Cote's website (http://plaza.interport.net/bcvideo/) in response to the show:
"I wanted to take this opportunity to commend you on your COURAGE in producing such a show. I know from personal experience the depth of passion raised when you question the Theory of Evolution. My problem with the people with whom I have debated on the subject is not so much that they believe what it is they do, but that they are so damn dogmatic about it. In many ways, the scientific establishment has become the secular analogue to the adherence to orthodoxy which they so claim to despise in favor of their freedom to question everything. Apparently, that freedom stops when one begins to question THEIR most cherished beliefs. I applaud you."
(MB, Winchester, MO)
Charlton Heston: "We've seen a broad range of evidence, some of it highly speculative. But there are enough well documented cases to call for a closer look at the conventional explanation of man's origins."

http://www.light1998.com/Mysterious_Origins_of_Man_files/Mysterious_Origins_of_Man.htm

http://www.light1998.com/TASTE_TREAT.htm

Noted Native American author and professor of law emeritus, Vine Deloria, writes in a personal communication:
It's probably better that so few of the ruins and remains were tied in with the Smithsonian because they give good reason to believe the ending of the Indiana Jones movie—a great warehouse where the real secrets of earth history are buried.
Modern day archaeology and anthropology have nearly sealed the door on our imaginations, broadly interpreting the North American past as devoid of anything unusual in the way of great cultures characterized by a people of unusual demeanor. The great interloper of ancient burial grounds, the nineteenth century Smithsonian Institution, created a one-way portal, through which uncounted bones have been spirited. This door and the contents of its vault are virtually sealed off to any but government officials. Among these bones may lay answers not even sought by these officials concerning the deep past.

The following account originated around the year 1800:
There were mounds situated in the eastern part of the village of Conneaut and an extensive burying-ground near the Presbyterian church, which appear to have had no connection with the burying-places of the Indians. Among the human bones found in the mounds were some belonging to men of gigantic structure. Some of the skulls were of sufficient capacity to admit the head of an ordinary man, and jaw bones that might have been fitted on over the face with equal facility; the other bones were proportionately large. The burying-ground referred to contained about four acres, and with the exception of a slight angle in conformity with the natural contour of the ground was in the form of an oblong square. It appeared to have been accurately surveyed into lots running from north to south, and exhibited all the order and propriety of arrangement deemed necessary to constitute Christian burial...
Historical Collections of Ohio in Two Volumes
by Henry Howe, LL.D. (1888)
Although not regarded by the government as reliable, the oral traditions of the native people in the eastern U.S. aver of the existence of possibly two races of giants, one supplanting the other by violent means. Here we have the first inkling of some very remote prehistory preserved, through the tradition of the Chippewa, Sandusky, and Tawa tribes, (members of the Algonquin language group), the existence of giant, bearded men.

http://www.light1998.com/GIANTS/Giants_Smithsonian.htm

Funny how only creationists ever bring up these "facts".

Well this is what is there, the facts at hand.
I doubt that all these people are what you say they are, “creationists”.
I don’t know if it’s real anymore than you do, but with the amount that is there, some if it might be.
They say that these are not tied skulls, and the reason why the Indians did this is to mimic what they had seen and thought of as gods.

RobRoy

6th February 2008, 03:01 PM

I spose Noah could have tied a large number of rafts onto the back of the ark too! :D

Maybe he had subcontractors working on duplicates!

I don't feel comfortable discussing these big boned creatures that Edge insists on bringing up.

Clearly, you've never seen Shadow of the Colossus (http://www.shadowofthecolossus.com/). Then, you would have no more doubts!

Thanks for the info on the ark RobRoy; I didn't know that. I'm glad I jumped in already.

No worries. :D

Radrook

6th February 2008, 10:29 PM

I don't know if Rad is a preacher type, but this is their m.o.. They want to preach and not dialogue.

You seem not to know the difference between monologue and dialogue. Dialogue is a give and take between two people while preaching-as you are defining it-is one person dispensing information without addressing or encouraging responses. Contrary to your idea, they need not be mutually exclusive but can and do complement each other very nicely. Since my posts take into consideration what the other person says and respond to the other person's posts while raising points for the other person to refute or agree with in order to keep the give and take going, they cannot be classified as monologue.

Unfortunately, for some, and for myself as well, however, dialogue isn't encouraged by illogical snickering and irrelevant snide remarks such as you have just now made. It inevitably leads dialogue termination for the reasons I already explained in my previous post. This in turn might be viewed by the irate or sarcastically inclined perpetrators as a refusal or reluctance to dialogue. Which is perfectly OK by me as long as I don't have to see the sarcasm on my screen. Which, unfortunately for some--I don't.

halofish2000

6th February 2008, 11:53 PM

Rad, I just took a few minutes to read some of your previous posts. You really had a meltdown. I now understand why you get so defensive. But, we are here as believers on a skeptics website. It is hard enough discussing differences between beleivers. What did you expect? I did not read all the through your goodbye speech but I hope you apologized to those you offended by your vitriolic comments.

