Weren't Nefilim (I've seen several ways of spelling that) supposed to be giants? The general concept of the aliens that are supposedly doing the abductions, are about 4 feet tall, with grey skin, big heads, big black eyes, etc..
and btw, the alien "masters" are supposed to be reptilian.. I've heard the term "draconian" used to describe something that's evil and sinister.. where did that word come from?
Giants is a poor translation of the word used in the original language - leader or super-human would be more accurate - and its referring to the half breed race not to the 'sons of god' or fallen angels.
It also appears they had no problem creating offspring with humans back them, but they do seem to be having difficulty now - so something is different or has changed - perhaps that group of fallen angels is now being restrained and kept away from humanity, but will be released at some point in the near future.
IP: Logged
12:39 PM
Mach10 Member
Posts: 7375 From: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Registered: Jan 2001
Ken: Point(s) taken. However, the problem still stands. WHICH parts of the bible are corrupted/mistranslated/misinterpreted? No-one can answer with certainty. The bible in it's present form is VERY consistant. That's good.... Unless the errors are consistant too... What if the aramaic word for "Witchcraft" was in fact a mistranslated word for "Cockroach?" (Thank you Terry Pratchett ) That would change a LOT of things....
What if the whole Sodomy schpeil wasn't in fact refering to the act of anal sex, but rather in the wasting of seed? That would mean that Gay people aren't any worse than anyone that has ever used birthcontrol...
The PROBLEM with the bible, is that it must be interpreted. Obviously some people are better at it than others. Middle-Age Catholicism is a good guide as to HOW NOT TO DO IT. Then again, there are plenty of people that follow their bible to a T, lead productive and nice lives... Hey! Religion worked for them! On the other hand, you get the kind of sadistic crack-head freak Klowns who run around, burn crosses, and kill people in Jesus' name... Religion failed, here...
I've also heard "fallen" as a mistranslation for "those who descended".. once again, suggestion of aliens, trying to interbreed with humans. but Ken is right, something's different now.. that swings the discussion over to aliens and concpiracies, so I won't go there.. but it is an interest of mine, so I know a bit about the general ideas...
can anyone provide any more references for the layer of water vapor that the bible says used to be in the atmosphere? I've heard of it before, but never really paid much attention to that until now...
as far as determining the original meaning - the languages that are used in the original manuscripts are extreemly well documented - so its not a question of having no idea what the original language means.
as for following the bible alone to a T and being a very good person - try it sometime - it cant be done - without the power and strenght of the living Spirit of God living in you, you cant do it alone - If you could then there would be men without sin, and there would be no need for the Holy Spirit, and there was no reason for Jesus to have been sacrificed on our behalf.
Jesus said you will know my people by the fruit they bear - by the kind of lives they live and the love that flows from them. To me, that says you are not going to see those qualities in abundance in any other group of people. If you think that is presumptious - goto India sometimes and see what their religious beliefs results in.
Ask one of the Muslin women with the bag over their head what their life is like.
IP: Logged
01:06 PM
JSocha Member
Posts: 3522 From: Felton, MN, USA Registered: Apr 2001
Read how it has been interpreted on the Link "Bible Answers" and compare it to your interpretation and/or your teachings and see how they differ.
Now for another simple example:
To make this easy, bare with me, since obviously there are many different versions of the same bible and many different religious philosophy's.
So for the time being, lets all assume that everyone is reading from the same Bible and that it has exactly 10,000 passages in it.
In addition, lets assume there are 10,000 different religious philosophy's reading and interpreting 10,000 passages out of the same Bible over time.
Here's the twist. 10,000 religious philosophy's to 10,000 bible passages.
Each one of these religious philosophys each independently has interpreted one and only one passage correctly but not the same one as a another religios philosophy as it is and/or was meant, while the remaining 9,999 are incorrectly intrepreted with no two religions interpreting the exact same bible passage. So each religion now has one and only one correct interpretation. So out of 10,000 passages, you now have 10,000 correct and independent interpretations where another religious philosophy has it wrong.
Who's beliefs would be right and who's would be wrong?
the layer of water is right in the beginning of Genesis - something like the water was divided above the land and below the land
and later that it did not rain in those days - but there was a continious mist
then later at the time of the flood it says the heavens were 'opened' and the rain fell for the first time (which means it never rained - thats over 1,000 years with no rain).
