How well do you believe the Bible? [Archive] - Truck Driving Message Board

Windwalker

06-11-2009, 04:09 AM

No, I'm not a "Bible Thumper". I'm just curious how many people take the Bible as being 100% accurate, with no "hits", no "runs", and no "errors". In any given week, I can turn on the CB and get the sermon I missed on Sunday from someone that seems to be able to quote book and verse far better than I can.

In the past, we've had some lively discussions about it, and I don't know if those members are still active on the board or not. If they are, I would welcome them to join in here.

It was because of those past discussions that I began research into the Bible and the Archeology that supports events portrayed in the Bible. I've been finding errors. And, not just a few of them.

The flood of Noah did not happen when it is said to have happened in the Bible. In fact, it happened about 500 years earlier. And, Noah was not his name. In fact, Noah was his title. His name was Gilgamesh. There were errors in translating the text from Sumarian to Arameic. (Didn't look up the spelling, so if you have the correct spelling, by all means, correct me.) Bu t, the evidence of the flood is in the form of clay deposits near the tops of mountains that could only have been put there by flood waters that would have covered the mountains.

In Exodus, the plagues on Egypt were natural events. Locusts migrate over Egypt twice each year. But, when there is an inversion layer and the upper air is cold, they come down to earth and become a plague. It's happened many times since Moses's day, and perhaps, before as well. The waters of the river runing red came from a valcanic event. In what amounts to core samples taken from the sediment at the bottom of the river, they have found evidence of valcanic chemicals that would have turned the river red, killed every living thing in the water, and would have killed anything that drank the water. Highly toxic. It's also happened in about two other locations around the world in the last fifty years. Another completely natural event.

The death of Egypt's first-born... Another volcanic event. In the last twenty five years, there have been several volcanos that have spewed out CO2 gas in large quantities, and in at least one of these, hundreds of people and thousands of cattle were killed. Egyptian custom also lent a hand. Egypt's first-born slept in a place of honor on the ground floor while siblings slept on the roof. Anyone sleeping on the ground floor died. The Hebrews, however, put lamb's blood around the doors and windows. That acted as a caulking to keep the CO2 gas out, and they suffered no loses.

The parting of the Red Sea... Looks like the waters of the Red Sea were NEVER parted. While it is true that from the top of what we know of as Mount Sinai, you can see the Promised Land, that was not called Mount Sinai in Moses's day. Some of the requirements to be the right mountain are, a natural amphitheater that overlooks a platue capable of holding thousands of people. Mount Sinai does not have this anywhere on it. At the top, there needs to be evidence of water. Again, absent. It also has no vegetation for a burning bush.

However, in the Arameic writing, Red Sea, and "Reed Sea" are spelled exactly the same. And, about 70 miles to the north of what we know of, today, as Mount Sinai, is another mountain. From the top, you can also see the Promised Land. At the top, there is evidence of water. It has a natural amphitheater and a very large platue. It does have some vegetation, and there are a few bushes. But archeology discovered two more things about it.

Where did Moses die, and what was his final resting place?

On top of the mountain 70 miles north of Mount Sinai, there are two graves that date back to about the time of Exodus. But, it does not stop there.

In the Reed Sea, there is evidence of a geological event that would have thrust the sea floor above water level. A land-bridge for the Hebrews to cross. When the Egyptian army was persuing, another event would have put the sea floor back down near it's original level, and a tsunami would have drowned the army. Guess what. In the sediment at the bottom of the Reed Sea, there is evidence of the Egyptian Army.

All of these things were natural events. But the errors in the Bible came from translating them into other languages. And, it's safe to assume that things which were to have been said may also have been misquoted in our text.

matcat

06-11-2009, 06:08 AM

I was in fact a christian counselor for quite a few years, and I studied the bible to the point of actually learning ancient greek and hebrew (not in a speakable way, but in a way as to study). You are right that all errors found are simply because of translation. If you study the bible in the original ancient languages, the meanings come across much differently then they do in english. One of the main reasons for this is that the english language is very simplified, I.E. much of the meaning comes from the context of what is said, where a language such as greek or hebrew the meaning is direct and exact. A good example of this is just the new testament alone, in english is made up of a vocabulary of 5000 words, whereis the original greek is 15,000 words. Greek language has so many more words, because they don't use words like 'love' whose meaning is derived from context. Example would be in the bible, the word 'love' is used in many places, but in the original greek there are 3 different words with 3 different meanings all together, but all translate into english as love. I will give a good example, Jesus asked peter if he 'loved' him 3 times, the first 2 times he pretty much said, "I don't understand' and on the 3rd time, he said yes. There is a good reason for this, and it doesn't make sense unless you know that the first 2 times Jesus asked him the question, it was with the word agapi, which means Gods Love, which no human is capable of without the spirit, Peter did not understand, because to him he didn't know or think he was capable of agapi love, the 3rd time Jesus asked, he asked with the word philos, which means brotherly or friendly love, and he replied yes. By the way, this is how the city of Philadelphia got it's name, Philos meaning brotherly love, Philadelphia.

As far as your mentioning scientific explanations for biblical events, who is to say God did not do it via those methods? A lot of people today ask the question, "If God did all of these fantastic things in biblical days, how come he does not do it today?" Well he does, only difference is today we have 'science', in Noah's day, they didn't understand the concepts of poisonous gas from volcanos, so to them it is a fantastic feat only God could perform, today science understands these things, and people put their faith into 'science' instead of the One that actually designed the volcano, and controls its workings via a natural set of laws He created.

Brings up another point, a lot of Christians and non-christians, get hung up on the Science vs Faith/Religion thing, I have tried to explain to Christians espially, that there is nothing wrong with science, it is simply a way to explain how God orchestrates the natural order he created, just that sometimes scientists go in the wrong direction with their theories.

Also by the way, I too studied the time line. Noah lived for something like 800 years. The timeline from Adam to Noah is documented in the bible, however with Noah there is a 400 year gap that is not explained. Simply because it gives when he was born, and when he died, however it does not give his age at the time of the flood. So therefor the flood happened somewhere within a 400 year spread of his life. I came about this because I was trying to figure out the actual age of the Earth, but the buck stops at Noah, with a 400 year gap! If I remember correctly I came to the conclusion that from Adam until now, it has been between 8000 to 10000 years, and that is not just based on biblical knowledge alone, but is also based on the oldest known civilizations in history and their timelines.

I love discussing theology and biblical science, but I hate debating with people whom just want to try to disprove the bible on some point.

Windwalker

06-11-2009, 02:06 PM

As far as your mentioning scientific explanations for biblical events, who is to say God did not do it via those methods? A lot of people today ask the question, "If God did all of these fantastic things in biblical days, how come he does not do it today?" Well he does, only difference is today we have 'science', in Noah's day, they didn't understand the concepts of poisonous gas from volcanos, so to them it is a fantastic feat only God could perform, today science understands these things, and people put their faith into 'science' instead of the One that actually designed the volcano, and controls its workings via a natural set of laws He created.
This was exactly my point. While they were all natural events, it's the TIMING. To have one happen exactly on time, ok. Two? Well, maybe. But, three or more? The more there were, the more odds are against being chance. And, who among us has the ability to control these things?
Brings up another point, a lot of Christians and non-christians, get hung up on the Science vs Faith/Religion thing, I have tried to explain to Christians espially, that there is nothing wrong with science, it is simply a way to explain how God orchestrates the natural order he created, just that sometimes scientists go in the wrong direction with their theories.

Also by the way, I too studied the time line. Noah lived for something like 800 years. The timeline from Adam to Noah is documented in the bible, however with Noah there is a 400 year gap that is not explained. Simply because it gives when he was born, and when he died, however it does not give his age at the time of the flood. So therefor the flood happened somewhere within a 400 year spread of his life. I came about this because I was trying to figure out the actual age of the Earth, but the buck stops at Noah, with a 400 year gap! If I remember correctly I came to the conclusion that from Adam until now, it has been between 8000 to 10000 years, and that is not just based on biblical knowledge alone, but is also based on the oldest known civilizations in history and their timelines.
There seems to be a general agreement between Creationists that the earth was created 40,000 BC. The oldest writing ever found, the oldest text ever found by archeology, was dated at 38,000 BC and appears to be Hindu. Slimland, when we were discussing ancient text (before his wife had a crisis with cancer), said the oldest Hebrew test he found was 26,000 or 28,000 BC. The Dead-Sea Scrolls are believed to be copies of still earlier text that may not have survived. And, it may or may not be a translation of that earlier text as well. If we are able to point to errors in translation, and information that has been in error, such as Mount Sinai, Then we must also allow for errors in translating and copying still earlier text as well.

My arguement with Slimland was with the 7 days of Creation. Creationists take a day as a hard and fast rule of 24 hours. But, due to human error in translation and perhaps errors in copying, I suggest that a "day" of creation should be taken as a relative term. A period of time. And, that period of time could well exceed the 24 hour limit by tens of thousands of years. (Talk about having a "long day".) In that case, one of GOD's days could well be 78 million years long, and evolution would become an instrument of GOD's handi-work. It would also mean that Creationists and Evolutionists no longer have anything to fight about and could begin to expend their energies working together.