I don't know if you answered the post I made about the Assyrians being the tallest trees in Eden. Every time I try to access page 4 I get no where. Your thoughts?

Radrook

7th February 2008, 12:27 AM

Rad, I just took a few minutes to read some of your previous posts. You really had a meltdown.

I now understand why you get so defensive.....

I did not read all the way through your goodbye speech but I hope you apologized to those you offended by your vitriolic comments....

Sigh!

The only one I owe an apology to is my God whom I dissapointed-not those who provoked and celebrated. In short, you nor they figure into the equation.

In any case,

Welcome to my ignore list. Hope you are happy now since this appears to be what you wanted. The more the merrier I guess-right? Oh well, back to the drawing board, as the ole saying goes! Bye! Bye! : )

Look at the bright side- I could have had a second "glorious" meltdown and made you the target of my panoramic vitrole. So this is the lesser of the two evils I surmise-No?

BTW

Instead of getting angry at me for pointing out your scriptural innacuracies and blasphemies, I suggest that you humbly familarize yourself with what the Bible really teaches before trying to teach others. Otherwise you run the serious risk of being used by Satan to mislead.

halofish2000

7th February 2008, 12:45 AM

A meltdown with the language you used ...evil

Ignoring me...no harm done

Nogbad

7th February 2008, 03:09 AM

Funny how only creationists ever bring up these "facts".

...and if you don't like those they have more :D

volatile

7th February 2008, 04:53 AM

Instead of getting angry at me for pointing out your scriptural innacuracies and blasphemies, I suggest that you humbly familarize yourself with what the Bible really teaches before trying to teach others. Otherwise you run the serious risk of being used by Satan to mislead.

Did you decide what the Bible "really means" independently (as it's manifestly obvious), or did someone else furnish you with their interpretation and convince you of its veracity?

bokonon

7th February 2008, 05:39 AM

A meltdown with the language you used ...evil

Ignoring me...no harm done
"Fingers in the ears" is pretty much the only arrow in Radrook's dialectical quiver.

Nogbad

7th February 2008, 05:57 AM

"Fingers in the ears" is pretty much the only arrow in Radrook's dialectical quiver.

He can have no truck with goatish souls....

majorly disappointed I am not being ignored :(

RobRoy

7th February 2008, 02:03 PM

He can have no truck with goatish souls....

majorly disappointed I am not being ignored :(

You need to work more sarcasm into your mix, and direct it at someone else in a knowing way, as if you weren't addressing Radrook at all. That's how I made the Hell-bound for Glory Squad!

Achán hiNidráne

7th February 2008, 05:25 PM

I know I'm being ignored, but...

Instead of getting angry at me for pointing out your scriptural innacuracies and blasphemies, I suggest that you humbly familarize yourself with what the Bible really teaches before trying to teach others. Otherwise you run the serious risk of being used by Satan to mislead.

This is the theological equivalent of "PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!" Tell us, what does the damn Bible "really teach" here...?

Leviticus 20-13

20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death;their blood shall be upon them....and here?

Numbers 31: 15-18

31:15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?

31:16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.

31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.... and here?

Acts 3:23

3:23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.
As many have pointed out, when it comes to divinely sanctioned murder and torture, this is but the tip of the iceberg. You'd have us ignore this all this glorification of slaughter and pain (albeit mostly fictional) because it's inconvenient to your faith? Sorry, free inquiry doesn't work that way.

If you're going to hold up your deity as the final authority of right and wrong, not only do you need to show that this being exists, but what it commands is actually moral. From the Bible alone, I can only conclude that your God would make Hitler and Stalin look like Red Cross volunteers. Your God's desire to ignore the pain and suffering of his alleged creations either means he's impotent or uncaring. Your God's scriptural implication that we must worship him "or else" doesn't convince me of his self-proclaimed benevolence either. It's bad enough that there are people on this planet deluded enough to believe that this "God" being actually exists, it's worse that they think this being is a force for "good."

As for being misled by "Satan," if you really believe that your religion is the paragon of charity and or morality, you should consider the words of Thomas Paine:

Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the Word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my own part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel. (Emphasis mine)

Thomas Paine
The Age of Reason (http://www.ushistory.org/paine/reason/reason4.htm)
Unless, of course, you'd like to finally admit that Christianity isn't about peace, love, and goodness as thousands of priests, ministers, Sunday schoolmarms, and lay bible-beaters have claimed for centuries, but it is merely a means of tyrannical social control and a justification of your shared ignorance and bigotry.