I dont know of any web sites off hand that discuss it.
IP: Logged
01:12 PM
frontal lobe Member
Posts: 9042 From: brookfield,wisconsin Registered: Dec 1999
Regarding your multiple conclusions question, if you insist the verses can't be interpreted in isolation, but all must not contradict each other, that eliminates a lot of the possible variability. However, there would still be room for some.
My advice to people would then be to at least focus on the more important issues in life:
What is God like? How does He expect me to behave? Toward Him. Toward others. What happens after this body is deceased?
My contention is that the answers to these more important questions is repeated SO often amongst the passages, and the wording so precise, that almost 100 out of 100 UNBIASED people would come to the same conclusion. I'm not saying that all 100 would be willing to accept it as truth, but they would agree on what it says are the answers.
ok, after a bit more reading, it appears that Shem is one of Noah's sons.. is that correct?
how does that relate to this?
quote
"The Nefilim were upon the Earth in those days and thereafter too. Those sons of the gods who cohabited with the daughters of the Adam, and they bore children into them. They were the Mighty Ones of Eternity, the People of the Shem." - Genesis 6:4
I'm not about to turn religious, but I am fascinated by this stuff.. for years I've wanted to learn hebrew so I could read the original version.. someday I'll do that.
Ge 6:4 ¶ There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
Where did you get that?
Also i've often wondered how noah got all the animals on the ark. Well i reread the bible a few times and one time it just stuck out at me that the whole earth was vegitarian before the flood and the animals were not afraid of people back then.
also their were dinos in the bible personaly i believe Laviathan was a dino
ok, after a bit more reading, it appears that Shem is one of Noah's sons.. is that correct?
how does that relate to this?
"The Nefilim were upon the Earth in those days and thereafter too. Those sons of the gods who cohabited with the daughters of the Adam, and they bore children into them. They were the Mighty Ones of Eternity, the People of the Shem." - Genesis 6:4
The NIV translation...beginning at 6:1
"When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, (2)the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. (3)Then the Lord said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal, his days will be a hundred and twenty years." (4)The Nephalim were on the earth in those days-and also afterward-when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heros of old, men of renown."
Now, man was already mortal, but were loving some 6-800 years, and we're too big a pain for that to continue, so God limited our days. This is the point where God was grieved He's ever made us, and was determined to wipe the earth clean... "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth-men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air-for I am grieved that I have made them." Gen 6:7.
But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord...
You know the rest.
Not sure how/why some translations call them "Shem"...
If you are poking your nose in there, something interesting to look up that I never noticed before: after Noah and his family and all the animals were on the ark and it started to rain
Originally posted by baptistheart: also their were dinos in the bible personaly i believe Laviathan was a dino
Same could be said for dragons, (many ancient cultures have references to dragons in some form or another, european ones seem to indicate reptilian-type creates, whereas south american and asian dragons tend to be more winged serpents) and also the "loch ness monster", as well as several other similar creatures, of which I can't remember their names..
"When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, (2)the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. (3)Then the Lord said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal, his days will be a hundred and twenty years." (4)The Nephalim were on the earth in those days-and also afterward-when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heros of old, men of renown."
At first glance, verse 3 seems a little out of place here. What has limiting human life to 120 years have to do with the interbreeding of sons of god/angels/whatever and women? Was it because the sons/angels/whatever were immortal and some or all of their offspring were inheriting this characteristic?
Job 3:8 ~ "May those who curse days curse that day, those who are ready to rouse Leviathan."
Job 41:1-10 ~ "Can you pull in the Leviathan with a fishhook or tie down his tongue with a rope?...Can you make a pet of him, like a bird?...The mere sight of him is overpowering, No one is fierce enough to rouse him." ...It goes on to describe him in detail. All of Job 41 is a description of Leviathan. He appears to be a large reptilian creature with large scales or "shields" and rows of teeth. He is described in both flying and swimming situations, and sounds very much like a reptilian or amphibious dragon, even being seacribed as having flames for breath...
Psalms 74:13b-14 ~ (speaking to God) "You broke the heads of the monster in the waters. It was you who crushed the heads of Leviathan and gave him as food to the creatures of the desert."