I love discussing theology and biblical science, but I hate debating with people whom just want to try to disprove the bible on some point.
I don't have any interest in disproving the Bible. More so, an interest in explaining why the difference between science and the Bible. Scientific data does not change. Nature is reasonably constant, but the Bible, as we have it today, is subject to human error. While the "ORIGINAL BIBLE TEXT" may have been entirely accurate, we don't have it. And, what we do have, may have been translated and copied a number of times. How many errors have been introduced with this? Does this make the Bible wrong? Absolutely not. Just not quite as accurate as many would have us believe.

If GOD used natural events during Exodus, isn't it also possible that in creating man, he may have also guided natural events to do his will? ie Evolution?

BlooMoose

06-11-2009, 02:48 PM

As a geologist and a creationist, you can imagine that I have had many questions cross my mind. The way I have come to believe, regarding the age of the earth, is this:

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."

How long was that first day? God only knows. One day as is a thousand years to him. Or maybe longer? Time could not be measured until the sun was created...and then the moon. It could have been a million years long...or three! Time means nothing to God. Only schedule....

I don't question the Bible much anymore. I don't have the knowledge or the time. Although I am so curious about a lot of things, my concern is to save my butt and the butts of my kids...so I focus on what is ahead and not what is behind. I LOVE the earth, it a beautiful and marvelous creation...so dynamic. I also believe that so many events in the Bible can be explained scientifically, even getting water out of rocks! God must LOVE science...can you inagine understanding science the way He does? TO be able to create life and see it evolve and to know what is going to be the final outcome of every single creature? I don't question him. I don't believe everything I hear (or read), either. I think that everything is just as it should be and it goes pretty much in line with "prophesy". That is pretty scary to me. But I can't imagine life without faith in a higher power. I'm sure a lot of people can...but I can't. My business is the "now" and although I yearn to be able to study more about about the BIble, and question, and answer, and understand...my time is spent doing other things that are necessary to my "now". So, my answer for me is...I have faith in the jist of the Bible and choose not to question it - I am so intensely curious and know that any search for the "truth" would detract from my responsiblities, given what little free time I have already. But, I LOVE to read what everyone writes and know what they think. I believe that I can learn something new everyday and that, by being a by-stander to any discussion here, I could get an answer to a question I may have been pondering for quite some time.

So...carry on. I'll be open to learning something....but, please don't make me have more questions!!!!!

matcat

06-11-2009, 02:56 PM

I do NOT believe in evolution in any shape or form. There is no single scientific evidence to support evolution, all they come up with is species they say are 'links' in the evolutionary chain, which is no way shape or form proves evolution. Every fossil ever found of a creature that still exists today, is unchanged from the modern species. There was also a prominate Christian scientist / archeologist who had found fossilized foot prints of dinasaours and man walking side by side!

You have a good point too about the 'day' thing, in the original language, the word that is translated to day, does not actually mean day as we think. It is a word that just means a length of time.

matcat

06-11-2009, 03:02 PM

Bloo, it only takes a few seconds to ask a question ;)

Windwalker

06-12-2009, 06:03 AM

But, if we get Hobo in here, it will take her two weeks to read the answer.:clap:
I do NOT believe in evolution in any shape or form. There is no single scientific evidence to support evolution, all they come up with is species they say are 'links' in the evolutionary chain, which is no way shape or form proves evolution.

This may be just a bit less than accurate. Neanderthal, for example, did have speech, and RED HAIR, not black as normally depicted. I don't have any idea just how they did it, but they have done some genetic and DNA testing on Neanderthal remains. The same gene that gives us the ability to speak is also in Neanderthal. And, the same "flawed gene" that gives some of us red hair is also in Neanderthal. Also, there is absolutely no evidence of Homo Sapien until 6,000 BC. Which says that the Hebrew faith began in a Neanderthal society. It reeks havoc with many of our preceptions.

Mystikal

06-12-2009, 10:13 AM

I havent read the other posts.. but.. if the bible is the word of god why is it revised? I personally believe that if it was all written by man it can't all be true.

matcat

06-12-2009, 11:50 AM

I havent read the other posts.. but.. if the bible is the word of god why is it revised? I personally believe that if it was all written by man it can't all be true.

If a translation of the bible is called 'revised' it just means they reworded it to try to better match the original language. There are two types of translations, word for word, which translate the bible from the original languages to the closest possible words in english, the most famous, and consequently one of the most flawed translations, the king james, is one such type. Then there are what are called thought for thought translations, which take the meaning of what the original language is saying, and translates it into an English phrase that conveys that meaning, not word for word, but expresses the original meaning. A good example of that type of translation is The Message, or the Amplified Bible. The Message is probably one of the easiest to read translations EVER made, it is like reading a novel :). The amplified is a good study translation, because it expands on meanings of words and phrases inline with the sentence, but is a poor choice for reading aloud or casually.

Personally I always liked the New Living Translation for casual reading, it is an easy to read word for word translation, and fairly accurate.

matcat

06-12-2009, 11:52 AM

But, if we get Hobo in here, it will take her two weeks to read the answer.:clap:

This may be just a bit less than accurate. Neanderthal, for example, did have speech, and RED HAIR, not black as normally depicted. I don't have any idea just how they did it, but they have done some genetic and DNA testing on Neanderthal remains. The same gene that gives us the ability to speak is also in Neanderthal. And, the same "flawed gene" that gives some of us red hair is also in Neanderthal. Also, there is absolutely no evidence of Homo Sapien until 6,000 BC. Which says that the Hebrew faith began in a Neanderthal society. It reeks havoc with many of our preceptions.

Do some scientific research on DNA, you will find almost all living creatures share near identical DNA. Apes are only off from us by 2%, but in the world of DNA 2% is a huge difference.

Windwalker

06-12-2009, 12:54 PM

Do some scientific research on DNA, you will find almost all living creatures share near identical DNA. Apes are only off from us by 2%, but in the world of DNA 2% is a huge difference.
I agree. But I've always read that it was 3% difference between us and chimps. However, it seems that man is the only creature that has the speech gene. The one that gives us the ability to articulate speech.

Windwalker

06-12-2009, 01:12 PM

A couple of other things I thought were interesting...

Before the flood, man lived to be hundreds of years long. After the flood, man's lifespan shortened. No one lived that long anymore.

If you melt both polar caps, the level of the oceans will rise, but may not be enough to cover the statue of Liberty. So, where did the water come from to cover the highest mountain?

One theory is a meteor impact. In the middle of the Pacific Ocean, and a large enough meteor to empty the ocean. There would have been a tremendous amount of water that would have been vaporized, trillions of tons of water launched into the air in the form of fine mist, and the rest would have become a tsunami that would go completely around the world. There would be enough water to cover every mountain on earth.

Given the amount of rain that would have been coming down, how long would it take for the rain to end, and how long would it take for the waters to recede? Such an impact would have fractured the earth's crust and given us the fault lines that give us the earth quakes we now have.

An, impact of that magnitude would also have the ability to change earth's rotation and orbit. By that theory, man's actual life span would have remained the same, but the standard by which man measured time would have changed. 800 years might have become 80 years.

matcat

06-12-2009, 08:45 PM

matcat

06-12-2009, 08:47 PM

I agree. But I've always read that it was 3% difference between us and chimps. However, it seems that man is the only creature that has the speech gene. The one that gives us the ability to articulate speech.

Speech is not really a gene thing per say. There are many animals and creatures that communicate, look at dolphins, they have their own sound based communication that is very sophisitcated, we have yet to translate it to understand it.

LostSoul

06-13-2009, 03:23 PM

Slimland

06-14-2009, 01:11 PM

From my time of studying, I have come to my own coclusion that all if not most of the old religions have come from just one like sumerian mythos.. Gilgamesh, the Anananuki, the Watchers etc..
All mythos have a form of truth, but not the whole truth, and if the Bible is from diffrent forms of mythos then the truths IMOP are only half truths.. The way to correct that is to crack the code of the original, and the rest will fall into place..
In the times of kings and queens they sent knights to defeat dragons. I think it was in 1946 in Japan or China I cant remember there was a black dragon that fell from the sky. There have been sightings of dragons in the hymalayans etc.. take in other unknowns, mythological creatures and writings, aliens, etc. Then we have to wonder where did man come up with these things without some form of truth..

As for God well without going into free will etc and making a big debate over it, wich I do not have time to do. Not only that I know I would be the antogonist and the one to so called devils advocate on this one. So I will step out and watch from the side lines..

I don't know the answers I just have a opinion, But what does it matter? We wont know, because we are nothing but deck of cards, made in gods image but not god.

Slimland

Windwalker

06-15-2009, 09:01 PM

You have a few good points here, the bible describes the water as coming up from the earth, certainly could be from a meteor, but it is hard to say.

