All men were destroyed other than Noah and his family, correct?

So there shouldn't be any people that survived the flood, if in fact, it was indeed a global flood.

But there were men other than Noah and his family that did survive the flood, and it is even in the bible itself. They were the Nephilim , a race of men who were giants.

New International Version (NIV)

Genesis 6:4

4 The Nephilim 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 heroes of old, men of renown.

Answering Genesis even calls them people as well.

"
Interestingly, the word nephilim is only used here ..... who were big people, but still people. "

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/answersbook/nephilim9.asp

By saying 'people', it was a race of men, who were giants.


Next we have the flood of Noah in Genesis starting in Gen 6:9....I'll spare the details.


But wait...all should have been destroyed by the flood....right?

Skip forward a few years...men reported to Moses:

Numbers 13 (New International Version)

31 But the men who had gone up with him said, "We can't attack those people; they are stronger than we are." 32 And they spread among the Israelites a bad report about the land they had explored. They said, "The land we explored devours those living in it. All the people we saw there are of great size. 33 We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them."


So a race of giant men, did survive the flood. If it was a global flood they should have been killed. But the bible is exact in calling them by the name of their race, Nephilim. Clearly they were not descendants of Noah, as they are written before Noah's birth, and they existed after the flood as they were written by Moses in Numbers.

Conclusion: Clearly a race of men, the Nephilim existed before Noah.
Because there were men that did survive the flood other than Noah, the flood could not have covered all of the earth, as it would have killed the Nephilim. Clearly the flood had to of been a local event in order for this race of giant men to have survived the flood. They were then spotted again by name by Moses's men. Clearly they survived the flood, and with that, it was a local flood.

the Nephilim were a race of half-man, half demons


LOL

Right.....so what you are now saying is that the answeringgenesis site is incorrect?

So from now on, you cannot quote any of their tripe, as you yourself have just claimed that they are wrong! Thanks!




I have to idea why you believe they survived, it is not supported by the scripture


How can you actually believe that? It is so clear in the bible as outlined.
Do you not agree that Moses wrote these books?

Do you think that Moses would have known before Noah's birth that these men/creatures existed, as written by Moses, and that they existed after the flood, as written by Moses?


All NT scripture aside, the real debate here is the validity of Moses account in the OT.




although these "strong" men, descendants of Anak, were compared to the Nephilim, there was no direct connection between the men of Numbers 13 and Genesis 6


What??? Who is smoking crack now? Numbers 13 where clearly states
"33 We saw the Nephilim there".... An eye witness account. There was no comparison, They saw the Nephilim.

And they were men!

Numbers 13 (New International Version)

31 But the men who had gone up with him said, "We can't attack those people; they are stronger than we are."


Moses wrote this, he would have written different other wise if they were not.


Face it, the global flood theory does not hold. Your pick and choose of the OT has just just found its first major hole and there isn't anything you can do about it...other than saying that Moses was not correct in his account, and in that case, the whole OT is incorrect and not the Word of God.....are you ready to proclaim that? (Actually you already have with your last post...but we can ignore it)

Well YZF. Yer the geologist. We are still waiting for physical evidence that there was in fact a flood.

take a tour of Grand Canyon, or study the fossil record....the simple passage of time explains neither

Yes glad you agree that that millions of years does hold weight....glad you are on the bus! :wave:

I Peter 3

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longs suffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.



Fine, I'll play your little game. Note that Peter was not bible scholar BTW, he was not rabbi, he was a simple Galilean fisherman. But you knew that.

The passage above only states that eight people were saved thru the ark....
That is it could be read as it was the vessel that saved the people. Further, the context of this was about water, and most importantly the ark itself, and how God saved those eight thru the ark.

It says nothing about there were only eight persons in the world, it only states that thru the ark, Gods commandment, were eight people saved.

Nice try.



2 Peter 2

For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly; and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, ...


Yes God saved Noah and punished the wicked men of the time, and thru God we are spared. Thats what this passage is about, Gods grace, and this is what Jesus is saying. Again we get into semantics, and again, as you you said, it could be a choice of words chosen for the bible in the translation for 'ancient world'


But Peters account above again, is a consolidation of Genesis. It cannot be held as a first had account of Noah as you want to claim. In fact, it is an account of an account of an account! And again, you have failed to make any point.

Nice try.

again, the ark is a picture of Christ, which is clear from the passage...without Christ, no one on this earth can be saved


Um, that was my point parrot, I just see it for its message, not in the twisted manner you do. FAIL!