Achán hiNidráne

7th February 2008, 05:53 PM

bokonon

8th February 2008, 08:56 AM

You seem not to know the difference between monologue and dialogue. Dialogue is a give and take between two people while preaching-as you are defining it-is one person dispensing information without addressing or encouraging responses.
Based on your own definitions what you are doing here is clearly monologue (in other words, preaching). Your posts are one-way communications -- "This is what the Bible says, if you don't like it, there's nothing further to discuss," and your tendency to ignore literally everyone who answers critically neither addresses nor encourages responses.

Radrook

8th February 2008, 10:32 AM

Based on your own definitions what you are doing here is clearly monologue (in other words, preaching). Your posts are one-way communications -- "This is what the Bible says, if you don't like it, there's nothing further to discuss," and your tendency to ignore literally everyone who answers critically neither addresses nor encourages responses.

I really had hopes that you had changed your annoying approach but alas and alack-there you go again Jimmy! As for Halofish's condemnation of my sin five years ago, a sin for which I have asked forgiveness and have been forgiven as is promised that we would be-

Since Halo he isn't my judge then his responsibility is to humbly accept that I have been forgiven and to desist from trying to annul Jesus' ransom sacrifice for our sins. But, since there is bitter anger there with a touch of lack of appropropriate knowledge-I guess on he will go with accusatory gnarled finger pointing in my direction instead of taking care of what really is important to his eternal welfare-his own personal relationship with God-a relationship which demands that he get himself off God's judgment seat and let Jesus who was assigned to be judge do sit there and do his merciful work.

As for all other accusations-out of site out of mind.

Bye!

BTW
Repeatedly bringing this up my past mistake isn't going to prevent me from continuing my clarification work-Pisivore.

Radrook

8th February 2008, 10:42 AM

"Fingers in the ears" is pretty much the only arrow in Radrook's dialectical quiver.

And you are so pure that I must shut my eyes lest your holy brilliance blind me?
Fingers in ear to prevent demonically inspired drivel from reaching me is a smart move. It's called being wise when surrounded by ravenous wolves.

Luke 10:3
Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves.

So keep howling to your heart's content-as long as I don't have to listen to it-of course.

Radrook

8th February 2008, 10:47 AM

QUOTE=bokonon;3410788]"Fingers in the ears" is pretty much the only arrow in Radrook's dialectical quiver.[/QUOTE]

And you are so pure that I must shut my eyes lest your holy brilliance blind me?
Fingers in ear to prevent demonically inspired drivel from reaching me is a smart move. It's called being wise when surrounded by ravenous wolves.

Luke 10:3
Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves.

So keep howling to your heart's content-as long as I don't have to listen to it-of course.

Radrook

8th February 2008, 10:48 AM

"Fingers in the ears" is pretty much the only arrow in Radrook's dialectical quiver.

QUOTE=bokonon;3410788]"Fingers in the ears" is pretty much the only arrow in Radrook's dialectical quiver.[/QUOTE]

And you are so pure that I must shut my eyes lest your holy brilliance blind me?
Fingers in ear to prevent demonically inspired drivel from reaching me is a smart move. It's called being wise when surrounded by ravenous wolves.

Luke 10:3
Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves.

So keep howling to your heart's content-as long as I don't have to listen to it-of course.

RobRoy

8th February 2008, 10:50 AM

Luke 10:3
Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves.

So keep howling to your heart's content-as long as I don't have to listen to it-of course.

Except that if Radrook was a lamb, at least we could sheer him and get something useful. As it is, we're left with nothing but bleating and delusions of persecution.

I'd love a straight up discussion regarding these issues, but it's just been a bunch of heads banging against walls.

Nogbad

8th February 2008, 11:21 AM

Uuuuuummmm... is it just me, or does edge's "Nephilim" skeleton look suspiciously like A &%$ING ELEPHANT!

http://z.about.com/d/gonyc/1/0/r/E/brooklyn_childrens_museum08.JPG

So the "sons of God" seeped down from the heavens, got it on with the comely human babes, and sired... Jumbo?

edge, seek professional help.

The man just held the camera at a funny angle - it is a giant really.

bokonon

8th February 2008, 12:33 PM

And you are so pure that I must shut my eyes lest your holy brilliance blind me?
Apparently.

Fingers in ear to prevent demonically inspired drivel from reaching me is a smart move. It's called being wise when surrounded by ravenous wolves.
It's called being scared. Not that I blame you. Deep down, you know that if you seriously questioned the truth of your beliefs, they probably wouldn't survive the scrutiny.