Now as far as the spinning of the earth changing time, this would mean the world's rate of spin would have had to dramatically slow down, I am not thinking this is the case, remember, the bible explains the life spans getting shorter because of sin. The wages of sin is death, doesn't mean instant death, but death eventually.
While such an event would have the ability to change earth's rotation, I was suggesting that perhaps, that may have knocked us into an oval orbit around the sun, that might have taken much longer for the seasons to change. That would have been the way early man would have had to measure years by. If the earth was in a smaller, circular orbit around the sun, originally, then an impact like that could have changed the orbit and it could mean longer time to change the seasons, and the means of measureing a year would have changed while man's life-span would have remained the same. Just a theory.

Windwalker

06-15-2009, 09:06 PM

Speech is not really a gene thing per say. There are many animals and creatures that communicate, look at dolphins, they have their own sound based communication that is very sophisitcated, we have yet to translate it to understand it.
While it's true that other animals communicate, they use sounds and "BODY LANGUAGE" to get the message across. Even dogs do that. But, man is the only one that, to date, is able to articulate speech. Even dolphins include body language in their communications. But, I'm not a geneticist, so I have to accept what I read and hear about it. From everything I've heard and read, man is the only one that carries the gene that gives us the power of speech.

Windwalker

06-15-2009, 09:19 PM

Regardless of whether the bible is an accurate historical account or complete bunk, no one can argue that it is an excelent philosophy to live by.

I am not a religious person. I was raised a baptist but as I got older I made my own choices. However, I am smart enough to recognise the contributions the bible has made to mankind.

Can you imagine what the human society would be like if it weren't for religion?

The Mad Max movies come to mind.
There is absolutely no argument about the benefits the Bible has contributed to our social structure and moral values. My problem is the folks that quote the Bible, chapter and verse, complete with errors, "and, if you do not believe exactly that, you are going to go to HELL".

Is it right to believe in the Bible? Absolutely, YES. But, it's also right to understand that what was once the inspired word of GOD may be missing accurate information because of translation, and the fact that over time, facts may have been lost. Archeology and paleanthology are able to varify a great number of places and events in the Bible, but words that were spoken are no longer available. And, translation often leaves much to be desired.

Windwalker

06-15-2009, 10:02 PM

golfhobo

06-15-2009, 11:06 PM

But, if we get Hobo in here, it will take her two weeks to read the answer.:clap:

HEY! I RESEMBLE that remark! :lol2:

Just found this thread, and already it is too much to digest with the few beers left in my fridge!

Keep your pants on.... I'll get around to it as soon as I can! And yes.... it will probably cost you a few weeks to read my answers! ;)

Windwalker

06-17-2009, 11:31 AM

HEY! I RESEMBLE that remark! :lol2:

Just found this thread, and already it is too much to digest with the few beers left in my fridge!

Keep your pants on.... I'll get around to it as soon as I can! And yes.... it will probably cost you a few weeks to read my answers! ;)
Take your time. I'm headed out to Jersey, after a false start yesterday. Won't be back online till I get back. But I don't know if I'll have a week to read what you've written when I do get back.

In case I'm a bit late, HAPPY FATHER'S DAY to all the Dads out there.

Archeology says that Cro-magnon co-existed with Neanderthal for a couple of thousand years. While Neanderthal was about 5 foot, Cro-magnon was about 8 foot tall, more agile, and thought to be more intelligent.

Would there have been prejudice between the two?

And, the sons of GOD saw that the daughters of man were fair and took them for wives, all that they would...

Looking at human nature, Cro-magnon and Neanderthal might have been at war with each other. Cro-magnon would also have had superior weapons (or so it is believed by science) which would support a theory that they would have killed Neanderthal man, and taken Neanderthal woman for a wife. (Refer to the thread in "WOMEN IN TRUCKING" where I talked about the difference in hunting rabbits with a male or female dog) Doing so would follow right along with the nature of the male of the species.

And, they bore sons onto them...

Why does the Bible only list the ones it does? If all men lived to be that old, why are only a few mentioned? Why were these so notable? And, since Noah lived to be 800 years old, it would suggest that he was also a product of "The Sons of GOD" and "Daughters of Man". That would make us all a product of the two.

But, looking up the year of the flood, it does not match, even with the five hundred years difference between the Bible and science. Or, are there even more inaccuracies?

Slimland

06-18-2009, 01:26 PM

Apart of me wants to get into this dicsussion, but the other part knows better.. I would just end up contradicting myself anyway. Right now my mind is still fighting that enime within. I don't even think I could talk in circles anymore. But I will keep in touch with this thread and if anything does compell me I will comment on it..
Thanks for the invite WindWalker.

Slimland

marcel27208

06-19-2009, 01:11 AM

As a believer living in christ i wanna chime in but i dont think i should.............

matcat

06-19-2009, 01:53 AM

Everyone is so afraid to chime in! The bible is such an interesting book to study. There is so much going on, and quite often a single verse can be taken in thousands of different ways to mean something very unique to each person. I found the BEST way to study the bible, was to use it as its own verification, if a verse says something, I look for a passage elsewhere to reinforce it. If I am uncertain of a meaning then I look at the original language, and build up this picture that it is trying to draw.

Quite honestly I am a scientific person by nature, very inquisitive, always looking for the way things work, always trying to understand it, so for me Christianity is a very tough religion to actually follow, though I believe in God, and I believe what that bible says, even though I don't always live by it. But at any rate, I have come to so many interesting revelations if you will from that book, things man would of never known at the time it was written! It just doesn't always make sense to us today because we have a different view of the world.

Take for example the book of revelation, a very interesting book, one of my favorites, and also one of the most difficult to study. There is a passage referring to a plaque of locusts, which will seak out and kill, here is a passage based on the New Living Translation

Revelation 9

The Fifth Trumpet Brings the First Terror

1 Then the fifth angel blew his trumpet, and I saw a star that had fallen to earth from the sky, and he was given the key to the shaft of the bottomless pit.[a] 2 When he opened it, smoke poured out as though from a huge furnace, and the sunlight and air turned dark from the smoke.
3 Then locusts came from the smoke and descended on the earth, and they were given power to sting like scorpions. 4 They were told not to harm the grass or plants or trees, but only the people who did not have the seal of God on their foreheads. 5 They were told not to kill them but to torture them for five months with pain like the pain of a scorpion sting. 6 In those days people will seek death but will not find it. They will long to die, but death will flee from them!

7 The locusts looked like horses prepared for battle. They had what looked like gold crowns on their heads, and their faces looked like human faces. 8 They had hair like women’s hair and teeth like the teeth of a lion. 9 They wore armor made of iron, and their wings roared like an army of chariots rushing into battle. 10 They had tails that stung like scorpions, and for five months they had the power to torment people. 11 Their king is the angel from the bottomless pit; his name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek, Apollyon—the Destroyer.

12 The first terror is past, but look, two more terrors are coming!

Lets look at a locust

http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/images/Biosecurity_GeneralPlantHealthPestsDiseaseAndWeeds/Locust-Migratory-Adult-500.jpg

Now think about what a locust looks like for a minute, and consider their description of it.

Now look at this picture and tell me what you think that passage is describing.

http://www.kitsune.addr.com/Rifts/Rifts-Pre-Rifts-Vehicles/United_States/US_RAH-66E_Super_Comanche_Attack_Helicopter.gif
Tell me what image fits more in with the passage?

I am not saying a helicopter is the answer, but I am saying it makes much more sense then a locust. When it was written the person that wrote what he say in his vision had no clue what a helicopter was, but he knew what a locust was, and knew that a helicopter looks a lot like a locust, not to mention the things this creature in this passage is doing, how it sounds, etc.

Ohh by the way, helicopters can easily be used for chemical warfare, something that can be so horrible in effect to you, but not actually kill you.

marcel27208

06-19-2009, 02:09 AM

marcel27208

06-19-2009, 02:10 AM

how well do i believe the bible...%100!!!

matcat

06-19-2009, 01:11 PM

The person who wrote revelations was john of patmos, who was a pastor and a poet. Just like the bible says this was a revelation as to what is to come, when i read revelations i truly am imaging huge locusts with human faces and armor. I think its VERY HARD for anyone even believers to wrap their mind around revelations. I try to take it word for word.

Remember it is not known and believed to be a different John then the apostle John :). Well you can take it word for word, but remember it is a vision of the future, one filled with things technologically far beyond what was understood at the time of its writing.

Twilight Flyer

06-20-2009, 05:43 PM

OK, I have to chime in and I'll hit a couple of points. Yes, I had a few moments today and this topic was absolutely begging for a post from me. :thumbsup: So here I am for another brief interlude.

Do I believe in the Bible? Absolutely 100%. Do I believe in evolution? Absolutely 100%.

Here's how I see it and it all keys on a "day" to God. I honestly don't understand how the literalists can tag God with a 24-hour day. Who's to say that a day to God isn't millions of years to us? If you stop trying to fit God into what we mortals can comprehend, then it all fits into place. If a day to God is millions of years to us, then it stands to reason that the evolution of millions of species over millions of years is all part of those seven "days" of creation...well, six when you factor out the Sabbath.

And the proof is there in countless fossil finds and our scientific abilities to now understand their meaning.