2 Peter 2 clearly says "world"...and before you start playing word games with "world" yet again, Jesus Himself clearly indicated the flood was a global judgment (aside from the crystal clear text of Genesis, which, as always, you reject)


Again, its the 'world' debate...you are such a broken record..... keep hanging yourself with that one. LOL


but the Spirit of God was there...and all scripture is "God breathed" (in the original autograph)

Have I ever said that the Spirit was not there? Your ASSumptions (as you put it) make a fool out of you....Again, your delusional "steamroller" is total BS. You make no point here, skidMark.

no, hypocrite/parrot, it was MY point from the first time we had this discussion, and you scoffed at it...DOUBLE FAIL!!


LOL...delusional

Matthew 24

But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

oh, I'd love to see you tell Christ the Flood was local 2,000 years ago

Who is Noe? IS this your special bible there skidMark?

Again, you avoid the point of Moses account, whom all of the apostles gained their account from. So have at it there skidMark, prove to me that Moses was wrong when he wrote about the Nephilim in Gen and Numbers.

Do you have an answer for that?

no, Moses was only quoting what the wimpy spies (whom God later executed) were saying about these "strong men"


Really, because thats not how it reads....I don't think God wants you to propagate a lie, have fun with that one when you meet Him.

the Nephilim were a race of half-man, half demons that were wiped out during the Flood, they are one of the main reasons the Flood came upon the earth...Satan was trying to destroy true humanity so that Christ could not be the sacrifice for men, as a man

I have to idea why you believe they survived, it is not supported by the scripture

no, Mark, he is right in this.

baseless conclusion jumping, very typical of you

although these "strong" men, descendants of Anak, were compared to the Nephilim, there was no direct connection between the men of Numbers 13 and Genesis 6

You are incorrect, based on the scripture:

Numbers 13, word for word:

33 We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim).

You claim that the bible says these men were "like the giants"...what it actually says is that they CAME FROM THE NEPHILIM. There is a direct relationship established right there, and you chose to ignore it.


Something else--how could they have been descended from Anak if no one else survived? Anakites, as they were known, lived during OT times. In fact, didnt Joshua kill all the Anakites that were in Israel? According to Joshua 11, no Anakites were left alive in Israel--the only places where they survived were Gaza, Gath and Ashdod, which was outside the Israeli territory. Then Noah builds an ark, and ony eight people were on it....his family. None of which was an Anakite. So....the bible clearly says that Anak's descendants were present after the flood, and were seen by men. How else do you propose they got there? There is no answer in scripture....and your attempt to go against both what the scripture and AiG state plainly is confusing.

they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, the flood came, and took them all away;

presumebly the they and the them were the same group.

marriage being a godly thing only godly people could do it, can people BE married in the name of satan ?

so only the people who god revealed himself to ENOUGH for them to ACTUALLY get married would be in the group.

as in australian abo's who never married or heard of marriage would NOT be included in the "them all" since god wasn't interested enough in them to even show them about marriage.

yzf won't be able to read the above, of course, but it seems to me to adequately allow a literal reading of the verse to describe a local flood.

Numbers 14 (King James Version)



36And the men, which Moses sent to search the land, who returned, and made all the congregation to murmur against him, by bringing up a slander upon the land,

37Even those men that did bring up the evil report upon the land, died by the plague before the LORD.

no, jonnie, he is WRONG...and so are you...I challenge you to back up your assertions with those of a noted scholar

so let me get this straight....you spend all this time insisting in this forum and elsewhere that every last word in the Bible is the word of God, not to be changed by humans....and then, when I show you exactly what the Word says, you wish to change it, and post about some guy claiming that it was an exagerration??? The Word stands alone, remember?? But all of a sudden, when the Word doesnt support your pov as it is written, you need a human--flawed as we are--to tell you what God "Really meant"??

I dont need a "noted scholar" to know that the Bible os 100% clear in the fact that those "giants" were in fact descended from Anak. Note that the part where this is mentioned is in parentheses?? It is clearly not the way that the guy is speaking it, or in that case, writing it, but what is actually meant.

Man, you want to talk about human authorities on the Word? Where is all that faith in AiG all of a sudden?? You stand by their claims to a fault, UNTIL NOW, when you claimed differently than AiG did about those "big people". Nothing to say about that?

So go on, post up what some "scholar" said, and I will simply post up what GOD said. you tell me which one has more authority or knowledge, Mark.

33 We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim).

Those descendants are not "resembling the Nephilim", or "like the Nephilim"....they COME FROM the Nephilim.

Oh, one more thing about your "noted scholar"...tell me, what did God say will happen to the "wise"?? With not one single other reference to this incident that clears anything up anywhere in the Word, this "scholar" bases his claim on what, exactly? Imagine the sheer arrogance to think that as a man, one could proclaim such a thing about God's Word. Show us the scripture that he used to get to this conclusion. And dont make it "the story of Noah", because this is about the specific lineage of those "giants".