When two believers disagree, each accuses the other of being misled by satan, while they themselves are always inspired by the holy spirit. With an unbeliever like myself, the "demonically inspired" tag is no more than a joke you tell yourself to avoid saying "common sense."

So keep howling to your heart's content-as long as I don't have to listen to it-of course.
I will. Everyone will. The problem you have is that you can't put people on "ignore" for anyone but you. We'll continue to make our cogent points here and there, and you'll continue to let them go unanswered, and to the rest of the world it will look exactly as though you have no rebuttal. I can live with that.

Achán hiNidráne

8th February 2008, 12:56 PM

It's called being wise when surrounded by ravenous wolves.

Luke 10:3
Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves.

Better to be a wolf than a sheep. Do you know how STUPID sheep are?

rKM_JlCIMak

Your religion needs a better mascot.

edge

8th February 2008, 02:26 PM

Uuuuuummmm... is it just me, or does edge's "Nephilim" skeleton look suspiciously like A &%$ING ELEPHANT!

Yes it is, Mammoth, or Masterdon that's what the greeks may have interpeded as a cyclops since there is an abundance of that type fossil.
The skull without the tusks can appear to have one big eye.
If you read back I was making a point.
Even if 80% is a hoax or an honest mistake some might just be real.
I think I posted enough evidence to prove my point, Or is it over your head, or maybe below your knees?

Nogbad

8th February 2008, 02:39 PM

Yes it is, Mammoth, or Masterdon that's what the greeks may have interpeded as a cyclops since there is an abundance of that type fossil.
The skull without the tusks can appear to have one big eye.
If you read back I was making a point.
Even if 80% is a hoax or an honest mistake some might just be real.
I think I posted enough evidence to prove my point, Or is it over your head, or maybe below your knees?

I fear the only point you have really made is that you do believe that there is some evidence for giants (of whatever description). Now it may be that big foot or yeti may actually exist - new species do get discovered - but for the most part the evidence is at best sketchy. Linking these to Nephilim is an ever greater leap of speculation over any actual evidence and as such, on a sceptics forum, is bound to raise an arched eyebrow or two.

edge

8th February 2008, 03:12 PM

It's called being scared. Not that I blame you.
I think It's, tired of you not seeing or hearing.

God sent down the Ten Commandments and the leaders and priest created more expanded on the ten, and that is all.
There is a lesson there.
Look at how the laws expanded till now.
This is your only excuse, Gods so mean, even if he did, what could his reason have been, depravity of people? Protection of the bloodline that needed to be in place for the coming of the Messiah, and this seems like what the thread is about and explains and you still can't see it.

But demons and fallen ones don't exist right.

You are not looking at the big picture.
Based on our laws that where based on the commandments; Presidents are doing the same thing today.
Based on no evidence to top it off.

Thank God I survived it, and that Thomas Pain survived it, and that you are all here to doubt it.

edge

8th February 2008, 03:20 PM

I fear the only point you have really made is that you do believe that there is some evidence for giants (of whatever description). Now it may be that big foot or yeti may actually exist - new species do get discovered - but for the most part the evidence is at best sketchy. Linking these to Nephilim is an ever greater leap of speculation over any actual evidence and as such, on a sceptics forum, is bound to raise an arched eyebrow or two.

I know, But it's such fun.
The Indian legend parallels that same notion about big foot or yeti, more of a spirit type.

Achán hiNidráne

8th February 2008, 03:26 PM

Yes it is, Mammoth, or Masterdon that's what the greeks may have interpeded as a cyclops since there is an abundance of that type fossil.
The skull without the tusks can appear to have one big eye.
If you read back I was making a point.
Even if 80% is a hoax or an honest mistake some might just be real.
I think I posted enough evidence to prove my point,

What point? All you did was post some ridiculous pictures from a Christian/Creationist website and ramble incoherently about the Smithsonian covering up fossil evidence of "giants."

No haba loco.:boggled:

Or is it over your head, or maybe below your knees?

No, but it's evident to me that it's way past time for your medication... or your desperately-needed lobotomy, I'm not sure which.

Achán hiNidráne

8th February 2008, 03:38 PM

God sent down the Ten Commandments and the leaders and priest created more expanded on the ten, and that is all.
There is a lesson there.

I hate to ruin this non sequitur for you, but the "morality" present in the Ten Commandments (only 4 of the 10 commandments actually have anything to do with morality) have been thought of by cultures other than the ancient Hebrews. Or did the other ancient cultures of the time have no laws or moral code?

But demons and fallen ones don't exist right.

Ummmmm... no. Nor do Gods, angels, lake monsters, sasquatch/yetis, UFOs, dragons, unicorns, fairies, or Santa Claus. I suggest you learn to deal with these facts.

