The flood mystery solved, at last.

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

the world was like that before the flood that's what all the different ruins are found along the world

there is a mystery, as to who built the foundations to baalbek, and who carved the stones up at puma puncu. there is no explanation. either humans had some technology which we don't have, or angels were involved.
also the stone work at cuzco, and other places in south america.
i used to believe in the flood, so i would have agreed that all that was before the flood, something happened, and megalithic civilisation was no more.

 

[Frenchfrye]

there is a mystery, as to who built the foundations to baalbek, and who carved the stones up at puma puncu. there is no explanation. either humans had some technology which we don't have, or angels were involved.
also the stone work at cuzco, and other places in south america.
i used to believe in the flood, so i would have agreed that all that was before the flood, something happened, and megalithic civilisation was no more.

it was. people were smarter than we are now they've proven that nuclear weapons existed before recorded history so there were smart people and God foresaw that so at babel he made different languages to keep people from doing what they did before the flood again.

 

[Papias]

Aman wrote:

Dear pap, I'm sorry, but I don't pay much attention to the theories of men. .....
I believe that God placed the books He wanted in the Canon. I accept all of them as God's Truth.

In Love,
Aman

Dear Aman-

Sure you do. You said you do in the same post, by saying that you support this or the other canon. All the different canons were decided by ..... men. There was no parting of the heavens with glowing words in the sky announcing which books to include. In fact, Christians were never settled on the canon, and aren't today.

So which theory of men, supporting which canon, do you choose?

You could choose the 73 books in the Catholic canon, which is that used by most Christians.

you could choose the longer list of 80 or so books in the "smaller" canon,
or that of the 90+ books of the "expanded" canon

or that of the 66 books of many American Christians
or that of the 65 books supported by the dead sea scrolls
or the 62 books of the Syriac canon

or, or, or......

basically, raising any Biblical canon above the full revelation of God - including that He gave in the natural world, seems to me to be approaching idolatry (or as it is often called, bibolatry).

In His Name-

Papias

 

[Aman777]

Aman wrote:


Dear Aman-

Sure you do. You said you do in the same post, by saying that you support this or the other canon. All the different canons were decided by ..... men. There was no parting of the heavens with glowing words in the sky announcing which books to include. In fact, Christians were never settled on the canon, and aren't today.

So which theory of men, supporting which canon, do you choose?

Dear pap, I use the King James Version of Scripture because it is the most read and allows me to look up the meanings of the original words.

Pap:>>You could choose the 73 books in the Catholic canon, which is that used by most Christians.

I don't think Catholics would allow me into their group because I don't accept the traditions of men as equal with God's Holy Word.

Pap:>>you could choose the longer list of 80 or so books in the "smaller" canon,
or that of the 90+ books of the "expanded" canon

or that of the 66 books of many American Christians
or that of the 65 books supported by the dead sea scrolls
or the 62 books of the Syriac canon

or, or, or......

basically, raising any Biblical canon above the full revelation of God - including that He gave in the natural world, seems to me to be approaching idolatry (or as it is often called, bibolatry).

I agree to some extent. I also seek the agreement of the Truth of science and history which agrees with God's Holy Word. I believe this is as close as humanly possible to the One Truth.

Pap:>>In His Name-

His name is Jesus.

In Love,
Aman

 

[SkyWriting]

The flood mystery solved, at last.

For many years I have accepted YECs claims about a global flood. Recently I have done some research on the matter and conclude that a global flood as described in the genesis account is impossible.

That's 2 mistakes in a row. Just read the scriptures themselves and not
what any people write about the scriptures. See if the scriptures are
internally consistent. Not what others write.
Just read the scriptures and decide if Jesus lived and rose again, or He did not.

Genesis 7

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

That's 2 mistakes in a row. Just read the scriptures themselves and not
what any people write about the scriptures. See if the scriptures are
internally consistent. Not what others write.
Just read the scriptures and decide if Jesus lived and rose again, or He did not.

Genesis 7

Jesus' resurrection (which i believe) is not the same as the account of the flood in the bible (which i don't believe). Penticost really happened, there's historical evidence, and the event explains the rapid growth of Christianity after the death of Jesus. But there are thousands of years difference, and another culture, and another people.

 

[SkyWriting]

Jesus' resurrection (which i believe) is not the same as the account of the flood in the bible (which i don't believe). Penticost really happened, there's historical evidence, and the event explains the rapid growth of Christianity after the death of Jesus. But there are thousands of years difference, and another culture, and another people.

So if other people were spared, they would have corrected the story.
But we don't see evidence of that.

And God did not spare the ancient world--except for Noah and the seven others in his family. Noah warned the world of God's righteous judgment. So God protected Noah when he destroyed the world of ungodly people with a vast flood.