"professing to be wise, they became fools....."

the bottom line is, the spies were cowards, and trying to scare everyone with stories of how big these men were...guess what, God EXECUTED them, what does that tell you about their word?

The bottom line all of a sudden became about the amount of bravery they had? Are you even in the same thread?

hello!

this is way back in Numbers 13, shortly after the Exodus, why are you referencing the time of Joshua?

wow, mark, simply wow....

let's review, just for you.

1--the Nephilim exist.

2--Noah and his family, 8 in all, are saved from the flood.

3--you claim no one else survives.

4--The bible states that those who are Anak's descendants come from the Nephilim.

5--AFTER THE FLOOD, there are Anakites, or Anak's descendants, on the planet.

HOW DID THEY GET THERE? The Nephilim were all wiped out in the flood, right?? so the lineage should have stopped right there. But the bible says it didnt. Well after the flood, the Bible makes references to Anakites, which Joshua killed throughout Israel. And it makes mention of the surviving Anakites--outside the Israeli territory.

Now, put 2 and 2 together, and stop trying to come up with 8.

You know there are several examples in the bible of these Giants that survived the flood.

Also there are Jewish/Christian fairy tales/stories about stow-aways on the ark without Noah's knowledge just to try to explain Moses account of these giants...

BTW Where in the bible does it say these people were half-human / half man?

A local flood describes the circumstances completely, and it even isn't a far stretch.

Its too bad that people are believing in this cult like behavior with the YECs and the AIG....

lol

again, it's a question of CONTEXT

you and your moronic buddy/follower superhack consistently butcher the meaning of the Bible because you ignore the context, and you lack discernment

Job's "friends" said many things that were incorrect....about God and about Job, and yet they are still recorded in the Book of Job, every word....does that make what they said factual? no, you have to read the entire book, you can't just pull stuff out at random and run wild with it, which is what both of you loons have done here month in and month out

worthless minds like your's can't be bothered to put in the hard work/study: God rebuked Job's friends, in fact, He threatened to KILL them for the false things they had spoken...in the very same way, these cowardly spies were EXECUTED for their exaggerated claims about "giants"

CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT....people like you and superhack need to stay FAR away from Bible exegesis

First off, let's get one thing straight. You say youre 40. You say youre a professional. You claim to be intelligent. TRY ACTING LIKE IT. Not once in these posts did I insult you....and yet, you cant help but act like the second grader on the playground. Will you ever show any maturity? Or is insulting all the skill you have?

Look, let's make this really simple. Please put these three things in chronological order, based solely on the Bible:

1--the existence of Nephilim
2--the great flood
3--Joshua's time on earth

Please put those in the correct order. And for cryin out loud, if you cannot do something this simple without using terms like "worthless", "loon", "hack" and so on, dont even bother. Seriously, youre speaking for God, about His Word--and even that isnt enough reason for you to have some maturity at your age?

And dont bother claiming "they did it to me first" like you typically do...I was polite to you without issue. And you were nothing but rude in reply.

note every carefully the fate of the cowradly spies in Numbers 14, beginning with vs. 36

Now the men whom Moses sent to spy out the land, who returned and made all the congregation complain against him by bringing a bad report of the land, those very men who brought the evil report about the land, died by the plague before the LORD. But Joshua the son of Nun and Caleb the son of Jephunneh remained alive, of the men who went to spy out the land.

any questions?

do I get paid for educating fools? I should....

You would get paid in a different way if only you possessed some humility in place of all that arrogance. "professing to be wise...", remember?? You cant have it both ways, Mark....on one hand, you talk about how the one who professes his intelligence will be made a fool....and then you profess your intelligence. Make up your mind already--follow your own advice or stop giving it out.

You would get paid in a different way if only you possessed some humility in place of all that arrogance. "professing to be wise...", remember?? You cant have it both ways, Mark....on one hand, you talk about how the one who professes his intelligence will be made a fool....and then you profess your intelligence. Make up your mind already--follow your own advice or stop giving it out.

+1 :owned:

do I get paid for educating fools? I should....

note how well god regards his own promises to mankind .


Numbers 14 (King James Version)

30 Doubtless ye shall not come into the land, concerning which I sware to make you dwell therein, save Caleb the son of Jephunneh, and Joshua the son of Nun.

34 After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years, and ye shall know my breach of promise.
the spies reported that the people who lived in the land that god proposed to make them attack were big and bad and would kick their scrawny jew asses.

Numbers 14 (King James Version)

44 But they presumed to go up unto the hill top: nevertheless the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and Moses, departed not out of the camp.

