Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 31
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Enschede / Netherlands
    Posts
    2,602
    This is very interesting, the Omega-rainbow:




    and RAM was the inventor of it!

    http://www.biblewheel.com/GR/GR_800.php

    It indeed sheds new light on the saying "I am the Alpha and the Omega" - even as example of the integration of Greek and Hebrew gematria.

    Omega being "the sign", "the token of the covenant".

    23rd sign,

    http://www.hadafah.com/haot.htm

    HaOt receives its name from Exodus 3:12.

    HaOt: In Hebrew the sound Ha before a word is the definite article: The; and Ot means both Sign and Letter. Thus HaOt is pronounced: Ha-Ot and means The Sign. Throughout history the four-pronged Shin has been called by many names: The Missing Letter; The Lost Letter; The Found Sound; The Wholly Letter; The Holy Letter; The Letter of the World to Come; The 23rd Letter; The letter of Kindness; Shin with Four Heads; and Ot Olam, The Eternal Letter.
    Omega is a vocal-sign, you even might say "the mother of all reading",

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mater_lectionis

    Sign of divine mercy.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by sylvius View Post
    This is very interesting, the Omega-rainbow:




    and RAM was the inventor of it!

    http://www.biblewheel.com/GR/GR_800.php

    It indeed sheds new light on the saying "I am the Alpha and the Omega" - even as example of the integration of Greek and Hebrew gematria.

    Omega being "the sign", "the token of the covenant".

    23rd sign,

    http://www.hadafah.com/haot.htm



    Omega is a vocal-sign, you even might say "the mother of all reading",

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mater_lectionis

    Sign of divine mercy.
    Let me get this straight .... are we actually agreeing about something?

    But I've never seen much significance in the idea of a "23rd sign" since that seems like it's just made up out of human imagination. I have a very strong habit of not putting much "stock" in such things.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Enschede / Netherlands
    Posts
    2,602
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Let me get this straight .... are we actually agreeing about something?

    But I've never seen much significance in the idea of a "23rd sign" since that seems like it's just made up out of human imagination. I have a very strong habit of not putting much "stock" in such things.

    So maybe there is more in "reishit" = 911 = "charis".

    http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/show...0825#post50825

    Genesis 1:1 to be read as "With favor God created the heaven and the earth"

    Favor being the main thing of the universe, Hebrew "chen", gematria 58.

    Brilliant being the polished diamond with 58 facets

    http://www.brinksjewellers.com/diamonds-4-c.html

    A good cut enables a diamond to make the best use of light. A round brilliant cut diamond has 58 facets, which are small flat polished surfaces cut into a diamond. When a diamond is in proper proportion light is reflected from one facet to another and then dispersed through the table facet. When diamonds are cut too deep or shallow light is allowed to escape.


  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Enschede / Netherlands
    Posts
    2,602
    Brilliance is Hebrew "zohar"

    Daniel 12:3,

    וְהַמַּשְׂכִּלִים יַזְהִרוּ כְּזֹהַר הָרָקִיעַ, "v'hamashkilim yizharu k'zohar harakia", And the enlightened will shine like the brilliance of the firmament.


    The book Zohar is so called after Spanish Luz, after "que haya luz" = let there be light.

    http://ec.aciprensa.com/c/cabala.htm

    Su t√*tulo Zohar (luz, resplandor) es obtenido de las palabras del G√©nesis 1:3 ("Que haya luz") con la exposici√≥n de las cuales comienza.


    Hebrew Luz is the name of the place where Jacob dreamt of the ladder, which he renamed in Bet-El.

    It is also the name of the bone that cannot decay, not dissolve in water nor be burnt in fire.

    And it is a nut, i.e. the kernel can be eaten, the eighth fruit of the land (after the seven fruits of Deuteronomy 8:8)

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    When I said it contradicts "ALL scientific evidence" I was referring to ideas like the following:
    • A global flood. This is contradicted by the annual ice cores which show no interruption in the last 100,000 years.
    • A global extinction of all terrestrial life. There is no evidence for this, and much against it.
    • A water canopy - there is no evidence for this. It was invented merely in an attempt to explain some Bible verses.
    • etc.
    I know, but you exclude other data and exclude the extra-natural from the data which you claim is accurate.