Isaiah 27:1 ~ "In that day, the Lord will punish with his sword, His fierce, great and powerful sword, Leviathan the gliding serpent, Leviathan the coiling serpent; he will slay the monster of the sea."
Originally posted by Ken Wittlief: If you are poking your nose in there, something interesting to look up that I never noticed before: after Noah and his family and all the animals were on the ark and it started to rain
who closed the door on the ark?
Genesis 7:16b ~ "Then the Lord shut him in."
IP: Logged
02:45 PM
baptistheart Member
Posts: 120 From: norfolk,nebraska,u.s.a Registered: May 2001
Originally posted by TRiAD: So I'm wrong for standing up for the Bible, but Ray's right in supporting some stupid "conspiracy theory" he saw on TV? You people never cease to amaze me. "It MUST be true...he saw it on TNT!"
Mach, I'd never go postal on you, you're not implying that I'm a murderer (and Ray if you do it again, we're going to have SERIOUS problems).
Ray, one thing. You're no more entitled to your opinion than anyone else here...we all know where you stand, you're re-stating the same banter endlessly. I'm going to ask you to shut up unless you have something new. We all know you think Mary wasn't a virgin, that Mary Magdaline was Jesus' wife, and that they have kids somewhere in France (you saw it on TNT, it must be true).
WAS ON TLC not TNT at 9:00pm eastern tuesday and on saterday reruns in afternoon this weekend at 4;00 pm, 3;00 show is about the ark of the jews sounds good tooo.
the LUKE 3:23 is not about mary as she is not even named anywhere in luke 3:XX first part is about john the B, second part begining at 3:23 is joseph's lineage back to adam.BUT NOT A MATCH OF MATTHEW'S list of same.
interesting that YOU THINK I am NOT INTITLED to a oppinion THAT YOU DONOT LIKE. UNFORTUNATELY THATS THE WAY MOST CHRISTIANS THINK and the root of the problem with how belivers treat others.
------------------ Question wonder and be wierd
IP: Logged
03:13 PM
frontal lobe Member
Posts: 9042 From: brookfield,wisconsin Registered: Dec 1999
Mary isn't mentioned specifically in Luke 3 because it's Jesus geneology. The verse states it is not Joseph's because he wasn't the biological father. Since it only could have been through Joseph or Mary and it says it's not Joseph, it really isn't necessary to specifically state it is Mary, since it is obvious from the context.
some versions state in luke 3-23-"and jesus himself began to be about 30 years of age being [as was supposed] the son of joseph, which was the son of heli," SO HOW DO YOU GET MARY OUT OF THAT LIST????? she is not named anywhere in luke 3 and grampaw is same matthan for both under your reading but he has two listed fathers so is matthat's dad eleazar or levi?????? and that make joseph and mary 1st cousins????
------------------ Question wonder and be wierd
IP: Logged
04:53 PM
Voytek Member
Posts: 1924 From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada Registered: Jan 2001
That was my point some time waaaay back in this topic. There are almost as many versions of the Bible as there are Christian denominations. All claim to be 'THE one'. Obviously, we all think we have 'THE one'.
quote
My advice to people would then be to at least focus on the more important issues in life:
What is God like? How does He expect me to behave? Toward Him. Toward others. What happens after this body is deceased?
Good advice, frontal lobe.
Oh! I hear moo-ing. I think the cows are home!
IP: Logged
05:12 PM
JSocha Member
Posts: 3522 From: Felton, MN, USA Registered: Apr 2001
Originally posted by frontal lobe: Mary isn't mentioned specifically in Luke 3 because it's Jesus geneology. The verse states it is not Joseph's because he wasn't the biological father. Since it only could have been through Joseph or Mary and it says it's not Joseph, it really isn't necessary to specifically state it is Mary, since it is obvious from the context.
SO AS YOU READ IT MARY IS THE SON OF HELI???? THAT WHAT THE BOOKS SAID SON OF OR, JOSEPH FATHER IS HELI IN "LIVING BIBLE" version.
------------------ Question wonder and be wierd
IP: Logged
10:24 PM
Mach10 Member
Posts: 7375 From: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Registered: Jan 2001
1) Dinos + humans could NOT co-habitate in the same eco-system... Megafauna needs MEGA food from Mega forests... None of which were easily found in that area (nor most of the rest of the planet). Fossils of Dinosaurs (and australopithicus afarensis) are found in the middle east where Jesus was wandering around... Along with fossils of rain-forest-type trees... Far from the semi-desert area that Mesopotamia and surround areas have been for the past billion years...