However, I draw the line at believing we evolved from chimps and apes. Here's why:

Do I believe Adam and Eve were the first mortal man and woman on earth? Yes I do, some 6,000 to 8,000 years ago, depending on how you view the timelines back then.

Do I believe in neanderthals, cro magnum man, and other "near" humans? Yes, I do, but I do not believe they are any relation to us today or Adam and Eve back then. I simply believe they are the natural evolutionary path of other simian type animals, nothing more. Maybe in another million years, the chimpanzees and apes of today would evolve into similar species.

Is it out of the question for something to evolve and be "close" to human? Hardly. Many animals today possess human traits, either inherent, evolved, or by mimicry. Take dolphins...a species that by all appearances and scientific study, possess a vocabulary and mastery of language that far outclasses our own. Dogs can be taught by humans to both understand us and to follow commands; parrots and other birds mimic and in many instances, understand human speech; chimps possess the ability to use tools, reason out problems, and live in communities. The list is endless. All of these are traits that humans possess, but none of those animals are human. So why is it not any different than with near humans of the past?

The fact is, science has proven that evolution is a part of our world's history. There is simply no refuting it - the evidence is there. Evolution is right. However, by the same token, there is also no evidence to disprove that God is behind all of this. There is no evidence to disprove His hand in all things. So by the very fact of not being able to disprove it, creation is right, too.

So why can't we learn about both in schools? :pissedoff: I'll back off that topic immediately and move on to the next.

The Book of Revelations and other end-times prophecy.

I've made it a habit to study this for many, many years. And I'll tell you what I do know - that is that I know very little. I understand a lot of it and where things are going, but I don't "know" what it all means.

I think the Book of Revelations is absolutely the scariest book ever written, at least for a believer. But there's are many scriptures in a variety of different books in the Bible, that speak of the final days and all of them point to the same thing - it's going to be rough sailing for a while.

I personally believe we've been in the final days for a number of years now. I don't believe in the literal 7 years of tribulation, nor do I believe in the fantasy of a "rapture." It's a nice thought, sure, but it's a man-made term for a man-man belief. No, I believe we'll be here and the fact that we are here right now, bears that out.

Look around you. The plagues, the violence of the planet earth, the wars and rumors of wars...they are all here. The United States is in decline; God is being pushed aside for the words of man; the atrocities that man visits upon man get worse every day, everywhere you look, you shake your head in sadness at what you see. The stage is set...

...and the last act is about to begin. We're less than a heartbeat away from someone - be it a terrorist or a rogue nation - detonating a nuke against an enemy. Will that be Al Queda nuking one of our cities? Will it be Iran nuking Israel? Will it be North Korea nuking South Korea or Japan or Hawaii? Whatever the case, it's inevitable and probably no more than a year or two away at the most. And when that happens, the dam will break and then it will be a quick slide to the bottom and the short reign of the antichrist.

It's a tough world we live in. It's tough to be a believer and it's tough to be a non-believer, in my own personal opinion. I hold nothing against those that don't believe in God, though I honestly do sometimes wonder if there is anything to look forward to if you don't believe in God and His plan. Personally, as I watch the rapid deterioration of this world, I find that I take great comfort in knowing that it's all part of His plan and that whatever happens, the outcome is already decided. But others don't believe that and for me, that's OK. We all have our free will to believe what we will and to each his own.

But regardless of what you believe, no one can dispute the fact that we live in perilous and nearly disastrous times.

All the best everybody. Hopefully this gives a few of you something to chew on. And keep the discussion civil. :thumbsup:

marcel27208

06-21-2009, 03:15 AM

i dont think i could and dont believe what a scientist tells me and what the bible says, you have to choose one or the other. And if your a believer then its the bible, no if, ands, or buts, about it! At least i would like to think that, but there are so many people in this world nowadays who claim to be christian, who make no practice of even picking up a bible. They claim to be religious, and its about your relationship with god not religion. But, then again you can study the bible for years and years and still not be saved. Not implying anyone here, but i just keep going back to the original question of "how well do you believe the bible"

Twilight Flyer

06-21-2009, 04:04 PM

As I said, I believe in the Bible 100% and study it quite a bit. But I also don't believe in restricting God and putting him into a man-made box. I am very comfortable with my beliefs and with my relationship with my Maker.

If, when I die, I find out that I am wrong about the whole evolution thing being a part of God's plan, then I'm wrong. It doesn't change my belief and faith in Him. But I hold fast to the belief that for everything there is a purpose and a reason and nothing goes beyond God. So it's practically impossible NOT to believe that evolution is all part of his plan, that His days are millions of years to us, that science is all part of the miracles that He has granted us.

mommee

06-21-2009, 09:48 PM

nice to see you still lurking from the bat cave. :lol: :clap:

matcat

06-22-2009, 03:00 AM

I have to disagree with evolution. Yes I agree it is possible and God could of used that to his means, but there are scientific and biblical oppositions to evolution.

A lot of scientists try to twist things to make it look like it is evolution when it is not. They take bits and pieces of scientific data, and puzzle it together to fit their hypothesis, bias opinion, and expectations. A true scientist operates outside of bias and preconceived notion. If one is taught the concept of evolution and that is what they believe, and they grow up to be scientists, they have preconceived notions and bias that will influence their judgement. Often taking a point that appears to align with the theory, but neglecting to look at the 10 other points that negate the possibility, just making up more theory and hypothesis as to why they appear to neglect it, but they BELIEVE it does not because of some obscured unproven theory to try to prove their opinion of it, even though reality is smacking them in the face otherwise :).

Twilight Flyer

06-22-2009, 02:30 PM

I have to disagree with evolution. Yes I agree it is possible and God could of used that to his means, but there are scientific and biblical oppositions to evolution.

For the evolution of man, yes. But not for the evolution of species.

Have you ever wondered why there is all kinds of fossil and DNA proof that certain every day creatures evolved from certain ancient creatures? But there is no corresponding evolutionary track from ancient “man” to us and scientists are always looking for that elusive “missing link?” It’s because there is no evolution of man – no missing link. If we date back to our biological roots of Adam and Eve, then our species is really only about 6000 to 8000 years old – a mere eye blink in a true evolutionary track.

I still maintain that evolution of species is all part of God’s plan, just as the non-evolution of “man” is also part of it. You simply cannot dismiss evolution as a sham because it’s right there in front of us. There absolutely HAS to be a reason for it. Remember, the Bible covers the last 6000 to 8000 years. It covers the entirety of civilization. But the earth is billions of years old – that’s been proven. The earth was populated by millions of species that have been extinct for millions and millions of years – that’s been proven. It stands to reason then, that the creation didn’t span 168 actual hours over 7 days…it spanned millions, even billions of years. What hasn’t been proven and never will, is that man evolved over that same millions of years.

So, by the same token, creationism cannot be dismissed either, as much as hard-core scientists and atheists would like to. With our technology and abilities these days, if there was a missing link to irrevocably link us to early man, we would have found it already. Period. The very fact that we have not, indicates that there is no evolutionary link between us and early man to be found. Oh scientists can say they’re close to discovering it and we’re a close enough match to early man to “assume” that it is the truth. But that’s like me saying the number 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 is close to the number 1, simply because they are both numbers.

So why is it a difficult concept for people to accept that God has both sides covered? I don’t ask that to be confrontational…I point it out because it bears out why I believe what I believe. If you restrict God to what our narrow mortal minds can comprehend, then it’s virtually impossible to grasp or even accept without understanding, things that God is capable of. I look at who God is…He is the creator of all things…He is never-ending. I believe that He is logical and that there is a reason behind everything. I believe He has a wonderful sense of humor, too. How else would you explain the platypus? ;) And while I don’t claim to understand how evolution fits into things, I can at least grasp the idea that somehow, He has it all working. That enables me to take a guess at it, at least, which is all that I’ve done. Am I right? Only God knows. The rest of us will not know those answers until we pass beyond our mortal life. But in the meantime, it makes for interesting conversation.

I’m off to work. It’s the start of another glorious week…of 90+ degree temperatures, oppressive jungle-like humid heat, and tornados. Aaah, to live in the Midwest. :roll: I might have to hole up in the bat cave for a couple of months until fall.

Windwalker

06-23-2009, 03:18 PM

However, I draw the line at believing we evolved from chimps and apes. Here's why:

Do I believe Adam and Eve were the first mortal man and woman on earth? Yes I do, some 6,000 to 8,000 years ago, depending on how you view the timelines back then.

Do I believe in neanderthals, cro magnum man, and other "near" humans? Yes, I do, but I do not believe they are any relation to us today or Adam and Eve back then. I simply believe they are the natural evolutionary path of other simian type animals, nothing more. Maybe in another million years, the chimpanzees and apes of today would evolve into similar species.

Is it out of the question for something to evolve and be "close" to human? Hardly. Many animals today possess human traits, either inherent, evolved, or by mimicry. Take dolphins...a species that by all appearances and scientific study, possess a vocabulary and mastery of language that far outclasses our own. Dogs can be taught by humans to both understand us and to follow commands; parrots and other birds mimic and in many instances, understand human speech; chimps possess the ability to use tools, reason out problems, and live in communities. The list is endless. All of these are traits that humans possess, but none of those animals are human. So why is it not any different than with near humans of the past?