    Ron Wyatt is not the main source of 'eye witness' accounts, and I somewhat question his duniper site as acurate. The talmud records people knowing where it was and various sightins and visitations are recorded up to/through biblical times.


    In science, we often infer things that "were there" that now "are not there." We infer them from EVIDENCE. It is the EVIDENCE that implies they were there. What evidence implies a water canopy? None that I know of.
    Again,what evidence would you desire to proof that it was once there.??


    I have never studied the animals that were "quickly frozen." If you would supply a link to the evidence that you find compelling I will review it.
    So here would be evidence to contradict your theories and time-lines and yet you say that you've never studied it? And to which discussion you say all the evidence contradicts a 'global flood". And you criticized us for believing it? For one, you could search for the baby mammoth that was unearthed 2 yrs ago almost completely intact. http://www.bing.com/search?q=Frozen+...1-25&sp=-1&sk=

    What does the fact that "dinosaurs would have take Huge amounts of vegetation" prove?
    What was coal formed from? Why are there upside down petrified tree trunks found among the coal mines in Pa?

    What does petrified wood prove?
    How could wood "petrify" unless buried and buried with the right chemical solutions? How could wood petrify if simply deadened in a natural fall, living in the middle of a forest.

    What do the z shaped layers prove?
    Think about it Richard. If the geological strata was supposed to be laid down over millions and billions of years, with each strata hardening under the weight and time of other strata, how could strata of rock several layers thick and several tens of feet thick twist itself into a z shape without breaking the rocks?

    Why are aquatic fossils and shells found in rock formations in and within mountains.???


    I don't understand how Deut 5:29 shows that "the earth was changed."
    It was Gen 5:29, sorry.

    But why should we believe any mythology about Nimrod? He's barely mentioned in the Bible
    .

    Nimrod is the Hebrew name for Marduk of the babylons and Nibiru from the Sumerians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12th_Planet I believe that the Egyptians and the Greeks/Romans have another name for him... Nimrod is the founder of the babylonian cult religions. He rebelled against and usurped God's way and counterfeited the way of life and faith given through Eve and Noah to Abraham. Abraham and Nimrod were contemporaries and knew each other; though Nimrod was older. Nimrod was the founder of "Religion through rituals and religious law and especially man-made or man ordained religions. That is why the practices of the mosaic covenant became known as babylon the great after Christ fulfilled those types. Nimrod is not a-theism but anti-revealed theism.

    And people have been known to be rather "creative" when inventing mythology around biblical characters
    The 'mythology' is not around the bible characters. The fact that the bible characters are referred to in other cultures by different names helps support the reality of the persons.
    Last edited by EndtimesDeut32/70AD; 12-02-2012 at 09:39 PM.
    1Thess 4:8 He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto us his holy Spirit.
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    If you are oppressed and enslaved by religious law, you may have a tendency to oppress, enslave and attempt to lord over others who are free.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by EndtimesDeut32/70AD View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM
    When I said it contradicts "ALL scientific evidence" I was referring to ideas like the following:

    • A global flood. This is contradicted by the annual ice cores which show no interruption in the last 100,000 years.
    • A global extinction of all terrestrial life. There is no evidence for this, and much against it.
    • A water canopy - there is no evidence for this. It was invented merely in an attempt to explain some Bible verses.
    • etc.
    I know, but you exclude other data and exclude the extra-natural from the data which you claim is accurate.
    What "other data" do I "exclude"?

    What "extra-natural" data do I exclude that I say is "accurate"?

    Quote Originally Posted by EndtimesDeut32/70AD View Post
    Ron Wyatt is not the main source of 'eye witness' accounts, and I somewhat question his duniper site as acurate. The talmud records people knowing where it was and various sightins and visitations are recorded up to/through biblical times.
    I more than "question" his site is accurate. I have no reason to believe any of it. By all evidence, he was a total wack-job.

    The fact that the Talmud records people "knowing" things means nothing because the Talmud is full of unverified claims and rank superstitions.

    Quote Originally Posted by EndtimesDeut32/70AD View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM
    In science, we often infer things that "were there" that now "are not there." We infer them from EVIDENCE. It is the EVIDENCE that implies they were there. What evidence implies a water canopy? None that I know of.
    Again,what evidence would you desire to proof that it was once there.??
    Any evidence! The problem is that there is no more evidence for the water canopy than there is for pink unicorns on the moon.