You are not looking at the big picture.
Based on our laws that where based on the commandments;

Who ever said our laws are based on the Ten Commandments? That is, besides right-wing theocrats who want to connect government with religion?

Nogbad

8th February 2008, 03:59 PM

I hate to ruin this non sequitur for you, but the "morality" present in the Ten Commandments (only 4 of the 10 commandments actually have anything to do with morality) have been thought of by cultures other than the ancient Hebrews. Or did the other ancient cultures of the time have no laws or moral code?

Ummmmm... no. Nor do Gods, angels, lake monsters, sasquatch/yetis, UFOs, dragons, unicorns, fairies, or Santa Claus. I suggest you learn to deal with these facts.

Who ever said our laws are based on the Ten Commandments? That is, besides right-wing theocrats who want to connect government with religion?

:( You jest?

halofish2000

8th February 2008, 04:07 PM

Nogbad

8th February 2008, 04:34 PM

Edge, God first gave the 10 laws in a package of about 70 bits of legislation that could be kept by those who wanted to live righteously. This was called the Book of the Covenant. They agreed to it and immediately turned away back to Egyptian Calf Worship. Then after the levites killed 3,000 of their brothers to put them to shame, were they given the 613 laws that were no good. Laws to legislate the lawless...kind of like today.

Killing 3,000 people must have really embarrassed them I bet.

It is one of the difficulties I have with the Bible. If we were reading about Stalin or the like and he killed 3,000 people to embarrass them we would be rightly shocked. Likewise those who order the wholesale slaughter of entire cities tend to get a very bad press. However, when we read these events in the Bible it is as if there is a suspension of disbelief. "It is the Bible it doesn't count". I am not sure what is going on because most of those reading the Bible would not go out and consider killing 3,000 people a good thing.

Calf worship was common in Near East and it could have been a form of Baal they were worshipping rather than the Egyptian God Apis. Apis was strongly associated with the Pharaoh and it would therefore seem an odd choice assuming they had been chased out of Egypt rather than having left of their own accord.

halofish2000

8th February 2008, 04:45 PM

Being held captive for 430 years left an impression on their practice. When they left Egypt the were not immediately driven out. Remember, the Egyptians were glad to see them leave after the plague of the firstborn deaths. Even giving them whatever they wanted. Moving upwards of 3M people takes some time. Pharoah had a change of heart losing a chunk of his labor force. (Same reason with our immigration headache). Then the chase was on.

As far as the slaughter of the 3,000 the calf worship had to be a pretty vulgar event. Well, vulgar for some, tame for Vegas.

bokonon

8th February 2008, 04:52 PM

I think It's, tired of you not seeing or hearing.
Not seeing or hearing is Ra "LA LA LA I'm ignoring everybody" Drook's m.o., not mine. Still, it's no skin off my nose. I'm happy for the opportunity to shadow box that his IGNOR-ance provides. Smacking down the darkness, honing my skills against a foe who never hits back -- I have no problem with this system.

Protection of the bloodline that needed to be in place for the coming of the Messiah, and this seems like what the thread is about and explains and you still can't see it.
If we're getting into Jesus's bloodline, let me ask you this. The bible goes to a lot of trouble to show how Joseph is of the line of David. This might make some sense, except for one thing: Joseph and Jesus are only related by marriage. Joseph didn't "know" Mary prior to Jesus's birth, according to the holy book. Joseph is nothing more than Jesus's stepfather, cuckolded by the holy spirit. So what possible difference could it make whether or not HE is descended from King David?

But demons and fallen ones don't exist right.
When you're right, you're right. And you're right.

HghrSymmetry

8th February 2008, 05:53 PM

Calf worship was common in Near East and it could have been a form of Baal they were worshipping rather than the Egyptian God Apis.

Agreed. I understood it as Baal as well.

Tricky

8th February 2008, 06:02 PM

If we're getting into Jesus's bloodline, let me ask you this. The bible goes to a lot of trouble to show how Joseph is of the line of David. This might make some sense, except for one thing: Joseph and Jesus are only related by marriage. Joseph didn't "know" Mary prior to Jesus's birth, according to the holy book. Joseph is nothing more than Jesus's stepfather, cuckolded by the holy spirit. So what possible difference could it make whether or not HE is descended from King David?

Yes, the Bible makes it quite clear that Jesus is not related to Joseph (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=1&verse=20&version=31&context=verse).

Matthew 1:20 (New International Version)
But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.

So here is the inescapable contradiction for Biblically strict Christians: Either the prophecy wasn't true, or Mary's virginity wasn't true.

Edge should have learned from his dowsing test with Randi about how when you tell two stories that conflict, one of them must be a lie.

Radrook

8th February 2008, 06:09 PM

I know, But it's such fun.
The Indian legend parallels that same notion about big foot or yeti, more of a spirit type.