The fact is, science has proven that evolution is a part of our world's history. There is simply no refuting it - the evidence is there. Evolution is right. However, by the same token, there is also no evidence to disprove that God is behind all of this. There is no evidence to disprove His hand in all things. So by the very fact of not being able to disprove it, creation is right, too.

I did read an article more than a year ago, that stated evidence has been found that "Hominids" did split off from Chimps. And, for more than a million years, there was "fraternizing" going on between the two species that produced, what appears to be, a sterile off-spring. rather like a horse and a donkey producing a mule which can not reproduce. I've been looking for that article, and have not found it yet. It did state that the link between human and ape actually HAS been found. and it seemed to have dated back to about 3 to 5 million years BC.
But, isn't it just a bit out of character for a Supreme Diety that is so adept at guiding natural forces of nature to impress his will on the earth and mankind in Exodus, to resort to actual creation? It would seem to be far more within his own nature to have been guiding the forces of nature all along. That would put it right back into the lap of evolution.
marcel27208"]i dont think i could and dont believe what a scientist tells me and what the bible says, you have to choose one or the other. And if your a believer then its the bible, no if, ands, or buts, about it! At least i would like to think that, but there are so many people in this world nowadays who claim to be christian, who make no practice of even picking up a bible. They claim to be religious, and its about your relationship with god not religion. But, then again you can study the bible for years and years and still not be saved. Not implying anyone here, but i just keep going back to the original question of "how well do you believe the bible"
Actually, because of my own background, Engineering, I know how science works, and the standards that determine scientific evidence. When science says that the earth is 550 million years old, I know the standards that determines that figure. Those standards do not lie. Yet, they do not fit with the "Inspired Word of GOD". WHY????
It is not possible for both to be correct as written. It's rather like the difference between a handshake and a "round-house hay-maker". Both involve body contact, but... So, where does the discrepancy come from? From all form of logic, both should match and coincide. Why don't they? Since I know science to be "exact", the Bible must be something less than completely accurate.
The Dead Sea Scrolls were written between 150 and 70 BC, but both the Jewish and Muslum Faiths existed long before that. That means they are not "original text", but copies of still earlier texts. Perhaps even a compilation of them. But, copying anything from one language to another introduces "human error". And, how much of that human error was influenced by "the collective wisdom" of the time? (Now, there's phrase I love to hate. It has not had a very good track record at all over the centuries)
In the final tally, both accounts must be equal (science and the Bible). You can not have two different universes existing in the same place, at the same time, with two different time frames. If that worked, we wouldn't have car accidents... Both vehicles could occupy the same space at the same time without any problem.
I find another interesting concept dating back to the Flood of Gilgamesh (of Noah's Ark Fame) in that scripture says that GOD became sorry he created man, and wished to destroy what he had created. It sounds a bit odd to me that a Diety that is "all knowing", and knows all about everything, including everything about the future, would have even bothered creating man if he knew he was going to be saddened and try to destroy everything he made. A Diety that is "perfect" doesn't make mistakes... If he does, it makes him something less than perfect, which is not possible.
However, as a means of "culling" his creations so that only one species is left... Now, that makes much more sense. Mankind is allowed to progress unhindered by competitors, and it would insure no "fraternization" which might bring up still another species. Or, is Homo Sapien even the end of it all?
The fact is that we do not have enough actual evidence of the past, and it is possible that the evidence we need may no longer exist. Not all fossiles from the past have survived the ravages of time. And, I believe we have only found a small percentage of them. Looking at the evolution of many of our mountains, they would have had many verticle rock faces and cliffs that were subject to collapse (just like "THE OLD MAN" in NH) and might have buried much of the evidence we need. Today, we could have a super highway running 150 feet over the top of it all. And, how much of it has been eroded away by the effects of water and wind? What we know so far is only a scratch on the surface. [/SIZE]

BlooMoose

06-23-2009, 09:15 PM

I don't know, WW...my perfect "creations" (my beautiful children) sometimes "sadden" me, too...but I have no regrets that I had them. If there is no real purpose for us being here, I can't imagine my Creator even bothering with all of the headache.

Adam and Eve had sons who went out of the garden and married. Who did they marry? How should I know! But, I wholeheartedly believe that "cave" man was not "man" as we know "man". I believe that Adam and Eve were the beginning of the "thinking" man...and therin lies the difference, to me. They understood laws of man and consequences. Before we could "think" and understand and make choices, we were just animals. I know that animals have loyalty and empathy (some of them)...but it is still just their nature. Once we could think...we could choose. We could choose Christ...which, I feel, is our entire reason for being. He wants to be surrounded (on the day of his choosing) by those who choose Him, too. Just as we can't make decisions for our children after a certain point, He does not impose His will on us. Some kids stay "lost", too. Isa.43:21 says that the people He formed for Himself were formed that they may proclaim His praise. Everyday, as I look around (and even during difficult times), I see more things that amaze me and I think..."Jesus Christ! Whoever made this sure knew what they were doing!" It may seem like a lifetime (full of good and bad things...) but, since I do believe in the Bible 100%...I think how much longer eternity will be. I just dont question anymore. I don't feel like I'm so heavenly that I'm of no earthly good...because I still do things I shouldn't and make bad decisions...after all, I am human! This is why I never tell anyone that they must do this or that or they will go to hell! As long as we have a breath left in us, we don't have to go to hell. God gave us a thinking mind and expects us to use it. Science is beautiful (I love science...if science were a man, I'd have probably already married it...at least once or twice..sigh). But science works differently for me...to me, it confirms that there is a God. Science cannot prove to me that there is no God.

MAN! I can't believe I was compelled (as Slimland put it) back into this! I will put in my disclaimer...the ideas and thoughts above in no way reflect those of anyone else here, nor is the one who thought them qualified to defend them....they are merely the musings of a bloo muse....(I would say Moose but I'm afraid dle might hit me!) LOL...Sorry...I couldn't help it...

Windwalker

06-24-2009, 11:07 AM

I don't know, WW...my perfect "creations" (my beautiful children) sometimes "sadden" me, too...but I have no regrets that I had them. If there is no real purpose for us being here, I can't imagine my Creator even bothering with all of the headache.
I was repeating what has been said, that GOD was saddened and angered with the evil among mankind. (It would seem that a perfect being has a temper also.)

Adam and Eve had sons who went out of the garden and married. Who did they marry?
According to the first book of Adam (Apocrypha), Adam and Eve had two sons and two daughters. After Caine killed Able, they had another son, Seth, and Cain and Seth took their sisters as wives. Incest. How should I know! But, I wholeheartedly believe that "cave" man was not "man" as we know "man".
Actually, when they were expelled from the Garden, Adam and Eve did live in a cave. The "Cave of Treasures". So, they would have been "Cave People". I believe that Adam and Eve were the beginning of the "thinking" man...and therin lies the difference, to me. They understood laws of man and consequences. Before we could "think" and understand and make choices, we were just animals. I know that animals have loyalty and empathy (some of them)...but it is still just their nature. Once we could think...we could choose. We could choose Christ...which, I feel, is our entire reason for being. He wants to be surrounded (on the day of his choosing) by those who choose Him, too. Just as we can't make decisions for our children after a certain point, He does not impose His will on us. Some kids stay "lost", too. Isa.43:21 says that the people He formed for Himself were formed that they may proclaim His praise. Everyday, as I look around (and even during difficult times), I see more things that amaze me and I think..."Jesus Christ! Whoever made this sure knew what they were doing!" It may seem like a lifetime (full of good and bad things...) but, since I do believe in the Bible 100%...I think how much longer eternity will be. I just dont question anymore. I don't feel like I'm so heavenly that I'm of no earthly good...because I still do things I shouldn't and make bad decisions...after all, I am human! This is why I never tell anyone that they must do this or that or they will go to hell! As long as we have a breath left in us, we don't have to go to hell. God gave us a thinking mind and expects us to use it. Science is beautiful (I love science...if science were a man, I'd have probably already married it...at least once or twice..sigh). But science works differently for me...to me, it confirms that there is a God. Science cannot prove to me that there is no God.