    Quote Originally Posted by EndtimesDeut32/70AD View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM
    I have never studied the animals that were "quickly frozen." If you would supply a link to the evidence that you find compelling I will review it.
    So here would be evidence to contradict your theories and time-lines and yet you say that you've never studied it? And to which discussion you say all the evidence contradicts a 'global flood". And you criticized us for believing it? For one, you could search for the baby mammoth that was unearthed 2 yrs ago almost completely intact. http://www.bing.com/search?q=Frozen+...1-25&sp=-1&sk=
    How does the frozen baby wooly mammoth "contradict my theories and time-lines"? I haven't studied them because they present no problem that I know of.

    I have presented the evidence that contradicts the idea of a global flood. You have answered none of it. There is no evidence of any mass extinction in recent times. There is no evidence of any genetic bottle neck that would exist if all the animals descended from pairs in recent history. The ice core samples from Antarctica are unbroken. There should be a layer showing a flood if one existed. And there are countless other problems.

    Quote Originally Posted by EndtimesDeut32/70AD View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM
    What does the fact that "dinosaurs would have take Huge amounts of vegetation" prove?
    What was coal formed from? Why are there upside down petrified tree trunks found among the coal mines in Pa?
    Your line of questioning shows that you have been reading creationist literature. Have you studied real geology at all? If so, you would know how geologists answer your question and you would not have asked it. I've seen ridiculous and deliberately deceptive assertions made by creationists concerning polystrate trees. Our friend David M was deceived by them when he posted this claim:
    This is a fossil tree is supposedly extending through millions of years of strata. Think about that. Does that make sense.
    How long does it take to form sedimentary layers? Charles Officer is a research professor at Dartmouth. In his 1996 book, The Great Dinosaur Extinction Mystery, he says, "...a rate of one centimeter per 1000 years is typical," p.56. But just look and think about this 30 foot fossil tree. It is one of hundreds found near Cookville, TN in the Kettles coal mines which derived their name from the shape of the lower portion of these fossil trees. This tree begins in one coal seam, protrudes upward through numerous layers and finally into another layer of coal.
    And here is how I answered:
    [You need] to understand that in the cases of the fossilized trees it was laid down quickly. This is obvious because otherwise the tree would have rotted. The creationist lied to you when he said that the "fossil tree is supposedly extending through millions of years of strata." That is the false claim that you uncritically accepted. There is not one geologist on the planet who would assert that. It is ridiculous beyond description. It is a perverse lie made up by creationists to deceive gullible Christians who do not check the facts. The truth is just the opposite. The truth is that mainstream geologists have no trouble understanding the fossil trees. The layers were obviously laid down very quickly. This is common knowledge. It was stated over and over again in the second paragraph of the wiki article that Rose cited for you called Geological Explanation:
    In geology, such fossils are referred to as upright fossils, trunks, or trees. Brief periods of rapid sedimentation favor their formation.[2][4] Upright fossils are typically found in layers associated with an actively subsiding coastal plain or rift basin, or with the accumulation of volcanic material around a periodically erupting stratovolcano. Typically, this period of rapid sedimentation was followed by a period of time, decades to thousands of years long, characterized by very slow or no accumulation of sediments. In river deltas and other coastal plain settings, rapid sedimentation is often the end result of a brief period of accelerated subsidence of an area of coastal plain relative to sea level caused by salt tectonics, global sea level rise, growth faulting, continental margin collapse, or some combination of these factors.[4] For example, geologists such as John W. F. Waldron and Michael C. Rygel have argued that the rapid burial and preservation of polystrate fossil trees found at Joggins, Nova Scotia was the direct result of rapid subsidence, caused by salt tectonics within an already subsiding pull apart basin, and resulting rapid accumulation of sediments.[5][6] The specific layers containing polystrate fossils occupy only a very limited fraction of the total area of any of these basins.[5][7]
    As you can see, the creationist claim about what geologists say directly contradicts what geologists really say! He has absolutely no excuse for asserting such a blatant falsehood. It was not a simple misunderstanding. He lied. This scientific explanation of the polystrate fossil trees has existed since the NINETEENTH CENTURY [source]!
    The kinds of "challenges" that you are presenting are typical deception put out by creationists. Most of them have been answered for over a century.