45 Then the Amalekites came down, and the Canaanites which dwelt in that hill, and smote them, and discomfited them, even unto Hormah.

after god "executed" the spies for telling the truth the jews got their scrawny asses kicked , because god reneged on his promise, exactly as the spies were executed for saying would happen.

Numbers 13 (King James Version)

27 And they told him, and said, We came unto the land whither thou sentest us, and surely it floweth with milk and honey; and this is the fruit of it.

28 Nevertheless the people be strong that dwell in the land, and the cities are walled, and very great: and moreover we saw the children of Anak there.

29 The Amalekites dwell in the land of the south: and the Hittites, and the Jebusites, and the Amorites, dwell in the mountains: and the Canaanites dwell by the sea, and by the coast of Jordan.

30 And Caleb stilled the people before Moses, and said, Let us go up at once, and possess it; for we are well able to overcome it.

31 But the men that went up with him said, We be not able to go up against the people; for they are stronger than we.

32 And they brought up an evil report of the land which they had searched unto the children of Israel, saying, The land, through which we have gone to search it, is a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof; and all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature.

33 And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.

:bowdown: :screwyou:

hehe

I just feel like the Bible is always under attack here and it really makes me angry...if I felt people came here with an attitude of respect for the scriptures I wouldn't be that way

heh, as a tool for producing evil the bible has no equal, and so deserves respect for its evil accomplishments.
better ? :D

try to look at from the vantage of you going to a moslem board , how would YOU be ABLE to honestly display an attitude of respect for the koran ?

difficult, if not impossible, huh ?

possibly the best you could do would be to be civil to the folks who Believe, and try at every opportunity to show them the evil in that devil inspired work of fiction.

but, that is the absolute truth as best as I could state it briefly.

you have a different recollection of the RX-7 board from me, I still post there whenever I have something to say and I do not feel at all humiliated.

possibly it is because I have no fear whatsoever of being shown any error that I may make in my reasoning and so will cheerfully flip flop to correct my errors as soon as I see them.

killing people is evil, the bible glorifies killing people, the second point is irrefutable, the first point is refuted by you because the bible says so.

the Flood is a wonderful/horrible example.

makes me lose all respect for you (as if I ever had any)


at least I have never been accused of being "lukewarm" :D

you were essentially laughed right off the rx-7club thread (you know the one) when it was several Christians with me, and you were the only voice on the atheist side, no one could take you seriously!


which one ? if it is still online I would love to reread it, I can think of a couple threads that I lost track of.
was it the one about the two Lazaruses ?
or the one about pregnant women in the flood ?

seriously, any specifics that would help me search for it would be welcome.

{inbetween me finding a girlfriend {now my WIFE :D} and my daddy dying the last couple of years have been filled with distractions.}

ok, fair enough, that was uncalled for, I just feel like the Bible is always under attack here and it really makes me angry...if I felt people came here with an attitude of respect for the scriptures I wouldn't be that way

Hey that respect is a two way street.
When someone posted something from the Book of Mormon, you threw a tantrum and Mantis called and corrected you on it.

Don't be a hypocrite and think that this forum is your little 'Christian only' forum. Its not. You say some of the most outlandish BS and personal attacks and I'm surprised that you get away with it....

that's right, you've been a complete ass since our disagreement about the days of creation

and since that time you've been hanging around here (because you're a divorced loser with no life), to see how much of a little karate-kicking prick you can be...you're worthless

Thanks for proving my point. Such a nice Christian thing for you to say.

Lets see, in the last couple of days you have called me
Dog poop
divorced loser with no life (my girlfriend would beg to differ)
karate-kicking prick
and the usual outside/heretic


Yes, you are such the fine example of a Christian. So glad your true colors show.

just calling a spade a spade

you need to shape up

Huh? Believe me you are the last person anyone would take advise from here.

LOL, you think that you have any 'authority'....oh wait, you couldn't even be a mod here!

:roll: :roll: :roll:

all the mods on this forum are agnostics like you


Sounds like the 'little man' has a chip on his shoulder. Right. Paint them any color you want, there is one reason that you are not a mod here....your personality.

Man you can't even see it! :roll: :roll: :roll:

correct

so, the order I posted was correct, right?

1--the existence of Nephilim
2--the great flood
3--Joshua's time on earth

Ok, now, the Nephilim were here before the flood. You contend that the flood killed them all off. But Joshua, after the flood, chased the Anakites and killed all the ones still in Israel....tha Anakites, which the bible itself clearly states are descendants of the Nephilim.

If no Nephilim survived, how did their bloodline survive to create Anak and his people? how were these people alive after the flood, to be killed by Joshua, if they all died in the flood?