MAN! I can't believe I was compelled (as Slimland put it) back into this! I will put in my disclaimer...the ideas and thoughts above in no way reflect those of anyone else here, nor is the one who thought them qualified to defend them....they are merely the musings of a bloo muse....(I would say Moose but I'm afraid dle might hit me!) LOL...Sorry...I couldn't help it...
Actually, much of what the Bible says about earliest man may be less than accurate. The reason for my guess is: (First Book of Adam and Eve, pseudepigrapha, apocrypha, lost books (http://www.fortunecity.com/tinpan/drumandbass/315/pseudo/ae.html)) This book is simply a version of an account handed down by word of mouth, from generation to generation, linking the time that the first human life was created to the time when somebody finally decided to write it down. This particular version is the work of unknown Egyptians. The lack of historical allusion makes it difficult to precisely date the writing, however, using other pseudepigraphical works as a reference, it was probably written a few hundred years before the birth of Christ. Parts of this version are found in the Jewish Talmud, and the Islamic Koran, showing what a vital role it played in the original literature of human wisdom. The Egyptian author wrote in Arabic, but later were found written in Ethiopic.
Although, the general idea may remain very close to the original, word of mouth has a way of losing specific data. It's call "HUMAN MEMORY LAPSE". So, do I believe the Bible is correct? As correct as humanly possible. Is it accurate, word for word as some would have me believe? Absolutely not. For too long a time, and in too many ways, human error has been allowed to be introduced into it. After all, alzheimer's is not an invention of the twentieth century, because that's when it was identified.

matcat

06-25-2009, 12:28 AM

Windwalker

06-25-2009, 03:30 AM

There is a method of which books of antiquity are measured for accuracy, and it is a very detailed and lengthy research process, however no other book in history gets a high a score as a bible with this test.
I admit, I am not familiar with this test.
The dead sea scrolls where a big success for Christian scientists, because it predates the earliest known copies of the old testament, by something like 400 years, and there is not a single difference between them other then the spelling of a few names. The ancient jews where excellent at record keeping, plus management of the holy scripture was considered of the utmost hollyness, and handled very carefully.

I'm sorry but I do not buy into the 'has changed over time' argument at all. Also of note not too long ago they found scrolls even older then the red sea scrolls, not as complete, but what they have still matches completely.
I was not meaning to imply that they were sloppy about it, or careless. But, from one language to another,

No where does it say they married their siblings either, the bible does not say, some believe others where created with adam and eve, yet others believe the gene pool was designed to allow for some incest without a break down of the DNA.
Forgotten Books of Eden: First Book of Adam and Eve (http://reluctant-messenger.com/eden_1.htm)

First Book of Adam and Eve

The First Book of Adam and Eve Prologue: The First Book of Adam and Eve details the life and times of Adam and Eve after they were expelled from the garden to the time that Cain kills his brother Abel. It tells of Adam and Eve's first dwelling - the Cave of Treasures; their trials and temptations; Satan's many apparitions to them; the birth of Cain, Abel, and their twin sisters; and Cain's love for his beautiful twin sister, Luluwa, whom Adam and Eve wished to join to Abel. This book is considered by many scholars to be part of the "Pseudepigrapha" (soo-duh-pig-ruh-fuh). The "Pseudepigrapha" is a collection of historical biblical works that are considered to be fiction. Because of that stigma, this book was not included in the compilation of the Holy Bible. This book is a written history of what happened in the days of Adam and Eve after they were cast out of the garden. Although considered to be pseudepigraphic by some, it carries significant meaning and insight into events of that time. It is doubtful that these writings could have survived all the many centuries if there were no substance to them.
God did know his creation would mostly turn to evil, he knew it before he created us. He knew he would flood the world, and he knew he would scatter the people and give them unique languages, as a side note there is some interesting study in that aspect of when God separated the people and destroyed the tower of babel, if oe is so inclined to study it. He knew man would accept and allow evil long before he made us, why? Without the choice of evil, there is no free will, period. Or free will has NOTHING to do with our ability to make day to day choices, it has to do with our ability to choose God, or to not choose God, very simple.
I'm sorry. I have found them in the past, the english translations that anyone could read, but spending more than an hour tonight, I have not found them. This is the only thing I've found tonight. However, it does talk about Cain and his sister, and in the translations I read last year, it also said that Seth married his other sister.

Windwalker

06-25-2009, 04:05 AM

Second Book of Adam and Eve - Chapter I.
And Adam carried him, his tears streaming down his face; and went to the Cave of Treasures, where he laid him, and wound him up with sweet spices and myrrh.
5 And Adam and Eve continued by the burial of him in great grief a hundred and forty days. Abel was fifteen and a half years old, and Cain seventeen years and a half.
6 As for Cain, when the mourning for his brother was ended, he took his sister Luluwa and married her, without leave from his father and mother; for they could not keep him from her, by reason of their heavy heart.
7 He then went down to the bottom of the mountain, away from the garden, near to the place where he had killed his brother.
8 And in that place were many fruit trees and forest trees. His sister bare him children, who in their turn began to multiply by degrees until they filled that place.

Chapter VII.
Seth marries Aklia. Adam lives to see grand children and great - grand children.

WHEN our father Adam saw that Seth was of a perfect heart, he wished him to marry; lest the enemy should appear to him another time, and overcome him.
2 So Adam said to his son Seth, "I wish, 0 my son, that thou wed thy sister Aklia, Abel's sister, that she may bear thee children, who shall replenish the earth, according to God's promise to us.
3 "Be not afraid, 0 my son; there is no disgrace in it. I wish thee to marry, from fear lest the enemy overcome thee.'
4 Seth, however, did not wish to marry; but in obedience to his father and mother, he said not a word.
5 So Adam married him to Aklia. And he was fifteen years old.
6 But when he was twenty years of age, he begat a son, whom he called Enos; and then begat other children than him,
7 Then Enos grew up, married, and begat Cainan.
8 Cainan also grew up, married, and begat Mahalaleel.
So, you see... I did not make any of it up.

And, Bloo... If you follow the link in my previous post, you'll see that it refers to them living in caves.

Windwalker

06-25-2009, 04:23 AM

It might be worth noting that archeology has referred to these texts as well and with their help, did locate a few locations for dig sites. And, I know that there is one that is using these texts to try to locate the Garden of Eden. Personally, I don't think he's going to have any luck since it seems that mankind is never to be able to return there.

Slimland

06-25-2009, 03:57 PM

The bible as we know it {the Canonized} is not the whole thing.. That is putting God in the box that certain men wanted him to be..
What WindWalker is talking about it the uncanonized version, that has all the writings including the apocrypha. All of this including other beliefs and mythos are just like there predecessor the sumerian mythos.

Abraham cam from Ur, which was in Sumeria Maybe he was the only one to still hear the Annanuki. I really don't know, but I do know that God does not belong in a box, I myself spent many years holding Him in there for my own ideal of him. But have come to realize that God is just to big for that box, and most Christians will not adhere to the Truth cause it don't fit in there box of God.

God does what he wants, he is not bound by Law, but at times has been know to subject himself to his law. If he where bound by a Law of His own, it would be not to deny himself. Thus he cannot Sin for that is the root of Sin is unbelief.
I myself question God all the time, becuase I tend to lean on my own understanding. I do not see the use or the whole picture of why it has to be this way or that. When God can just do it the way it should be..
You say free will is the reason why! There is no free will!! when it boils down to it.

Yeah we have free will to choose or not, but not without consiquences. WHat kind of free will is that? It is not! That is saying do this or die. He has unconditional love, but with conditions. THat is contradictory. But we are the horse drawn to the carrot that dangles in front of us. and we call that faith and hope. And maybe one day the love of god might let you have that carrot, as long as you give up you free will, then he will love you unconditionaly with his conditions..

That is religion in a nutshell. That is the bassis of amost all beliefs including Christianity..
I see God totally diffrent than those, but that is for another time.

Slimland

BlooMoose

06-25-2009, 04:10 PM

So, you see... I did not make any of it up.

And, Bloo... If you follow the link in my previous post, you'll see that it refers to them living in caves.

I never thought you made anything up, WW...I have not studied up enough on any of it. I don't think living in a cave makes a caveman, though. I figured there were other people on the earth along with Adam and Eve. I am not trying to oppose here. I find all the information presented very interesting. I will go to that link!

Windwalker

06-25-2009, 04:31 PM

There is another site that gives a full reading of "THE FIRST BOOK OF ADAM", "SECOND BOOK OF ADAM", "THIRD BOOK OF ADAM", "FIRST BOOK OF ENOS", etc. I've been looking for it, but with no success. Slim and I had a short exchange and I think I sent him that link too. Don't remember. You could spend the next 3 weeks reading it and still not get done.

Windwalker

06-25-2009, 06:10 PM

I never thought you made anything up, WW...I have not studied up enough on any of it. I don't think living in a cave makes a caveman, though. I figured there were other people on the earth along with Adam and Eve. I am not trying to oppose here. I find all the information presented very interesting. I will go to that link!
We tend to think of Neanderthal as a cave man, but the fact is that Neanderthal, and Cro-Magnon both had working societies. They didn't simply communicate with a series of grunts, but had a language and writing. Since Homo-Sapien did not come on the scene until 6,000 BC, any text priior to that would have come from Cro-Magnon or Neanderthal, or both.

I had been looking to see if there was a correlation between the end of Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon, and the Great Flood. According to the Bible (and those who interpret it), the Flood occured about 2345 BC. Archeology states that it happened 500 years earlier, which would make it 2845 BC. But, so far, the evidence suggests that Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon both died out when Homo-Sapien came along. It would stand to reason that we (Homo-Sapien) are a product of the two. And, the Flood would have insured that we, via Gilgamesh, survived while the rest would have perished in the flood. The dates do not match, but then again... I'm very certain that all the evidence is not in yet.