    Quote Originally Posted by EndtimesDeut32/70AD View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM
    What does petrified wood prove?
    How could wood "petrify" unless buried and buried with the right chemical solutions? How could wood petrify if simply deadened in a natural fall, living in the middle of a forest.
    Who says it wasn't buried?

    Quote Originally Posted by EndtimesDeut32/70AD View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM
    What do the z shaped layers prove?
    Think about it Richard. If the geological strata was supposed to be laid down over millions and billions of years, with each strata hardening under the weight and time of other strata, how could strata of rock several layers thick and several tens of feet thick twist itself into a z shape without breaking the rocks?
    The crust is very dynamic. How do mountains rise and fall? Do you have any understanding of geology at all, or do you just go about collecting "problems" in an effort to refute the entire body of science supported by tens of thousands of observations? Are you suggesting all the geologists are part of a grand conspiracy designed to disprove the Bible? If so, then you don't know anything about the history of geology. It began with many men fully committed to Biblical geology, but the evidence forced them to abandon those ideas.

    Do you have an alternate theory that could stand? If not, then what's the point of challenging an established body of science?

    Quote Originally Posted by EndtimesDeut32/70AD View Post
    Why are aquatic fossils and shells found in rock formations in and within mountains.???
    Plate tectonics dude! Do you reject all science?

    Quote Originally Posted by EndtimesDeut32/70AD View Post
    It was Gen 5:29, sorry.
    Genesis 5:29 29 And he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the LORD hath cursed.

    So you interpret God's "curse" as indicating a change? Even if true, it doesn't tell us the nature of the change. Is there any geological evidence for such a change?

    Quote Originally Posted by EndtimesDeut32/70AD View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM
    But why should we believe any mythology about Nimrod? He's barely mentioned in the Bible
    Nimrod is the Hebrew name for Marduk of the babylons and Nibiru from the Sumerians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12th_Planet I believe that the Egyptians and the Greeks/Romans have another name for him... Nimrod is the founder of the babylonian cult religions. He rebelled against and usurped God's way and counterfeited the way of life and faith given through Eve and Noah to Abraham. Abraham and Nimrod were contemporaries and knew each other; though Nimrod was older. Nimrod was the founder of "Religion through rituals and religious law and especially man-made or man ordained religions. That is why the practices of the mosaic covenant became known as babylon the great after Christ fulfilled those types. Nimrod is not a-theism but anti-revealed theism.
    The mythology developed around Nimrod is not proof of anything. It sounds like you got this info from Hyslop's ludicrous book "The Two Babylons."

    And neither is the "Twelfth Planet" a reliable source for anything in my estimation.

    There is no biblical foundation for your ideas about Nimrod.

    And it was the BIBLE that established "Religion through rituals and religious law" in Israel.

    Quote Originally Posted by EndtimesDeut32/70AD View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM
    And people have been known to be rather "creative" when inventing mythology around biblical characters
    The 'mythology' is not around the bible characters. The fact that the bible characters are referred to in other cultures by different names helps support the reality of the persons.
    How do you suggest we discern between mythology and authentic history?
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  7. #27
    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post

    What "extra-natural" data do I exclude that I say is "accurate"?
    Sorry Richard, this is getting a little to much like beating one's head against a wall.
    Your [and the scientist's] research only allow for natural progression of events according to the data in the way which they now observe occurring.
    Their conclusions and dating systems are thus also tied to natural progression and the recent historical knowledge rather than experiential knowledge. Thus, they exclude the possibility of a super and supra-natural influence global due to seeking to defeat a biblical account.

    I'm sure we've been through these arguments before, an there's no sense addressing them again.


    I more than "question" his site is accurate. I have no reason to believe any of it. By all evidence, he was a total wack-job.
    I disagree on some points, but that's not the topic of this thread.

    Any evidence! The problem is that there is no more evidence for the water canopy than there is for pink unicorns on the moon.
    Are you saying that there are not pink unicorns on the back side of the moon?

    Again, what evidence would you want to see of a vapor/water canopy which is fallen.? Would there supposed to be a glass dome which once encased it? What evidence would you want to see of something which is not there any longer?


    How does the frozen baby wooly mammoth "contradict my theories and time-lines"? I haven't studied them because they present no problem that I know of.
    How did they get instantly frozen?