If no Nephilim survived, how did their bloodline survive to create Anak and his people? how were these people alive after the flood, to be killed by Joshua, if they all died in the flood?

easy peasy, the halfbreeds were mortal, and slaughtered along with the rest of mankind, the fathers of the race are immortal and so got to helplessly watch their families drown.

the ones you see are obviously children of the same horny angels and daughters of noah.

again, you are confusing the Nephilim, the "men of renown" (who no doubt had some degree of supernatural ability/strength/physical stature), and who lived many hundreds of years earlier (before the Flood), with the sons of Anak in Moses day...they have absolutely NOTHING in common...and that is the false pretense of this entire thread, there is no conection between the two!

again, the cowardly spies reported the men in the promised land were "giants" and compared them (by exaggerated claims) to the legendary Nephilim, in an attempt to discourage the congregation from attempting conquest of the Land

just imagine you sending spies into a foreign camp in 2007 and the spies come come back and say "wow! those men look like greek gods!"...does that mean anything? you're missing the entire context here, it was all exaggeration in an attempt to discourage and dishearten the Israelites, and God killed those evil, cowardly spies

You need to take a good look at that scripture, Mark. That is not why those spies were killed. They gave a "bad report" and tried to rally the Israelites against God's plan. They did not have any faith in God's promise. They convinced many other Israelites not to follow Moses, and hence, not to follow God. THAT is why they were killed, and that is why the others were also killed--because they lacked faith in God's promise. It doesnt say that they made a FALSE claim--it says that they made a bad report on the land. So, they saw the Anakites, and returned panicked. They were afraid for their lives. They reported that there were Giants living there--the Anakites--and there were. They did not make that up, and you are incorrect to say that they did.

Proof of this can be found in Deuteronomy 2

1 Hear, O Israel. You are now about to cross the Jordan to go in and dispossess nations greater and stronger than you, with large cities that have walls up to the sky. 2 The people are strong and tall—Anakites! You know about them and have heard it said: "Who can stand up against the Anakites?" 3 But be assured today that the LORD your God is the one who goes across ahead of you like a devouring fire. He will destroy them; he will subdue them before you. And you will drive them out and annihilate them quickly, as the LORD has promised you.

The Emites used to live there—a people strong and numerous, and as tall as the Anakites.

Any way you look at this, it is clear that the Anakites were in fact giants. here's more, from the same chapter:

10 (The Emites used to live there—a people strong and numerous, and as tall as the Anakites. 11 Like the Anakites, they too were considered Rephaites, but the Moabites called them Emites.

In the bible, Rephaites were known as very tall men, for example, consider Og...Deuteronomy 3:

11 (Only Og king of Bashan was left of the remnant of the Rephaites. His bed [a] was made of iron and was more than thirteen feet long and six feet wide. [b] It is still in Rabbah of the Ammonites.)

So....if a guy stood in front of the average man, and stood 13 feet tall, why would you consider it an exaggeration for that average sized guy to feel so short? Doesnt sound like an exaggeration to me....the giants were more than twice as tall as the average man was! And this is strictly going from what the Bible states, Mark. I dont know if I would use the term "grasshopper", but lets face it--humans will easily make such statements when driven by genuine fear. They went into the land and saw these giants, and reported back the way they did because they didnt think they would stand a chance. They lost faith in the Lord. That is why they were struck down--NOT because they lied about the size of the men they saw. Again, you have confused a "bad report" with a "false report". They gave a bad report, meaning they told everyone that the giants were there, and that they all should turn back from THE LAND THE LORD PREPARED FOR THEM. That was the bad report, Mark. Otherwise, if you and your "noted scholar" were correct, there would not be references elsewhere in the bible to the actual height of these people being around 13 feet!

Again, Numbers 13:

32 And they gave the children of Israel a bad report of the land which they had spied out, saying, “The land through which we have gone as spies is a land that devours its inhabitants, and all the people whom we saw in it are men of great stature. 33 There we saw the giants[a] (the descendants of Anak came from the giants); and we were like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.”

1-they gave a bad report ON THE LAND--saying that "it is a land that devours its inhabitants". This is NOT giving a false report on the PEOPLE there--it was speaking badly OF THE LAND.

2--they then go on to say something in addition to this--"AND(meaning this is something else)the people we saw are of great stature..." Again, this is not a lie--how could it be? The Bible establishes three things here--

--The Anakites were in fact giants--Og was about 13 feet tall. And while Og was really a Rephaite, I also posted scripture that shows the two groups considered to be the same.

--The Anakites were in fact in this place--Joshua would not have needed to later kill them and drive them out of Israel otherwise, would he?