 

[mmksparbud]

Well, of course, the story of Gilgamesh and all those other stories (virtually every culture has a world flood story of some kind) sound similar. The flood happened before Gilgamesh and other written records. After the flood, the world had to be repopulated again, and then came the tower of Babel and the confounding of language in order to disperse the people. These people handed down their story of the flood eventually ending up with all those different stories. God had Moses write down the true history of this earth.
Don't want to believe that--fine, don't. I do.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

Well, of course, the story of Gilgamesh and all those other stories (virtually every culture has a world flood story of some kind) sound similar. The flood happened before Gilgamesh and other written records. After the flood, the world had to be repopulated again, and then came the tower of Babel and the confounding of language in order to disperse the people. These people handed down their story of the flood eventually ending up with all those different stories. God had Moses write down the true history of this earth.
Don't want to believe that--fine, don't. I do.

what about the carbon date of coal? it gets a reading of 40,000 years, which is just a trace. they found a bell inside a block of coal, so that proves that there was human civilisation before 40,000 years ago.
if the flood was true, all the animals and forests and everything would be washed away together as a big mess, in one specific deposit. there's a whole world full of geologists, who know a lot more about it than i do, they can't all be wrong, and only John Makay, Ken Ham, Kent Hovind and Grady Mc Murtry are correct. Are those people geologists?

A year long flood would destroy all the plants after the flood, there'd be nothing for the animals to eat.

 

[SkyWriting]

what about the carbon date of coal? it gets a reading of 40,000 years, which is just a trace. they found a bell inside a block of coal, so that proves that there was human civilisation before 40,000 years ago. if the flood was true, all the animals and forests and everything would be washed away together as a big mess, in one specific deposit. there's a whole world full of geologists, who know a lot more about it than i do, they can't all be wrong, and only John Makay, Ken Ham, Kent Hovind and Grady Mc Murtry are correct. Are those people geologists?A year long flood would destroy all the plants after the flood, there'd be nothing for the animals to eat.

Floods usually create floating islands. No matter, the story says that plants survived but does not say how it happened.
Genesis 8:11 When the dove returned to him in the evening, there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf! Then Noah knew that the water had receded from the earth.

 

[Aman777]

Sky:>>Floods usually create floating islands. No matter, the story says that plants survived but does not say how it happened.
Genesis 8:11 When the dove returned to him in the evening, there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf! Then Noah knew that the water had receded from the earth.

Dear Sky, The better explanation is that the Ark did NOT land on top of a mountain but in a Lake. Lake Van, in the mountains of Ararat, is the largest lake in Turkey and plenty big enough to hold a 450 foot boat. The Raven did NOT return to the Ark, which indicates that it flew to shore. The Dove returned to the Ark and was released again a week later. Then, the Dove returned with an Olive leaf in it's beak.

Unless you can show how an Olive Tree, germinated, put forth limbs and leaves, in ONE week, then you should believe that the Dove flew to the shore which the Raven has previously found.

I am also surprised to find that the Christians here do not seem to know that the entire flood story is a Snare or Trap, which God set to catch the all knowing Darwinists who teach that nothing has changed since the beginning of our world. ll Peter 3:3-7 tells us that in the last days, these Scoffers will be "willingly ignorant" that the flood completely destroyed the first earth and that the present earth will be burned. This is Scriptural PROOF that we did NOT evolve our human intelligence from Mindless Nature. We inherited from Adam, the first human. The TOE is soundly refuted.

In Love,
Aman

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

i'm not a darwinist and i don't accept the biblical flood account. i think the ark ended up in bahrain, called in those days dilmun.

 

[Papias]

Aman wrote:

Papias wrote

Dear Aman-

Sure you do. You said you do in the same post, by saying that you support this or the other canon. All the different canons were decided by ..... men. There was no parting of the heavens with glowing words in the sky announcing which books to include. In fact, Christians were never settled on the canon, and aren't today.


...you could choose the longer list of 80 or so books in the "smaller" canon,
or that of the 90+ books of the "expanded" canon

or that of the 66 books of many American Christians
or that of the 65 books supported by the dead sea scrolls
or the 62 books of the Syriac canon

or, or, or......


So which theory of men, supporting which canon, do you choose?

Dear pap, I use the King James Version of Scripture because it is the most read .......

Why do you think the KJV is the most read? The evidence suggests that it is not the most read. Among protestants, the NIV seems to be the one most often used (ahead of the KJV), and protestants make up less than 30% of Christians worldwide. The KJV of course isn't used by non-protestants. So even being generous - giving the KJV 40% of the protestants (after the NIV), then that's 40% of 30%, which = 12%.

12% is certainly not "most read". That's even counting the Mormons, who are the only major group I can think of whom require the KJV.

Plus, the KJV is widely recognized by Christian Scholars as one of the least reliable versions. Many, many additions have been made by people in the middle ages, and these are kept in the KJV even though they aren't present in the earliest and best manuscripts. If one cares about what the early Christians used as scripture, then the KJV would be one's last choice.

and allows me to look up the meanings of the original words.

and isn't that another example of the teachings of men? After all, who is it who decided what the original meanings probably were? Men.