In the end, both MUST coincide. You can not have an earth created by GOD that has already existed. The constants of nuclear decay do not change. The rate at which daughter elements are formed do not change. So, calculating the age of something beyond carbon-dating is still quite accurate.

Obviously, GOD, being a perfect Being, is also not wrong. As originally written, the Inspired Word of GOD would have to have been accurate in it's original form, and in the understanding and terminalogy at the time. So, the wild-card here is Man. After how many times it has had to be translated, and copied, man has introduced errors, either by not being able to copy word for word, or by misunderstanding terms used in a previous language and text.

In the end (and many of us may not be around by then ), I believe science will not refute the Bible, but instead, it will uphold the Bible. But, errors introduced by man will stand corrected.

golfhobo

07-02-2009, 05:41 AM

The bible as we know it {the Canonized} is not the whole thing.. That is putting God in the box that certain men wanted him to be..

What WindWalker is talking about it the uncanonized version, that has all the writings including the apocrypha. All of this including other beliefs and mythos are just like there predecessor the sumerian mythos.

Slimland

A simple point of debate, Slim....

As we discussed once (with my Dad's help,) the Apocrypha and other books were not "cannonized" because they simply didn't rise to the level of "certification" that the other books did.

This is NOT "putting GOD in a box." It is, if anything, putting MAN'S writings in a box.

ANYONE could have written anything they wanted, and claimed it was "inspired" or truthful.

The books that are included in the Holy Bible are the ones that could be "certified" as being true to gospel, and inspired by God (and mostly written by his apostles.) If the Catholics are good at ANYTHING.... it is research and authentication! :lol2:

This does not mean that I wouldn't find something interesting in the Apocrypha.... IF I ever took the time to read it. I am only saying that I don't find that the "cannonized" version of the Bible necessarily puts GOD in a box.

I think those who rely on "other writings" are searching for something they can't FIND in the Bible. I have no problem with that. I like to read Plato and Socrates.

In general though, I agree with you that MAN can never understand the enormity of GOD.... IF there is such a being.

In truth, however.... I believe that ALL history is "revisionist." ALL writings are perspectively biased. ALL "theories" are just that.

Anyone who lives their life based on what they were TOLD to believe, has already surrendered FREE WILL.... and risks losing at least SOME part of their potential.

Windwalker

07-04-2009, 03:44 AM

The fact that I take more than a passing interest in archeology does not mean I do not believe the Bible. However, I find it interesting that the Bible refers to Nephilim as "The Sons of GOD", and says that they were evil. Before he died, Sadam referred to the United States as "the Great Serpent of SHATAIN".

"And, there were giants upon the earth in those days".

While Neanderthal was only about 4 1/2 to 5 feet tall, Cro-Magnon was between 8 and 9 feet tall. I believe they would have qualified as "giants". While Neanderthal was shorter, he was also stocky and strong. Cro-magnon, on the other hand was slender, and more agile. From everything I've read in the Bible (and in nearly every version of the Bible), the unions between the Sons of GOD and the daughters of man was not approved of. My guess is that there may have been a number of confrontations between them. However, Neanderthal would have been throwing stones, and had wooden spears that didn't leave their hands. They would have had to be next to their oponent and jabbed them with it. Cro-magnon, on the other hand, had throwing spears, and a device that the butt of the spear would rest in, and when thrown, would add distance to it. Clearly, Cro-magnon would have had superior weapons in any confrontation.

TO THE "VICTOR" GO THE SPOILS...

If Cro-magnon came away victorious from any confrontation with Neanderthal, what spoils would he have been interested in? Cro-magnon already had more advanced weapons and tools, so most of the spoils of Neanderthal would have been left behind, except perhaps, for the skins, and the women. When I look at later societies, such as Egyptian, or Roman, those spoils were made slaves, not wives. However, man's instinct being what it is, the Neanderthal women may also have been sex slaves.

When MacArthor said "I WILL RETURN", he evacuated, but left a number of nurses behind. They were raped repeatedly by the Japanese Army.

When Africans were brought here as slaves, the movie "ROOTS" only showed one woman being forced into sex with her master, but if the truth be known, I'll bet many of them were, and many of them, repeatedly, and many also got pregnant that way.

It is quite possible that births among Neanderthal Women with Cro-magnon men outnumbered the births of Cro-magnon women with their Cro-Magnon husbands.

Speculation: If you cross a small dog with a St Bernard, you get a dog that's somewhere in between in size, and looks. If you cross Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal, you get Homo-Sapien???

Something else that I found interesting:

Who Were the Nephilim? (http://www.nwcreation.net/nephilim.html)
Another logical interpretation for the ''Sons of God'' is they were other created men. It is largely assumed that Adam and Eve were the only humans created in the beginning, but the Bible does not describe every person on earth, nor even everyone that was important to God. Only key individuals or situations are included within the text, and we can not say with certainty that God only created one pair of humans.

There is also a fable, or myth (what ever you might want to call it) about "Lilith" being created the same time as Adam. Although, the way the story goes, it sounds a bit far-fetched, they say that since it has survived through time till now, it may have some value. Supposedly, she was able to speak GOD's true name, rise up into the air, and fly to anywhere she wanted to go. Makes me wonder why Adam could not do the same. Did his tongue get tangled up in his eye teeth?

But, archeology does bare out things in the Bible. Cro-magnon was tall, and for anyone up to 6 feet tall, would be thought of as giants. (I admit, I would really like meeting a Cro-magnon woman. Someone else's turn to get a crick in their neck from looking down into my eyes.)

Referring to them a evil would sound a lot like what happened during King Author's Crusades into the Holy Land. In the eyes of Islam, they represented the Devil. Even today, anyone with blue eyes carries the mark of the Devil. (And, that includes me. Naima's father would like to have killed me.)

I believe what we are reading in the Bible is the Neanderthal version of it all.

The genetic variation at the microcephalin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microcephalin) gene, a critical regulator of brain size whose loss-of-function by damaging mutations may also cause primary microcephaly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microcephaly), is claimed to be the most compelling evidence of admixture thus far. One type of the gene, dubbed haplogroup D having an exceptionally high worldwide frequency (~70%), was shown to have a remarkably young coalescence age to its most recent common ancestor ~37,000 years ago. The remaining types (non-D) coalesce to ~990,000 years ago, while the separation time between D and non-D was estimated at ~1,100,000 years ago. An evolutionary advance was assumed, even though positive selection was never as all-decisive as to wipe out the remaining 30% of non-D haplogroups (in which case no introgression could have been suggested) and as for now, a measurable genetic advance has not been attested.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_interaction_with_Cro-Magnons#cite_note-5)
Both the worldwide frequency distribution of the D allele, exceptionally high outside of Africa but low in sub-Saharan Africa (29%) that suggests involvement of an archaic Eurasian population, and current estimates of the divergence time between modern humans and Neanderthals based on mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), are in favor of the Neanderthal lineage as the most likely archaic Homo population from which introgression into the modern human gene pool took place. [7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_interaction_with_Cro-Magnons#cite_note-6)[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_interaction_with_Cro-Magnons#cite_note-7)
The case for fertile reproduction was recently revived by studies that claim signs of admixture (introgression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introgression)), finding unusually deep genealogies in highly divergent clades (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clades) (genetic branches). However, most of the times this feature can be explained by balancing selection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balancing_selection). For instance, estimates on the gene for red hair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_hair) vary from 20,000 to 100,000 years ago[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_interaction_with_Cro-Magnons#cite_note-nicole-8)[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_interaction_with_Cro-Magnons#cite_note-ox.ac.uk-9), though there is no compelling evidence to assume red hair didn't coexist with other hair colours all along within one and the same population. Moreover, Lalueza-Fox and colleagues found a different variant of the same gene in their Neanderthal samples, that similarly disabled a protein to the same effect

Considering that in that era, there was no "social code of conduct", laws regarding sexual offenses, the victor in any confrontation would have been free to do as he pleased. However, it seems that Cro-magnon lead a hard life. Evidence has been found that a few survived with vertibrae in the neck fused from injury, and it is believed that their society took care of the injured. Is it possible that Neanderthal didn't go quietly after all?

What I have not been able to find is the origin of Cro-magnon. Were they actually an off-shoot of Neanderthal? Or were they another evolutionary branch.

Syncrosonix

07-22-2009, 10:08 PM

Windwalker

07-23-2009, 04:17 AM

penn & teller: the bible is BS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRiQ6Ksw7xo)

there are three parts to the episode. that is the first one. the points brought up in the episode are pretty much the same that i've brought up in the past, and back in high school.
I see that "penn & teller" describe it as "bullcrap". That would be just a bit less than accurate. The fact that archeology uses both it and the Quran to locate sites for digs says that it is a actually a fairly accurate record of history. Biased, perhaps, but a record none the less, with discriptions of locations and events. Whether they have anything to do with GOD is something you have to make up in your own mind.

Syncrosonix

07-23-2009, 05:23 AM

i think we all go to bababooeyland after we die.

