Posted on 11/24/2014 1:07:14 PM PST by NYer
“So Shem was white? Ham was black? Japeth was Oriental?”
Why would you assume they all had to be different races? That’s a strange assumption. Are you going to tell us that black skin is the “curse of Cain” next?
“All this in 2350BC? How do you explain Chinese history which goes back before 2350BC?”
The Egyptians claimed their Pharaohs ruled for tens of thousands of years, but we know that is not true. Nearly every pagan culture claims an impossibly long history, and they also usually claim to have always lived in the land they are in now, despite the fact that we know they migrated from elsewhere. Those writers were simply not very reliable.
“The purpose of the flood was to kill the hybrids, the progeny of the fallen angels and the daughters of Adam. God didn’t have to kill all of the blacks, the orientals, or anyone else, Satan wasn’t targeting them, Satan was using the fallen angels targeting Adam’s family to stop Jesus from being born. Eight Adamic souls were saved, the rest of Adam’s family were not perfect in their generations, they had mixed with the fallen angels. The bible is the story of Adam’s family and those in contact with them.”
If you are claiming there were others saved besides the eight on the Ark, then they couldn’t have souls, so they couldn’t be men. So what are you saying exactly? That some other races look human but do not have human souls?
“Since the crucifixion, all one needs is to believe in Christ and they become part of Adam’s family as God’s promise to Abraham becomes fulfilled.”
But if you don’t, you are subhuman? Is that it?
What about voyeurs? They like to observe...
The Hebrews were not stone age aborines, they were living in the cradle of civilization. They used the earliest alphabet invented in the world. They had just left Egypt, a center of learning and technology, and would soon enter Israel and then begin building their own marvel of engineering in Jerusalem. They may have been pastoral, but I don’t think we can assume they were morons.
1 Corinthians 11 New King James Version (NKJV)
11 Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ.
2 Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. 6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. 10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. 12 For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.
13 Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? 15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.
17 Now in giving these instructions I do not praise you, since you come together not for the better but for the worse. 18 For first of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it. 19 For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you. 20 Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper. 21 For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others; and one is hungry and another is drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I do not praise you.
23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”
26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.
27 Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. 30 For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep. 31 For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.
33 Therefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. 34 But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, lest you come together for judgment. And the rest I will set in order when I come
Ooooo goody another prot proof texting for no good reason. Ping me when you can quote in context.
“No, we study to know when a day is a day to us and when a day is a day to God:”
Then you must have some rule or principle that you can tell us, so that we can apply that principle consistently in determining which is which. Do you have such a principle? Or do you just choose “a day” or “a thousand years” depending on what is convenient for you?
Great quote.
Your post 532 is eye-opening and inspired.
Oh, but I do understand, and it's you who are deeply mistaken.
In fact, by US law and tradition, our word "science" is short for our Founders' term "natural-science" which is expressly limited to the search for natural explanations of natural processes -- explanations you mistakenly call "propaganda", "politics" and "manipulation".
The truth of the matter is that today's word "science" is the result you get, when you exclude all data and explanations which are not "natural".
Sure, editor-surveyor doesn't personally like it, that's obvious, but it's still the fact nonetheless.
So, I'll repeat, as regards Genesis, Genesis is not about natural-science, but rather about God, how God created nature, how God rules over natural-science and how, on occasion, God over-rules science.
And my key point here is, if you can't believe that, then you are not really a Believer, period.
editor-surveyor: "Do you really think that aligning your self with academia makes you look 'intelligent?' "
No, my "alignment" is with our Founders' understandings of the term "natural-science", regardless of how "intelligent" you may, or may not, suppose me to be.
I couldn't find a word of yours to disagree with, only here to add an idea to help you understand a very important point:
The reason our word "science" is wholly inadequate to explain anything supernatural, spiritual, philosophical or even ethical, is because "science" in our culture & law is short for our Founders' term "natural-science", which is expressly limited to natural explanations of natural processes.
In other words, by self-imposed limitations, "science" cannot legitimately address anything beyond the natural realm.
That's why it doesn't matter religiously what science says about creation or evolution, etc., if we believe God created the Universe, then we must also believe that God is firmly in charge of whatever scientists observe or theorize.
The verse doesn’t say they are unable, but merely implies the angels in heaven do not marry.
There are cases of demons, i.e. fallen angels, without bodies, who engage in sexual activity with humans. They are forbidden, but not impossible. They also are sought by those in some occultic circles.
While I don’t know with certainty that such an interpretation of Gen 6 is true, there is definitely sound historical basis to support that interpretation.
I would answer you with another question: which do you consider the higher truth, so-called literal, or spiritual?
The Bible is not a literal scientific treatise, presenting forensic evidence confirming its hypotheses, but rather a spiritual document presenting revealed Word from God.
The Bible is not confirmed by physical experiments & observations, but rather by spiritual understandings, taught by life itself, and by patient explanations from those who already Believe.
That's why I see no conflict between the Bible and science -- natural-science is strictly man-made observations and theories which expressly exclude supernatural or spiritual explanations.
In both theory and fact, every scientific idea can be overturned by new data or ideas, so everything about science is tentative, pending something better to come.
And the spiritual message of the Bible has nothing to do with today's scientific ideas, and remains Truth regardless of how those latest ideas change.
Do you agree?
Thanks!
Open-mindedness is more considering multiple possibilities then choosing the correct one that aligns with truth.
Included where?
Focused? Not any more than any other scripture that supports logical answers.
It appears to me to mean that Noah was an all-round good guy; during the times when VERY few were in existence. It is a concise description of the rest of the story to follow.
So "perfect in his generations" means Noah was nice to you? That's a long way to say he was nice. lol
No, it means the fallen angels hadn't corrupted anyone in his ancestry or his family. That's why he was saved, he was still perfect to bring along the messiah. All others of Adam's family had hybrid blood, blood of the fallen angels, those that left their habitation to take the daughters of Adam.
Not because of the fallen angels this time though.
Why was that post to me?
There's a lot you have missed, true.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.