Strange but these are the same individuals who might vehemently argue that ET exists. But if you suggest to them that the Nephilim can be thought of as a mix between an ET=angels and humans, then they become wroth. The trick, maybe, is to change the nomenclature from angel to ET and from angel/human hybrid to ET human hybrid. Then the biblical account will seem more acceptable to them. Or maybe to say that ETs came from another dimension instead of saying they came from heaven-which is essentially the same thing but which their anti-religious touchiness prevents them from considering even for a micro-second.

Tricky

8th February 2008, 07:15 PM

No, ETs are actually elves. I mean look at them! They have the same eyes, pointy ears and big heads. They have strange powers. They have a penchant for tormenting humans. It's so obvious.

volatile

8th February 2008, 08:41 PM

Fingers in ear to prevent demonically inspired drivel from reaching me is a smart move.

I'm demonic now? I never knew! How do I do the cool fire-breathing stuff?

volatile

8th February 2008, 08:46 PM

Except that if Radrook was a lamb, at least we could sheer him and get something useful. As it is, we're left with nothing but bleating and delusions of persecution.

I'd love a straight up discussion regarding these issues, but it's just been a bunch of heads banging against walls.

Years ago, when I was still a kinda borderline, woolly theist, I lived with a JW girl (as in we shared an apartment, not a bed!). I was legitimately interested in what the hell she got up to three nights a week, and what she believed. She treated me in real life in the exact same way Radrook has treated me (and a tonne of other people here) - by walking away any time she didn't have an answer to a perfectly cogent question. We were once chatting on a train and she actually got off in the middle of nowhere just to avoid answering an awkward question.

Of all the cults, the Watchtower, in my experience, is down there with the worst.

halofish2000

8th February 2008, 09:51 PM

Years ago, when I was still a kinda borderline, woolly theist, I lived with a JW girl (as in we shared an apartment, not a bed!). I was legitimately interested in what the hell she got up to three nights a week, and what she believed. She treated me in real life in the exact same way Radrook has treated me (and a tonne of other people here) - by walking away any time she didn't have an answer to a perfectly cogent question. We were once chatting on a train and she actually got off in the middle of nowhere just to avoid answering an awkward question.

Of all the cults, the Watchtower, in my experience, is down there with the worst.

SDA is a scary lot,too. Gotta love Ellen White and her craziness.

tsig

8th February 2008, 09:59 PM

And you are so pure that I must shut my eyes lest your holy brilliance blind me?
Fingers in ear to prevent demonically inspired drivel from reaching me is a smart move. It's called being wise when surrounded by ravenous wolves.

Luke 10:3
Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves.

So keep howling to your heart's content-as long as I don't have to listen to it-of course.

We love the taste of mutton. It's a god-given gift.

Nogbad

9th February 2008, 05:09 AM

Strange but these are the same individuals who might vehemently argue that ET exists. But if you suggest to them that the Nephilim can be thought of as a mix between an ET=angels and humans, then they become wroth. The trick, maybe, is to change the nomenclature from angel to ET and from angel/human hybrid to ET human hybrid. Then the biblical account will seem more acceptable to them. Or maybe to say that ETs came from another dimension instead of saying they came from heaven-which is essentially the same thing but which their anti-religious touchiness prevents them from considering even for a micro-second.

Hardly the same thing. That there may be sentient beings on other planets around other stars is possible - this does not involve the supernatural. That some have bridged the enormous gaps of space? maybe, although I am not convinced. That they abduct people and have rampant sex orgies with them - even less convinced.

Radrook

9th February 2008, 11:00 AM

We love the taste of mutton. It's a god-given gift.

LOL Good one!

Radrook

9th February 2008, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by volatile
Years ago, when I was still a kinda borderline, woolly theist, I lived with a JW girl (as in we shared an apartment, not a bed!). I was legitimately interested in what the hell she got up to three nights a week, and what she believed. She treated me in real life in the exact same way Radrook has treated me (and a tonne of other people here) - by walking away any time she didn't have an answer to a perfectly cogent question. We were once chatting on a train and she actually got off in the middle of nowhere just to avoid answering an awkward question.

Of all the cults, the Watchtower, in my experience, is down there with the worst.

You are entitled to your opinion about the Witnesses as I am entitled to disagreee which I do on all counts.

That being said:

Those whom you speak so highly of as having the right to lambast are those who use personal insults via ironic snide remarks or constant barrages of ad hominem or perhaps a generally well crafted annoying tone designed to slowly grate on nerves via attempted humiliations. You approve? I don't.

As for the WTBTS I do not officially claim to represent any religious organization, nor are my views mirror images of any religious organization.