    The ice core samples from Antarctica are unbroken. There should be a layer showing a flood if one existed. And there are countless other problems.
    Pick up a Thompson chain reference bible and study the archeological digs of Kish.. or is it Kush? I think I mentioned this to you before.


    Your line of questioning shows that you have been reading creationist literature.
    Wrong assumption, though I'm familiar with some of it.

    Have you studied real geology at all? If so, you would know how geologists answer your question and you would not have asked it. I've seen ridiculous and deliberately deceptive assertions made by creationists concerning polystrate trees.
    Perhaps deliberately deceptive to you, but your geologists now admit that "You need] to understand that in the cases of the fossilized trees it was laid down quickly. This is obvious because otherwise the tree would have rotted. I don't think any creationist has a particular bent against individuals within the evolutionary believers so that they would intentionally mislead or mis-state a perspective.

    But it must have occured only in KY. Gotcha.

    I'll look over the resto of your post later, but again you seem intent on belittling "ME" and claiming aboslute truth known by accepted science.
    Your agressiveness indicates to me an insecurity and demanding of my adoption of your beliefs.

    But that's another topic.

    Regarding the "Z" shaped rock strata:

    The crust is very dynamic. How do mountains rise and fall? Do you have any understanding of geology at all, or do you just go about collecting "problems" in an effort to refute the entire body of science supported by tens of thousands of observations? Are you suggesting all the geologists are part of a grand conspiracy designed to disprove the Bible? If so, then you don't know anything about the history of geology. It began with many men fully committed to Biblical geology, but the evidence forced them to abandon those ideas.
    I didnt' think you would have an answer for that.

    I counter that SOME interpretations of science are contrived to present informatiion or disinforation to support evolutionary theory rather than absolute and known with certainty fact. And I believe that some of this disinformation may be due to and a result of an intentional agenda or agenda's.
    Last edited by EndtimesDeut32/70AD; 12-04-2012 at 06:24 PM.
    1Thess 4:8 He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto us his holy Spirit.
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    If you are oppressed and enslaved by religious law, you may have a tendency to oppress, enslave and attempt to lord over others who are free.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by EndtimesDeut32/70AD View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM
    I know, but you exclude other data and exclude the extra-natural from the data which you claim is accurate.
    What "extra-natural" data do I exclude that I say is "accurate"?
    Sorry Richard, this is getting a little to much like beating one's head against a wall.
    Your [and the scientist's] research only allow for natural progression of events according to the data in the way which they now observe occurring.
    Thus, they exclude the possibility of a super and supra-natural global flood due to seeking to defeat a biblical account. Their conclusions and dating systems are thus also tied to natural progression and the recent historical knowledge rather than experiential knowledge.
    I think I misunderstood your comment. I thought you said that there were some "extra-natural data" that I "claim is accurate." I don't claim any "extra-natural data" is "accurate." That's what I was asking about. Now I see that you probably meant that there was some "accurate extra-natural data" that I excluded. Some of the frustration comes from poorly worded comments.

    Your assertion that scientists are MOTIVATED by a desire to "defeat the biblical account" is quite absurd and contrary to the history of science. Many of the early scientists hoped that they could prove the Bible with science, but their integrity forced them to admit that it could not.

    Science does not exclude anything that can be supported by evidence. If the "super-natural global flood" left no evidence, then why should you or any scientist believe in it?

    Quote Originally Posted by EndtimesDeut32/70AD View Post
    I'm sure we've been through these arguments before, an there's no sense addressing them again.
    There is every reason to address them again. I am a reasonable man. You will have no problem convincing me of anything well-supported by logic and facts.

    Quote Originally Posted by EndtimesDeut32/70AD View Post
    Are you saying that there are not pink unicorns on the back side of the moon?
    Yes, I would be willing to bet a million dollars on that fact. I could be wrong, but the probabilities are totally in my favor.

    Quote Originally Posted by EndtimesDeut32/70AD View Post
    Again, what evidence would you want to see of a vapor/water canopy which is fallen.? Would there supposed to be a glass dome which once encased it? What evidence would you want to see of something which is not there any longer?
    Again, why would anyone believe in something with no evidence of any kind? Have you considered the problems with the physics of a water canopy?