Pap:>>You could choose the 73 books in the Catholic canon, which is that used by most Christians.

I don't think Catholics would allow me into their group because I don't accept the traditions of men as equal with God's Holy Word.

All denominations have traditions that are from men (and not practiced in the Bibles). So you don't join any church, nor use any Bible?


In Jesus' name-

Papias

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

i've got the KJV, the english standard, the jerusalem bible and the hebrew interlinear. the NIV sucks. the message is the worst.

 

[KWCrazy]

that statement that you quoted there cannot be true for anglicans, as a belief in evolution ensures that they also believe that the bible is in no way a true and inerrant record of God's interaction etc. ... it can't be, as the ancestor list dosn't go back however many years their evolutionary timeframe requires. unless you put in enormous gaps in it.

i didn't say that the whole bible is lies, just the story of the flood, although i do think that other books in the bible are lies, but that's another matter.

Okay, I got it. You're saying it's a false religion then, which doesn't believe in the Bible in which its cannons are based. It's been corrupted by man and stands for nothing. Thank God I've had the wisdom to not be ensnared by the cult.

However, Angelicans should change their creed to reflect what they believe; or rather do not believe.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

Okay, I got it. You're saying it's a false religion then, which doesn't believe in the Bible in which its cannons are based. It's been corrupted by man and stands for nothing. Thank God I've had the wisdom to not be ensnared by the cult.

However, Angelicans should change their creed to reflect what they believe; or rather do not believe.

it's not a cult. no church is going to be perfect. i'd rather the anglicans than being taken in by a white suited, super rich, stage hypnotist, or any other assortment of money grabbing heretics.

 

[SkyWriting]

Sky:>>Floods usually create floating islands. No matter, the story says that plants survived but does not say how it happened.
Genesis 8:11 When the dove returned to him in the evening, there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf! Then Noah knew that the water had receded from the earth.

Dear Sky, The better explanation is that the Ark did NOT land on top of a mountain but in a Lake.

That would not be landing, your words, or "coming to rest", what professional translators have determined.
No matter. That's not up for debate.
and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat.

Lake Van, in the moun...<snip>

Matters not.

The Raven did NOT return to the Ark, which indicates that it flew to shore. The Dove returned... <snip>

Ravens don't return to a home. The "Dove" was likely a white pigeon.
We have no details on the growth on land.

I am also surprised to find that the Christians here do not seem to know that the entire flood story is a Snare or Tra... <snip>

I'm guessing your teaching manuals are not making the rounds.

 

[KWCrazy]

it's not a cult. no church is going to be perfect. i'd rather the anglicans than being taken in by a white suited, super rich, stage hypnotist, or any other assortment of money grabbing heretics.

Jesus is perfect. A Christian church is supposed to encourage its followers to be like Jesus. Jesus believed that the Bible was the inspired word of God; that it was perfect; that everything in it was true. Jesus believed in Noah and the flood, in Adam and Even, in Sodom and Gomorrah and in all the miracles chronicled in the Bible. We expect imperfections in men but not in the cannons of our faith. The Great Flood is no more impossible than the resurrection of Christ. If you believe only in the possible, then you don't believe anything written in the Bible and you have no faith.

If you teach that the Bible is a book of lies then you are a false teacher. If your church teaches that the Bible is a book of lies then it's a false church.

 

[Girder of Loins]

I feel as though you may be throwing the baby out with the bath water. Just because these stories may not be 100% accurate does not mean they don't have some shred of Truth in them...

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

If you teach that the Bible is a book of lies then you are a false teacher. If your church teaches that the Bible is a book of lies then it's a false church.

i think that any church that embraces evolution as a doctrine, as opposed to the biblical scenario, is a false church, i agree. i'm not a false teacher, as i don't teach. but this falseness is in line with what i have come to believe.
the anglican church is still orthodox, as regarding Jesus, whereas i know that some of these protestant churches in america are heretical, they teach heresy, which is worse than not believing much of the OT.
i suppose they are free to believe any heresy they want, as there is no church structure, no governing body, no discipline, no history.
the catholic church has left the evolution thing open, it isn't part of church doctrine, as far as i know.

i used to attend a penticostalish type of charismatic church. they had an eschatology as part of their mission statement, which said that Jesus was going to rule on the earth. I don't believe that. If Jesus wanted that, why didn't he do it the first time around.
despite all the praying and slaying in the spirit, there was no healing, and so i concluded that all that was a waist of time. god dosn't answer prayers, for whatever reason.

regarding the flood, that's just the way it is. despicable, to have made it up. the creation account is ancient world cosmology, and it isn't the truth. the garden of eden is derived from a sumerian myth. but despite all that ancient hebrew stuff, i still think there was a creation, god actually did something; created life. there's no evidence of evolution in the fossil record. there is no wacky punctuated equilibrium or hopeful monsters. god is a god to be found by looking at the evidence, and seeking the truth, and not putting faith in a very old book, which can be found to be unreliable.