About the JWS not continuing to discuss things with someone who disagrees-Jesus himself told his followers that if someone refused the message to go elsewhere. The Witnesses go by that advice.

Incidentally-I am not female-so the pronoun "she" isn't applicable when referring to me.

BTW
I was considering taking everyone off the ignore list and starting again but whenever I do I come accross the type of irrelevant baseless, annoying commentary you just posted. Thanks but no thanx.

Aso, the subject of the thread isn't Radrook.

Nogbad

9th February 2008, 12:35 PM

We must each approach boards in our own way but I have never found the ignore function particularly useful other than for spammers who, for example, repeatedly post the same message (presumably something that would get short shrift here). If someone persistently attempts to grate I tend to skip the posts directed at me but still catch the gist of their overall argument from other posts. Surely if one has a number of people on ignore it would become increasingly difficult to follow the train of thought as it develops in a thread?

That said, there is no point in coming to a board merely to adversely one's blood pressure and each individual best knows their own capacity to handle the flak and barbs of the more challenging posters (whether their arguments are good, bad or indifferent).

Ysidro

9th February 2008, 04:57 PM

Uuuuuummmm... is it just me, or does edge's "Nephilim" skeleton look suspiciously like A &%$ING ELEPHANT!

http://z.about.com/d/gonyc/1/0/r/E/brooklyn_childrens_museum08.JPG

So the "sons of God" seeped down from the heavens, got it on with the comely human babes, and sired... Jumbo?

edge, seek professional help.

Mark, I was thinking the EXACT same thing. You just got a post in first. That freaking skull is an elephant's skull! You can see the tusk sockets (or whatever they're called)!

Radrook

10th February 2008, 01:36 PM

I believe that Volatile's the misperception of the Witnesses was not addressed properly

First, there was the accusation that what Jehovah's Witnesses believe makes them a cult. Curious since that's exactly what Jesus' enemies thought about Christianity when it first emerged. It was tagged as a heretical cult. In fact, Christians were said to be haters of mankind and blasphemers since they didn't recognize all the Gods and refused to participate in the body politic. Which of course shows that the word is considered denigrating and is used by whoever feels that a group needs denigration or anyone associated with it or in agreement with it needs denigration, Then the word is salaciously accessed and deployed and those using it smugly sit back and wait for the results.

Another criticism was that JWs ignore others and don't want to discuss. That's a blatant lie. It's common knowledge that they go out to discuss doctrinal issues with others on a regular basis. So in view of this, what the accusation means is that they aren't open to opposing opinions. Well, wake up and smell the roses as opposed to the mutton-first century Christians weren't open to compromise of their beliefs either and did not insist to dialogue if the effort was deemed futile-which more often than not it was.

Third, whenever I hear someone call the Witnesses the worst of the worse I have to smile. True, JWs shun. However, they will not steal from you, murder-either directly or via abortions which are rampant among the so called main line religions calling themselves Christian.

So in view of this, I peresonally would feel my property and myself safer among them than I would among any other religious group since the members of these other groups are prone to practice all these things because they are told that once saved is always saved regardless of conduct, or that they are always forgiven each time they go to confession so no need to worry. Which they don't and go right on as before.

As for not being Christian, anyone saying such a thing is insulting God himself via discrediting his son Jesus Christ. No one is rejected who approaches God in Jesus name. Since Jehovah's do so, that non-Christian accusation yet another Satanic
lie. There is much more to be said but essentiality it boils down to the practice of selective. Something is OK here. But not over there. Why? Because I don't like those people over there. That's really what it's all about.

Radrook

10th February 2008, 01:50 PM

Nephilim

Back to the subject at hand, I find it weird that so many are unwilling to consider the possibility of extraterrestrial intervention in mankind''s affairs as described in the Bible but are quite willing to accept it if it is not in the Bible. After all, what are angels but extraterrestrials or extradimensionsals. Dimensions, mind you, we cannot directly see can only be hypothesized about, So speaking dogmatically about what can't exist in one of these is unscientific and amounts to nothing more than chanting based on wishful thinking, It certainly doesn't qualify as the substance Plato mentioned as opposed to the shadows or opinions in that metaphorical cave of ignorance.

I often wonder if indeed those refusing to consider these other dimensions as being different from ours are aware that scientists themselves refuse to be so bold as to restrict what can or cannot exist there. It seems that they are not aware of it and are also not aware of the limits of the very acience they so vehemently defend. In short, such persons speak from ignorance. That ignorance becomes evident via their attribution to science of things which science is incapable of doing-the proving of God and his angels as impossible.

You see, to do that science would have to delve into other dimensions which it can't and maybe never will. So since it is limited in that dimensional respect, anyone asserting the impossibility of God or angels based on that limited science comes across as irrational.