    Quote Originally Posted by EndtimesDeut32/70AD View Post
    How did they get instantly frozen?
    How do you know it was "instant"? And even if it was "instant" how would a flood accomplish that? And what is the standard scientific explanation? Surely, if you are making a case based on the frozen mammoths you must have researched the standard scientific answers.

    Quote Originally Posted by EndtimesDeut32/70AD View Post
    I'll look over the resto of your post later, but again you seem intent on belittling "ME" and claiming aboslute truth known by accepted science.
    Your agressiveness indicates to me an insecurity and demanding of my adoption of your beliefs.
    Sorry if I came across as "aggressive" but if you've been following the conversations you would know why. I have been constantly confronted with blatantly and deliberately deceptive creationist literature that has deceived many Christians.

    Quote Originally Posted by EndtimesDeut32/70AD View Post
    Regarding the "Z" shaped rock strata:

    The crust is very dynamic. How do mountains rise and fall? Do you have any understanding of geology at all, or do you just go about collecting "problems" in an effort to refute the entire body of science supported by tens of thousands of observations? Are you suggesting all the geologists are part of a grand conspiracy designed to disprove the Bible? If so, then you don't know anything about the history of geology. It began with many men fully committed to Biblical geology, but the evidence forced them to abandon those ideas.
    I didnt' think you would have an answer for that.
    What are you talking about? I gave an answer. Apparently you have never researched how the dynamics of the crust shape rock strata. If you had researched it you easily could have found an answer, such as here. The z-shaped coal seams (which is what I gather you meant, you should have given a link) have not caused any problem for geology. It's just another typical unfounded creationist talking point. I can't imagine how any informed person could believe their claims. They've been totally debunked countless times.

    Quote Originally Posted by EndtimesDeut32/70AD View Post
    I counter that SOME interpretations of science are contrived to present informatiion or disinforation to support evolutionary theory rather than absolute and known with certainty fact.
    Sure. Science is a human enterprise, and humans do things like that. And that's why the scientific method is designed to correct for such errors. Religion has no self-correction method, and that's why it can't be trusted to guide us into truth.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Enschede / Netherlands
    Posts
    2,602
    The flood took place in the biblical year 1657, which is about 2/7 x 5800.

    58 being gematria of both the name Noach and of "chen", the favor Noach did find

    So the 3,5 times (time, times and half a time) mentioned in dthe book Daniel and after that in Revelation, might well allude to the flood.

    The more since Noach is the son of man, tenth generation of Adam, coinciding the letter "yud" of the name God hidden in the 26 generations from Adam to Moses.

    And also since Lamech, the one who fathered and named Noach, in the generations-list of Adam via Cain, is the one who said:
    Genesis 4:24,

    "If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, then for Lemech it shall be seventy seven fold."

    Arriving at 490 times, i.e. the seventy weeks of years, on which the preterists stare blind.

    That also Matthew did understand it this way might be clear from Mathew 18:21-22,
    Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?
    Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.


    Τότε προσελθὼν ὁ Πέτρος εἶπεν αὐτῷ, Κύριε, ποσάκις ἁμαρτήσει εἰς ἐμὲ ὁ ἀδελφός μου καὶ ἀφήσω αὐτῷ; ἕως ἑπτάκις; 22λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Οὐ λέγω σοι ἕως ἑπτάκις ἀλλὰ ἕως ἑβδομηκοντάκις ἑπτά
    Last edited by sylvius; 12-04-2012 at 12:31 PM.

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    I think I misunderstood your comment. I thought you said that there were some "extra-natural data" that I "claim is accurate." I don't claim any "extra-natural data" is "accurate." That's what I was asking about. Now I see that you probably meant that there was some "accurate extra-natural data" that I excluded. Some of the frustration comes from poorly worded comments.
    No, I'm referring to extra-natural or super-natural intervention above and sometimes contrary to what is observed to be a natural progression. And this is even in the geological realm without regard for the intricacies of the animal/human realm.

    I think the odds of there being a pink unicorn on the back side of the moon are about equivalent [or greater] than the possibility that the intricacies of dual gender/procreative animal and human life spontaneously developed without cause, design or intention from [for example] a lightning strick on a soupy mix of elements; and for that life to find support and sustainance from a similarly inctricate living vegetative planet.

    Your perspectives and THEORIES which reject the divine, holy, super and supra-natural origins, intentions and Creation of life as the work of a Creator are [as noted before] similar to the belief that the Starship Enterprise is to be formed through the spontaneous, mindless, intentionless falling of molecules from space. It's illogical and unreasonable.