--the spies reported what they saw, and the scriptures back their claims. They saw men that were very much taller than the average, and reported this. Sure, their fear got the best of them, but they were not lying. Their sin was not in saying that the giants were on the land--it is clearly shown that their sin was LACKING FAITH IN THE LORD'S PROMISE.

waiting for another one of skidMark's twisted bible scripture tap dance.........


http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q255/95whitepep/themonkey.gif

who are not bound,

Aha! so you are an Amillenianist. I pose the question, how can we look at the world today and think
satan is bound?

no



of course, I don't believe that

a certain number of the millions of demons currently free and active in human affairs are bound in the abyss (which is clear from various passages)

in the Millennium, all of them are bound...and subsequently condemned to the Lake of Fire

Not all demons are free? Ultimately, they are bound under the sovereignty of God. I don't pretend to understand how this is.

they are "free" in the sense they have access to heaven and to the world of men....those bound in the Abyss do not

it sounds like the demons are split into two factions, one group cooperates with the LORD and does his work here on earth, while the second group failed to carry out orders and was chained in the abyss to keep them from screwing things up.

they also suggested the enemy could not be defeated...an "evil report"

The bible actually uses the term "bad report", not "evil report"...

Numbers 14:

36 So the men Moses had sent to explore the land, who returned and made the whole community grumble against him by spreading a bad report about it- 37 these men responsible for spreading the bad report about the land were struck down and died of a plague before the LORD. 38 Of the men who went to explore the land, only Joshua son of Nun and Caleb son of Jephunneh survived.

Nonetheless, the scripture is quite clear that the reason for the Lord's wrath is not because they went around making up stories or telling lies--it is because they lacked faith. The Lord even told them ahead of time that they would encounter those people in that land, but not to worry because He would protect them. And they lost faith in Him....so He punished them for it. They saw the giants and were afraid....and their report came from the fact that they dropped their faith in Him in favor of that fear. Reminds me of yoda in the empire strikes back for some reason...Yoda raises Luke's ship from the swamp, and Luke says "I dont believe it...."

yoda says, "That is why you fail"

They became afraid, and stopped believing that He would provide...and it cost them.

On a side note, I am going to have to read up on that scholar's take. I havent seen anything that he has written. Got any good links, Mark?

Well lets look at some more evidence that the flood was local.

Genesis 8 (New International Version)

"6 After forty days Noah opened the window he had made in the ark 7 and sent out a raven, and it kept flying back and forth until the water had dried up from the earth. 8 Then he sent out a dove to see if the water had receded from the surface of the ground. 9 But the dove could find no place to set its feet because there was water over all the surface of the earth; so it returned to Noah in the ark. He reached out his hand and took the dove and brought it back to himself in the ark. 10 He waited seven more days and again sent out the dove from the ark. 11 When the dove returned to him in the evening, there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf! Then Noah knew that the water had receded from the earth. "

I don't know about you, but I have never seen a tree grow and sprout leaves in 47 days. So it has to have been that dry land had to of survived in order for this olive tree to have had leaves.

A flood is a deluge of water. There would have been no way for any tree to have survived the onslaught of the the type of water that the YECs insist created the Grand Canyon and the other geographic misnomers....especially the leaves on a tree.

Remember that this is a 'freshly plucked olive leaf' Its origins came from a tree, plucked right from the branch. Any flood would have stripped the leaves from that tree, and even if the tree somehow survived, could have never sprouted new leaves in the less than 47 days. Thus, there was dry land during the flood, which would mean a local flood.

I havent seen anything that he has written. Got any good links,

ysr posted a link in one of his posts, I am pretty sure I linked to some quotes I took from there, LOTS of essays with juicy hate.

The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered.

a cubit is like from elbow to fingertip, yes ?

15 cubits is lower than my house, my Submarine could not submerge in 15 cubits of water.

so that 15 cubits must be talking about how much higher than the tallest mountain the waters rose.

when I did the math I came up with multiplied MILLIONS OF CUBIC MILES of water required to so flood the earth, multiplied billions of tons of water whooshing across the face of the earth.

in both directions, since no way did all that water just evaporate.

all those LAYERS of churned up mud we find fossils in speaks of the violence of the event.

so the leaf question looks reasonable.

although the mud should have been astonishingly fertile what with the entire ecosystem being carefully sorted into layers of fresh corpses.

here's a thought.

the water went away by upheavals changing the face of the earth, thrusting up mountains and balancing them with increased depths, so what if all the water on earth was liquid and the land was perfectly flat, would there be 20' of water covering the billiard ball of earth ?

waterworld ?

mountains collapsing and the depths rising to balance them shoving the oceans across the sinking land worldwide.

then god lets new mountains and depths form, whoosh in reverse.


a virus would be simpler, but it would leave evil mans works, cities, neutron microscopes... etc, intact for future generations to worship.