Dinos and people did NOT walk around together... The Behemoth was not a Brontosaurus, or diplodocus, or Brachiasaurus, or Seismosaurus...
Originally posted by Mach10: wTF??? Where'd my "Dino" Post go!??!
Huh...
Fine, I'll summarize:
1) Dinos + humans could NOT co-habitate in the same eco-system... Megafauna needs MEGA food from Mega forests... None of which were easily found in that area (nor most of the rest of the planet). Fossils of Dinosaurs (and australopithicus afarensis) are found in the middle east where Jesus was wandering around... Along with fossils of rain-forest-type trees... Far from the semi-desert area that Mesopotamia and surround areas have been for the past billion years...
Dinos and people did NOT walk around together... The Behemoth was not a Brontosaurus, or diplodocus, or Brachiasaurus, or Seismosaurus...
Hehehe, were you there? Can you tell us for certain? PROVE it. How many people were on the planet sharing in the bounty then? What about the HUGE plants back then? Bugs the size of Volkswagens...etc. How do you know what Mesopotamia was like 2000 years ago? You didn't send me a picture postcard.
LOL! I love it when people's own arguments work against them (and I'm certain these will work against me later ) !!!
IP: Logged
11:36 PM
Mach10 Member
Posts: 7375 From: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Registered: Jan 2001
Originally posted by TRiAD: Hehehe, were you there? Can you tell us for certain? PROVE it. How many people were on the planet sharing in the bounty then? What about the HUGE plants back then? Bugs the size of Volkswagens...etc. How do you know what Mesopotamia was like 2000 years ago? You didn't send me a picture postcard.
LOL! I love it when people's own arguments work against them (and I'm certain these will work against me later ) !!!
lol Well, I didn't use those arguments... Or did I? Whatever... I'll harvest all my info for you... Lemme get my notes
1) Nope. wasn't there... BUT... Based on archaeological evidence, the people living around Jesus' time were fairly typical desert-people. Baked-brick houses etc... But you know what the best proof is? POTTERY. You won't EVER find well-formed pottery in tropical areas. Reason being is that a humid atmosphere prevents the proper firing. The drier the clime, the better the pots... The middle east has some stunning pottery. Second, it's been repeated over and over in the bible that these people are agricultural... Well, agriculture is EXCEEDINGLY difficult in tropical areas. You can't grow grains. Can't grow much of anything except Manioc. So, it's safe to say that Mesopotamia was between an arid desert, or temparate grassland. BOTH of which cannot support the 10T + Megafauna listed previously... All of those specimens require DENSE forests and swamps. Also, for these beasts to survive, you'd need carnivores capable of thinning the ranks, or else they'd all die from starvation. Don't hear of too many references to Allosaurus, Velociraptor, or Tyranosauraus Rex.
2) HUGE forests? Sure... Plenty of fossil record... But that's the problem. They are FOSSILS. It takes CONSIDERABLY longer than 20, 30, 40k years to make an organic object into a rock. Try on the order of hundreds of thousands. If this weren't the case, we'd be finding fossilized artifacts from these areas. We don't. Just crumbling, dried out bits of wood, bone, metals, stone tools, and pottery. Giant Bugs? Yes, but again, in the fossil record. Argue all you like about how C-14 dating is inaccurate... But you won't find ANY fossils younger than about 100kyo.
Originally posted by Mach10: Don't hear of too many references to Allosaurus, Velociraptor, or Tyranosauraus Rex.
Read Job 41. "Leviathan" could have been that huge crocodile/dino critter...
quote
2) HUGE forests? Sure... Plenty of fossil record... But that's the problem. They are FOSSILS. It takes CONSIDERABLY longer than 20, 30, 40k years to make an organic object into a rock.
When's the last time someone made an organic specemin(sp?) into a rock in the lab? HMmmm?
Science has yet to get out of it's own way when it comes to dates... Circular reasoning...
[This message has been edited by TRiAD (edited 11-30-2001).]