Windwalker

07-26-2009, 03:02 AM

Just noticed something, and I'm wondering if anyone else has ever noticed it.

Different Bibles seem to have slightly different information. Not exactly different, but sort of "rounding things off".

Cain was born within the first 100 years after Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden. Then Abel, and then Seth. After Cain murdered Abel, he told GOD he was afraid someone would kill him. Who??? Adam? Eve? Seth wasn't even a gleem in his daddy's eye yet. So, who? But, GOD put a mark upon him. It seems that mark was inherited by his line of descent.

Before the flood, Noah already had two wives that were "seed of Seth". GOD told him to take another woman for a wife, that was "seed of Cain". "For she is a righteous woman and tries to serve GOD, though she does carry the mark of Cain. GOD did not want the "seed of Cain" to vanish from the earth because of the coming flood. And, she became the mother of Ham.

Then, not long after the flood, Cain appears in time to get murdered himself. Now, I'm not nearly as interested in just how Cain survived the flood without the aid of Noah and his Ark, but if you would, check my "cyphering"...

Cain - Born about 39,950 BC... Give or take about 50 years or so...
Date of the flood - about November 11, 2345 (according to Biblical "experts")
Or...
Date of the flood - about 2845 (according to science.)

So, what I'd like to know... Just how large a birthday cake did they have to have for him for the last year before he was killed in order to fit 26,000 PLUS candles on it????

If no one in the early years of the Bible lived to reach 1,000 years, how did he live to be a ripe, old, rikkety, age of more than 26,000 years???

ssoutlaw

09-25-2009, 09:00 PM

While it's true that other animals communicate, they use sounds and "BODY LANGUAGE" to get the message across. Even dogs do that. But, man is the only one that, to date, is able to articulate speech. Even dolphins include body language in their communications. But, I'm not a geneticist, so I have to accept what I read and hear about it. From everything I've heard and read, man is the only one that carries the gene that gives us the power of speech.

My brother has a parrot that has a 100 word vocabulary...lol You can more than understand every word!

Windwalker

09-26-2009, 06:15 PM

My brother has a parrot that has a 100 word vocabulary...lol You can more than understand every word!
And, has the bird been check to see if it has or doesn't have that "speech gene"?

GMAN

10-03-2009, 04:01 PM

It seems that when someone attempts to disprove something in the Bible they wind up proving it. :D

Twilight Flyer

10-03-2009, 05:00 PM

Interesting point about the parrot. I had a friend a while back that had an African Gray. Ash had a vocabularly of 500+ words...simply a phenominal bird. And Grays are also one of the smartest birds in the world. They are intelligent and capable of thought processes. There is a famous one named Einstein that has a vocabulary of well over a thousand words...I've seen a couple videos of it. You can probably YouTube her.

But I'll give you a couple of examples of Ash's ability to communicate.

Ash had free run of the house, wings were not clipped, and my friend had a regular habit of taking him for walks around the neighborhood when Ash riding on his shoulder. Because of their closeness, Ash had developed quite the personality. He would terrorize the cats (they had 4...2 inside and 2 outside) and he was flat out a smart-*****.

His sudden response one day to one of Dallas' wife's friends...a large lady that had the habit of doing a sing-song "pretty bird" routine whenever she came over was..."f*** you, lady, I'm a chicken!" Sure, Dallas had taught him that, but full sentences were common with this bird. I thought I was going to die that day when I head that one. :rofl:

I remember playing cards in the dining room one night and Ash was making a ruckus in the other room, hollering at one of the cats. Dallas yelled out to Ash that if he didn't shut up, he was going to turn him into chicken soup. Ash came walking (yes, he walked all over the house) into the room, clucking like a chicken. Dallas never taught him that, but thinks his wife did.

Ash would hide behind doors to scare cats when they walked by, he tormented the outside cats when they came up to the door, he did absolutely everything that one would think required intelligent thought to come up with.

The point is, God didn't make "dumb" animals. And while it was man that taught Ash to speak, it was Ash's intelligence that enabled him to communicate with man's speech.

GMAN

10-04-2009, 04:39 AM

The point is, God didn't make "dumb" animals. And while it was man that taught Ash to speak, it was Ash's intelligence that enabled him to communicate with man's speech.

Good point, Twilight Flyer. :thumbsup:

ssoutlaw

10-16-2009, 07:08 PM

And, has the bird been check to see if it has or doesn't have that "speech gene"?

Better late than never...lol
Cant tell you anything about a speech gene!!! All I can tell you is the parrot talks, and can answer some simple questions!!!.....lol Much like most truck drivers....lol

ssoutlaw

10-16-2009, 07:09 PM

It seems that when someone attempts to disprove something in the Bible they wind up proving it. :D

I believe you are right!!!!

Windwalker

10-16-2009, 11:45 PM

GMAN[/b]]It seems that when someone attempts to disprove something in the Bible they wind up proving it. :D
I believe you are right!!!!
Well, I did not start this thread to try to disprove the Bible (if that's what it looked like). But, we do tend to take the writings of the Bible, word-for-word, and when looking at the errors in translation that we are able to trace, we need to consider the number of times it may have been translated since the very first "inspired words" were written. How many more errors in translation were introduced before the earliest records we are able to locate? So far, the oldest records we have are the "Dead-Sea Scrolls". Yet, man was created around 40,000 BC and surely, there would have been records between then and 150 to 70 BC when the scrolls are believed to have been written. But, where are they? It would seem that most did not survive the ravages of time. And, Creation is an excellent example.

Between Archeology, anthropology, and paleanthology, many of the events given to us by the Bible have been proven to be reasonably accurate. Yet, the seven days of creation, that we are told lasted a whole seven days, have been proven inaccurate. That is, unless you take each day of Creation as a relative period of time, rather than a hard and fast rule of our 24 hour days. And, that "relative period of time" would seem to be supported even more by the events in Exodus. All natural events that occurred with IMPECCABLE TIMING. For a GOD that is so able to use natural events to impress HIS will on the earth and it's inhabitants, to simply snap his fingers to create something would be a bit out of character for him. Instead, it would seem far more within his character to have guided evolution over a period of time to create his masterpieces.

We also seem to assume that when GOD created man, man looked just like us. This too, does not seem to hold up to the test of science. There is no evidence of our species, "HOMO-SAPIEN, SAPIEN" before 6,000 BC. The earliest evidence of Homo Sapien, Cro-Magnon, is a fossil found that dates back to 37,000 BC, and they are thought to have showed up on the earth about 40,000 BC, and it's an interesting coincidence that GOD created the earth around that same time. Prior to that, Archaic Homo Sapien reigned on the earth form 180,000 to about 30,000 BC. According to mtDNA, Homo Sapien split off from Archaic Homo Sapien about 170,000 BC, yet, there is no surviving evidence of them from 170,000 to 37,000 BC.

The Bible talks about the "Sons of GOD" and the "daughters of man". Fallen Angels? Really? I have a feeling this is not entirely accurate either. During WWII, the Allies won the war because "GOD was on our side". The Hebrews were GOD's chosen people. Homo Sapien was far more advanced than any other species on earth. Want to bet... "Sons of GOD". And, Archaic Homo Sapien would have been the source of "the daughters of man". The Bible also talks about "TAKING for wives, all that they would". There was no negotiation, or permission granted. The women were simply taken. Homo Sapien was far superior to Archaic Homo Sapien and would have been capable of doing just that.

Physically, Archaic Homo Sapien was not capable of throwing a spear or a rock. Skeletal Structure did not permit them to do so. Homo Sapien, on the other hand most certainly was. Science is at a loss to explain the disappearance of Archaic Homo Sapien, yet that passage in the Bible would suggest that they were hunted into extinction for the women. Again, science is not able to prove or disprove whether there were any off-spring between the two species, but the Bible says there were. mtDNA suggests there was not, but science also admits that there could have been a shift in the mtDNA, and only cellular DNA will answer that. It stands to reason that any off-spring between Homo Sapien and Archaic Homo Sapien would have been absorbed into Homo Sapien society, and that shift in mtDNA would have happened. And, at this point, science does not have the technology to extract cellular DNA from a fossil, so theories abound, and mine is as good as the next.

My whole point is not to say that the Bible is wrong, and there is no GOD. But, our understanding of the Bible is flawed, and most likely due to errors in translation. And, there were 39,630 years in which those errors would have happened, and in just the last 2,000 years of the new testament, there are thousands of differences between the two oldest complete Bibles in the world. Now, extend that ratio back another 39,000 years, and what are you left with? Considering how much of the Bible has been proven by science, the Bible is not an invalid record. Even though, science and theology do not agree on the date of the flood, they both do agree that it did happen. And, while the Bible would have us believe that the great flood was universal, it seems that a small outpost of Cro-Magnon did survive the flood without the aid of Noah and his ark, on the Canary Islands, until the 15th century. There is also no mention of a flood in their mythology. And, the fact that science does not discard the Bible would suggest that we do not either. But, where any other record is amended when proven wrong, the Bible is not. That may be our biggest error with regard to the Bible.