What do we find in the New Testament? In every New Testament reference to Genesis, the events recorded by Moses are treated as historical events. And in particular, the first three chapters of Genesis are consistently treated as a literal record of historical events.

There lies the problem with comments made from the NT on the old concerning Genesis. Genesis was not a scientific document, it was written with the vantage point of moses at the time, who we all know, was a geologist.

Form there we have the authors of the NT, who comment on the Genesis.

So Moses recounts the Noah flood, which is second hand to him, Noah never saw the flood, and then the authors of the NT recount what they have read from the OT from Moses (if in fact Moses was the author). In any case, its a grapevine, and account of an account of and account when the books of the NT finally comment on it!


So on top of all of this, you have people talking about a story, in an unscientific manner which at best is hearsay!

Now lets place another layer on this, the translations of the bible to English from the original Greek/Latin manuscripts of the NT....

We have seen the NKJ version conjure up some terminology that isn't quite kosher....how can we expect that this has been translated correctly as well?

here's a thought.

the water went away by upheavals changing the face of the earth, thrusting up mountains and balancing them with increased depths, so what if all the water on earth was liquid and the land was perfectly flat, would there be 20' of water covering the billiard ball of earth ?

waterworld ?

mountains collapsing and the depths rising to balance them shoving the oceans across the sinking land worldwide.

then god lets new mountains and depths form, whoosh in reverse.


a virus would be simpler, but it would leave evil mans works, cities, neutron microscopes... etc, intact for future generations to worship.

interesting, but somehow I dont think that they had neutron microscopes in existence when the flood took place, honegod....still, interesting theory

interesting, but somehow I dont think that they had neutron microscopes in existence when the flood took place, honegod....still, interesting theory

we went from steam powered wooden ships in 1860 to landing a man on the moon in 1960* as a direct result of turning away from god with our evil godless "science", just the sort of thing god really hates.

there is no reason to suppose that the less genetically impaired pre flood folks were stupider than we are.

since all current geological features of this planet were constructed by the flood, it seems likely that the features of the moon might be too.
so all those craters on the moon I see in the telescope could well be the scars left by god dropping the same fireballs on the thriving lunar colonies that he later used against sodom etc.

{* 1969, jeeze poetic license}

you're such a brainwashed parrot it's incredible, nothing I post ever sinks into your mile-thick concrete skull, and I don't think it ever will...


Its not a matter of 'if I get it'. Its a matter if I want to believe in your cults ideas and viewpoints. Are YOU that stupid?



ALL scripture is God breathed (in the original autograph)...ALL...it doesn't matter what the "scientific" qualifications of the writers of scripture happened to be, God used these men to write down what


No God gave them a description that they could understand at that time, no more , no less. None of these men were scientists, and if any of them had the intelligence, say of scientists of this day in age, the scriptures would be a lot more technical. Do you get that brick head?


true, the Bible is not a science textbook, but that isn't the point!
Yes thats exactly my point, yet you want to turn it into a scientific document... can't have it both ways there skidMark.



another strawman...discoveries like the Dead Sea Scrolls have PROVEN the O.T. books (e.g. Isaiah) read word-for-word with modern english translations, with what may be considered poor word choice in about 0.1% of cases, a stunning achivement for a document that old


Do you just now realize that in once sentence you have contradicted yourself? You say that the accuracy is there, but then you state there are errors?

BTW, its achievement not 'achivement' . Learn to spell.

:scratch: i still dont see how this has anything to do with one of the greatest rock bands in history.

Bah!

Try NIN!! :D

There lies the problem with comments made from the NT on the old concerning Genesis. Genesis was not a scientific document, it was written with the vantage point of moses at the time, who we all know, was a geologist.

Form there we have the authors of the NT, who comment on the Genesis.

So Moses recounts the Noah flood, which is second hand to him, Noah never saw the flood, and then the authors of the NT recount what they have read from the OT from Moses (if in fact Moses was the author). In any case, its a grapevine, and account of an account of and account when the books of the NT finally comment on it!


So on top of all of this, you have people talking about a story, in an unscientific manner which at best is hearsay!

Now lets place another layer on this, the translations of the bible to English from the original Greek/Latin manuscripts of the NT....

We have seen the NKJ version conjure up some terminology that isn't quite kosher....how can we expect that this has been translated correctly as well?

You sound like a skeptic to me.

no, most of Genesis' stuff was forgettable

try Maiden :)

youre just mad because you are still looking for that invisible touch....

in fact, this is a veiled way of saying God doesn't tell the truth



What kind of tripe are you trying to pawn off now?