IP: Logged
12:29 AM
Mach10 Member
Posts: 7375 From: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Registered: Jan 2001
Actually, it's been duplicated, I think... I'll go talk to Geology tommorrow, if I have time
As for Leviathan... Why not just a large shark? And REALLY... Allosaurus, T-Rex, and Raptors look NOTHING alike... Surely they weren't as simple as to call everything Marklark?
There's nothing wrong with our present modes of dating. They all tend to back each other up. The problem with BIBLICAL dating is that you are using only ONE source. You'd be laughed out of any museum if you only applied ONE technique to a sample. Yet, in the biblical examples, that is EXACTLY what your'e doing.
The problem with "Creation Science" is that it doesn't set out to prove that the bible is right, just that certain Scientific methods are wrong. That's a SHITTY way to make an argument. Funny part is that they can't ever discredit a single method. All they do is trumpet about how it was wrong on X,Y, and Z samples... Again, not much of a logical argument.
Now, C-14 dating has shown OVER AND OVER to be consistant, within a margin or error. The problem is that the sample must be prepared right, or else the numbers are skewed. C-14 U-T and K dating have ALL been tested on KNOWN samples... (ie. stuff with dates, or from known sources) and they perform consistantly. Now GIVEN, as you go further back, the 5% error starts representing larger and larger numbers. And yes, a corrupted sample will give bogus dates. Same as a blood-test...
What it boils down to is that science isn't being circular... It tries it's own methods from different angles, and from different sources. Science ACKNOWLEDGES that it can be wrong. That's what level of error is. If anything, following the bible is circular. You're testing theories against a single source, verified from that same source... Just because the bible doesn't contradict itself doesn't mean that it's right.
Editing... Plz stand by... Hit post too early..
[This message has been edited by Mach10 (edited 11-30-2001).]
[This message has been edited by Mach10 (edited 11-30-2001).]
Originally posted by TRiAD: There's still no dude with a rock he's personally owned for 1 million years to tell you you're right. No "control" for the study. No positive results.
I've seen it done chemically... and I know the process. It happens naturally...
But yes, I haven't seen a rock studied for 1 million years
But that doesn't mean it didn't happen. (ouch... Double-edged sword )
So how do *YOU* explain the fossil record? Dinosaurs, Australopithecus Robustus/Boisee Australopithecus Afarensis, Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus, Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis?
How do you explain the mineral calcification of what are OBVIOUSLY skeletons of long-dead critters?
EDIT: Oh, Bugger... I've contradicted myself... Hang on a few
Ok, as far as it goes, we've tested C-14 dating against MANY sources. Historical data, Known physical elements etc. ACCURATELY, to within a few years, we can only realistically go back about 50k years. After that, we start running into the level of error. That magic 5% Our control set for these dates are numerous. We DO have empirical evidence to support that C-14 DOES work that far back.
As we move further back, our calibration scale drops off, and we are forced to use the ABSOLUTE date of carbon. This is where that error % comes in.
Now, we DO have hard data that says that the world is AT MINIMUM 50,000 years old, based on the fact that we can clearly look back that far with absolute certainty... But we find things that are MUCH MUCH older than that. So we push the scale back, and accept that there is error. Based on C-14 dates, I can say with reasonable certainty that this dinosaur bone is 4.5 million years old. Giving that kind of a number is allowing for a HUGE level of error.that could mean ANYTHING from 4,500,000 to 4,544,444 years old... That's OBVIOUSLY a gross oversimplification... A real sample would come out to something like 4,529,425 +/- 5%...
The problem with using a manuscript vs. a measuring device? 1 SINGLE ERROR renders the entire document invalid. There's no allowance for error. the bible says that "THIS HAPPENED AT THIS TIME" So if it's even a year off, then it throws everything out the window.
Now, There isn't any "control" for both arguments, I will concede... But Science has the upper hand. MANY MANY different BUT CONSISTANT techniques give us the information. The Bible is hardly empirical... Were YOU there when it was written, and did YOU supervise each one of it's translations/copying?
I would like to take this space to say that I am REALLY starting to enjoy this thread. It's becoming constructive and more than entertaining
Civilized discussions rule, don't they
[This message has been edited by Mach10 (edited 11-30-2001).]
IP: Logged
01:03 AM
JSocha Member
Posts: 3522 From: Felton, MN, USA Registered: Apr 2001