BTW
I am being skeptical about your scientific claims!

Nogbad

10th February 2008, 02:06 PM

It is the case that there are those that dismiss religion out of hand but seem happy to believe any old thing if it involves aliens, ghosts, pixies or whatever. I would agree that this is bizarre and somewhat arbitrary. However, surely, by and large, that is not the case here?

Piggy

10th February 2008, 02:35 PM

I find it odd that anyone is identifying the nephilim as children of angels.

I don't find any support for the existence of the concept of angels in that time. Even when we get into the later priestly period, entities such as seraphim and cherubim bear precious little resemblance to modern conceptions of "angels".

The passage in question is extremely old. It goes back to the days of El worship, before the rise of the Yahweh cult.

We don't have much left to work with that harkens back to those times in that area of the globe. And I don't know of any legitimate scholar who claims to know who the Nephilim were.

But suffice it to say that the evidence we do have does not support the existence of a notion of a lone, non-corporeal God resembling the one which most modern Americans believe in.

Keep in mind that the vision of Ezekiel was radically different from previous conceptions, which held that the God of the Israelites tabernacled among the people, and later in the temple. (The deal with David was, you build me a house [temple] and I'll build you a house [dynasty]).

When Ezekiel saw the kvod yhwh (spirit of God) rising and flying eastward, it answered the most pressing crisis of the day -- if the temple is destroyed and we are captive in a foreign land, how can God be with us? Ezekiel's radical answer is that God can exist in spiritual form and be with His people no matter where they are. And even then, it is unlikely that such a conception of God would have been accepted, had it not been the only way of preserving the religion.

More common in the very earliest times that we have any evidence for -- and the most ancient passages of Biblical texts partake of this view -- was the notion of a pantheon of divine beings living in the sky or on the tops of mountains, that kind of thing.

In fact, El is sometimes described as the head of a Heavenly Council, and the stars were his hosts.

The idea that these beings could -- in a time ancient even to the people who told these myths -- physically descend to earth and mate with women wouldn't have raised an eyebrow.

Radrook

10th February 2008, 03:31 PM

The Hebrews themselves in their extrabiblical writings identify the nephilim that way. Are you familiar with those writings? These
Hebrew scholars would consider it odd that you give those scriptures a different meaning from what they had.

But let's not please deviate and stick with the point.
The concept I was striving to prove erroneous is that science cannot discount the existence of God or angels because science cannot provide proof to the contrary. Neither is there any
valid basis to quote science in this matter since science is limited to the senses and the senses to this dimension, In view of that lack of evidence to the contrary, saying that there is no God or angels is tantamount saying that there is are no extraterrestrial because science hasn't detected any yet. In short, absence of proofs not proof of absence and such a claim is fallacious reasoning par excellence.

BTW
We can't even prove the existence of an exterior reality. So claiming we know all that can or can't exist is hubris. Atually, and to their credit-I have yet to see a physicist attempt to say such a thing. Physicists opemnly admit that there science has its limitations. So I surmise that it's the non-scientists who have a penchant for going beyond wht science can do. In short, it is just as also sufficiently suffice to say It that we have absolutely no evidence to te contrary and that your claim of no God is simpply nothing more than mere opinion.

Piggy

10th February 2008, 05:49 PM

The Hebrews themselves in their extrabiblical writings identify the nephilim that way. Are you familiar with those writings?
I don't know of any that date from the same period as the Genesis fragment.

Of course, in later writings, you get all kinds of opinions on all sorts of subjects, but these are irrelevant to the question of what the original texts mean. They're more a reflection of the theology of their day than anything else.

These
Hebrew scholars would consider it odd that you give those scriptures a different meaning from what they had.
Indeed they would, but we are in a better position now to dissect the old texts than the later Hebrews were, despite the intervening loss of material. Generally, you find that their primary interest is in using old texts to justify their current beliefs. Lots of shoehorning.

But let's not please deviate and stick with the point.
The concept I was striving to prove erroneous is that science cannot discount the existence of God or angels because science cannot provide proof to the contrary.
I was responding to the subject line of the OP and the OP's unjustified assertion that Nephilim are half angels. So I am on topic.

As for science and reason not being able to disprove God, I'm on record (ad nauseam, some would say) in this forum as disagreeing with that assertion.

But I will not attempt to rehash all that here.

Neither is there any
valid basis to quote science in this matter
Sure there is.

If one throws valid scholarship out the window, one can make up anything one wants about the scriptures. And if one can do that, discerning truth from falsehood becomes impossible.

So if we are going to discuss the meaning and implications of Biblical texts, we need to bring in textual scholarship, archaeology, and so forth.

BTW
We can't even prove the existence of an exterior reality.
Actually, it is not very difficult to refute solipsism.