Tell you what, how do you explain things to a 2 year old.
Hold do you explain things to a 10 yr old, 15, 20....and so on.

Right, you take it down to a layman's terms in order for to get your point across for the proper audience.... Its just to bad your brain wants to hold on to the 2yr old explanation.
:roll: :roll: :roll:

You are such a broken record.....why do you keep insisting on bringing up the Evolution vs Creation when we are talking about the flood? Is it because of all of the brainwashing that you have had by your YEC and AIG cult?

At least you are not posting from that answeringenesis site which you disagreed with the other day.

I swear you are going to be the crazy dude on the street corner with the sign and a bell proclaiming the end of the world is near....better yet you are half way there with your cyber soapbox.

because you and the agnostic AEEP crowd play the same games with Genesis 6 and 7 as you do with Genesis 1 and 2, there is really no difference in strategy

LOL what ever you and your delusional mind tell you....:rolleyes:
Whoogie-boogie they are after you!


AEEP, is that some sort of secret enemy? Never knew you had it out for the
Agricultural Environmental Enhancement Program...
Association européenne d’éducation pour la Paix...
Association of Environmental Engineering Professors...
Alternative Education Enhancement Project...
Acoustically Enhanced Electro-plating...
AFTER AN EARTHQUAKE EMERGENCY PROCEDURES...

:roll: :roll: :roll:

he's trying to set off smoke screens to hide the FACT that god specifically promised that only the ORIGINAL manuscripts were his True Word, KNOWING that those originals would disappear leaving NOTHING to refer to as absolute Truth.

putting him in the position of trying to find reasons to believe that scriptures that god himself specifically said were NOT infallible, actually ARE infallible.

Ancient Earth Evolutionary Propaganda

:rolleyes:

I defined it several times, your memory/reading comprehension stinks

just keep parroting the "YEC" stuff....hell awaits

Hey thats my line! Who's the parrot now?
And you have come up with some stupid retard term that no one gives a crap about....:rolleyes:

people primarily wrote on goatskins and papyrus back then, the stuff doesn't hang around forever...think for a minute about how rare it is to see a letter from an old relative from the 1920s, for example

it was only the very unique environmental conditions of the caves of Qumran that allowed the Dead Sea Scrolls to be preserved for so long


excuses.

god had his people construct a safe in which to preserve his word, the ARK of the covenant, ark as in noahs ark, a container to save its sacred contents.

but we lost that too, oops.

"with god anything is possible."
except preserving his word.

right, preserved ALMOST perfectly in amazingly almost accurate copies that are absolutely NOT the actual infallible word that god gave us.

and was unable to preserve.

I am still missing the part where god speaks to man ALMOST perfectly.

isn't adding, taking away, or changing a single word, of The Word, an unfordivable sin ?

what is an "preserved with great accuracy" document but one that HAS BEEN changed from the perfect original ?

who are you, or any other human, to judge what changes to the Word of god are inconsequential ?

feel free to reference any example you want

any example, except one from the ACTUAL word of god, which is not available.

which fact is beyond dispute.

the basic doctrines are repeated numerous times and absolutely beyond dispute

those texts agree on what they call the basic doctrines, but without the actual word of god, which is not available for comparison, there is NO WAY to verify that they ARE the doctrines set forth in the True word of god.

in that it matters not how many documents claim inerrent transmission of the original, WITHOUT the original, and only ACTUALLY true document, all you have in your hand is lies.

which is WHY the jews went to such lengths to insure that any copy was totally true to the original, they understood where you do not.

if there was no original, the many copies discovered would not agree so elegantly, including the N.T. references to O.T. statements

we KNOW that satan produces MANY false 'scriptures' which is why god produced a True scripture, so that the false scriptures would be revealed AS false by comparing them to the True scripture.

so until a 'scripture' IS compared to gods own True scripture and seen to correspond EXACTLY to it, the suspect 'scripture' MUST be assumed to be a work of satan.


so, even though you have lots of almost accurate copies of an original 'scripture' you are unable to compare ANY of them, INCLUDING the 'original' from which the less than perfect copies were made, to the one True scripture.

which one True original god apparantly hid from us, since it is nowhere available to us.

stunning rebut, not.

if the 'original' from which your versions were copied differed from the Original that god wrote with the hands of his prophets, it makes NO difference how amazingly accurate your copy is.

you have NEITHER Original nor original to cite as a source.

this is the perfect work of god in transmitting the information more important than anything found in DNA ?


Satan apes what God does (first)

does that mean that satan apes what god does, but before god does it ?
like the flood in gilgamesh ?

or satan subsequently apes what god does first ?
like the koran and the old testament