    Again, why would anyone believe in something with no evidence of any kind? Have you considered the problems with the physics of a water canopy?
    The christian perspective is that divine/supernatural intervention CAN defy normal physics; such as Elija's floating axhead; Jesus walking on the water, Daniel in the lions den; The resurrection of Lasarus and Christ, feeding of 5000, the divine, super and supra natural origins and beginnings of life...etc, etc...

    One of the evidences of the previous vapor canopy is actually in the reality of the Rainbow AND the record of the time of it's stated beginnings. Why and for what motive would God or the people fabricate a story about God setting his Bow in the clouds which would coincide with the time of the flood? If there had been Rain and Clouds before, there would have been Rainbows before this time. The notation and biblical account of the Rainbow occuring AT this time implies that it was not there beforehand. Without the understanding of prisms and the effect on light; and without the need to prophecy and foretype future 'floods' [such as Sodom/Gomorrah, Red sea crossing sweeping away the pursuing egyptians, and the "flood' over Jerusalem by Roman desolation; there would be no need for a story of a more global flood in the biblical account. [Except of course to remake the earth to be a more hospitable and lift the 'curse' on the earth through Noah [Gen 5:29] And thus, there would be no need to fabricate a story of a rainbow only occuring from that time forward.

    The rainbow and the flood story are part of the prophecies and foretypes of the later historical actions of God in reaffirming his entity, his existence and his overall positive good intentions and purposes of life as developed through History. They are documented to have been recorded well before Moses and thus not a new fabrication.

    Thus, if there had not been some other atmoshpere before the mention of God setting his bow in the clouds; the rainbow would not have 'appeared' after the flood. It would have been mentioned as part of the original creation scenario.

    The water vapor canopy would have kept the earth at a more moderate temperature; diffused the light and had other effects. With it's falling, the poles would have quickly lost temperature.

    With the falling of the 'water' wherein the earth stood as mentioned by Peter; there is no manner [naturally] for it to 'fall' again; thus the promise to never destroy the earth by flood again is practical. Some people understand that this implied that there would be a future global destruction by fire [such as in 2 Peter 3]

    But Peters acknowledgement that the positive 'ends and foundations of the world' had come upon them in the first century along with the concepts of the "New heavens and New Earth' being the New ordinances/freedom in Christ and new domain of the indwelt life] and contrast with the mosaic covenant heavens and earth agrees and supports that the mosaic covt. heavens and earth [principles, ordiances and domian (Job 38:33)] [2 Peter 3] were the ones reserved for 'fire' and destruction. This was prophesied in [Deut 32:22] 22 For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains.

    The vapor canopy is furthermore part of the concepts involved in baptism [also through the red sea and in the Jordan River] A'new life begins or is testified to on the other side of the "baptism"


    What are you talking about? I gave an answer. Apparently you have never researched how the dynamics of the crust shape rock strata. If you had researched it you easily could have found an answer, such as here. The z-shaped coal seams (which is what I gather you meant, you should have given a link) have not caused any problem for geology. It's just another typical unfounded creationist talking point. I can't imagine how any informed person could believe their claims. They've been totally debunked countless times.
    I mentioned nothing about coal seams. But Layers of sedimentary rock; 10 foot thick with about 5-7 different layers shaped together in a Z without any breakage of the rocks at the corners. The implications are that the layers were not deposited over millions/billons of years EACH, but that layers were deposited within a shorter period of time, then twisted by upheaval and geological forces before hardening.

    I don't know if any understanders of the flood reject the concept that at the same time of the flood, [or afterwards] there may have been other immense geological forces and occurances occuring simultanously.


    Sure. Science is a human enterprise, and humans do things like that. And that's why the scientific method is designed to correct for such errors. Religion has no self-correction method, and that's why it can't be trusted to guide us into truth.
    I disagree. Your correct about dogmatic religions; but not about ones spiritual journey and guidance by the Spirit of Truth.
    Last edited by EndtimesDeut32/70AD; 12-04-2012 at 06:54 PM.
    1Thess 4:8 He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto us his holy Spirit.
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    If you are oppressed and enslaved by religious law, you may have a tendency to oppress, enslave and attempt to lord over others who are free.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •