Some of my friends good-humoredly – and some a little bit severely – have called me a 'mystic.' Well I'd like to say this about any mysticism I may suppose to have. If an arch-angel from heaven were to come, and were to start giving me, telling me, teaching me, and giving me instruction, I'd ask him for the text. I'd say, 'Where's it say that in the Bible? I want to know.' And I would insist that it was according to the scriptures, because I do not believe in any extra-scriptural teachings, nor any anti-scriptural teachings, or any sub-scriptural teachings. I think we ought to put the emphasis where God puts it, and continue to put it there, and to expound the scriptures, and stay by the scriptures. I wouldn't – no matter if I saw a light above the light of the sun, I'd keep my mouth shut about it 'til I'd checked with Daniel and Revelation and the rest of the scriptures to see if it had any basis in truth. And if it didn't, I'd think I'd just eaten something I shouldn't, and I wouldn't say anything about it. Because I don't believe in anything that is unscriptural or that is anti-scripture." — What Difference Does the Holy Spirit Make?

This got me to thinking. Suppose that you hear a voice, and unlike most voices, this one seems to be speaking from the heavens. Naturally you listen to the voice and when it has finished what it had to say, you consider what you have heard. Now, according to Tozer, before one can believe that what they heard was truly divine, they must use the Bible, God’s confirmed word, as a filter so as to determine any holy validity in the words spoken.

Now consider Abraham when he was commanded to sacrifice his only son, apparently by God. What filter did he have? How did he distinguish the Voice of God from the voices in his head?

I would think that most physically normal people would know if was God talking to them.
You would either piss your pants or freak out.

But most crazy people who hear 'God', well they don't think they are crazy at all.
And if they can pass as normal, then there is trouble.

So your guess is as good as mine....


Uh...just a question...but you're not hearing voices are you? Better yet, if you are I hope it doesn't sound like Marks.

I would think that most physically normal people would know if was God talking to them.
You would either piss your pants or freak out.

I don't recall reading about Abraham pissing himself. Perhaps that part was omited?

But most crazy people who hear 'God', well they don't think they are crazy at all.
And if they can pass as normal, then there is trouble.

Making their actions indistinguisble from the sane. Is this to say that such a reaction is insane because the sane reaction to such a voice is insanity?

Uh...just a question...but you're not hearing voices are you? Better yet, if you are I hope it doesn't sound like Marks.

I haven't pissed myself and asking the question would seem too insane to be isane, so you tell me.

It's the Lord, Noah

Riiight. Where are ya? What you want? I've been good.

I want you to build an Ark

Riiight.Whats an Ark?

Get some wood build it 300 cubits by 80 cubits by 40 cubits

Riiight. Whats a cubit?

Lets see a cubit...I used to know what a cubit was... Well don't worry about that Noah. When you get that done go out into the world and collect all of the animals in the world by twos - Male and female - and put them into the ark

Riiight.Who is this really? What's going on? How come you want me to do all these weird things?

I'm going to destory the world

Riiight. Am I on Candid Camera?

Folks, hearing voices is a serious symptom of psychosis or neurological impairment.

Folks, hearing voices is a serious symptom of psychosis or neurological impairment.

That doesn't really address the question...

Oh sorry, I thought this was real life. Carry on...

It's the Lord, Noah

Riiight. Where are ya? What you want? I've been good.

I want you to build an Ark

Riiight.Whats an Ark?

Get some wood build it 300 cubits by 80 cubits by 40 cubits

Riiight. Whats a cubit?

Lets see a cubit...I used to know what a cubit was... Well don't worry about that Noah. When you get that done go out into the world and collect all of the animals in the world by twos - Male and female - and put them into the ark

Riiight.Who is this really? What's going on? How come you want me to do all these weird things?

I'm going to destory the world

Riiight. Am I on Candid Camera?
Eddie Izzard?

Bill Cosby i thought

Now consider Abraham when he was commanded to sacrifice his only son, apparently by God. What filter did he have? How did he distinguish the Voice of God from the voices in his head?

Wow Ark2, what a great topic to discuss. I'm no Bible scholar but I've been around Genesis a time or two.

First, I notice that you correctly point out "his only son" just as the Bible does in spite of the fact that Ishmael was Abraham's son and he was older than Isaac.

2 Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about.”

Abraham believed God because God had already proven himself to Abraham. God had promised Abraham he would become a great nation in the prior chapters of Genesis. Because of Sarah's doubt, and she was older than child bearing age, she suggested Abraham get her maidservant Hagar pregnant in order to fulfill the promise. Duh! You can't help God. So Ishmael was born. Then Sarah did get pregnant, just as God had promised. So whatever God would say to Abraham, including the sacrifice of his only son, Abraham knew God was true to his word.

Ping ! Noah.

lol :D

{why is there air ?}

Ping ! Noah.

lol :D

{why is there air ?}

Because life without it is very uncomfortable?

Wow Ark2, what a great topic to discuss. I'm no Bible scholar but I've been around Genesis a time or two.

Sarcasm?

Abraham believed God because God had already proven himself to Abraham. God had promised Abraham he would become a great nation in the prior chapters of Genesis. Because of Sarah's doubt, and she was older than child bearing age, she suggested Abraham get her maidservant Hagar pregnant in order to fulfill the promise. Duh! You can't help God. So Ishmael was born. Then Sarah did get pregnant, just as God had promised. So whatever God would say to Abraham, including the sacrifice of his only son, Abraham knew God was true to his word.

God proving Himself to someone can occur in many different ways. As I understand it, there is no standard for doing so. As such, this sort of thing can occur through the realization of prophecy, the image of the Virgin Mary appearing on a grill cheese sandwich, etc. All that is required is for one to feel convinced that God is reaching out to them. The problem here is that without a reference for truth, how does one differentiate divine intervention from delirium? How does one distinguish a miracle from a natural occurrence? There are many people in this word that believe they have been reached by God, most of which I’m sure you would have no problem calling their assertions false. You can read about plenty of them here: http://www.crimelibrary.com/

Assuming that God has proven Himself to Abraham, or anyone else for that matter, what assurances are there that the commandment actually came from God?

There are many people in this word that believe they have been reached by God, most of which I’m sure you would have no problem calling their assertions false.

Assuming that God has proven Himself to Abraham, or anyone else for that matter, what assurances are there that the commandment actually came from God?

the vast majority of people who have received any communication from god, including his writen Word, are judged by everybody else to ACTUALLY have been communicated with by satan pretending to be god {with gods authorization to so lie, mind}.

so what is the difference between hearing god and hearing satan telling you lies AUTHORISED by god for you to be told ?


I think the point is that you cannot tell the difference, since being able to tell when satan is lying would mean god had not given satan enough superpowers to get the {gods} job done properly.

this would explain a lot of the bible.

Because life without it is very uncomfortable?

ask any PE coach, there is air to blow up vollyballs, and footballs and basketballs. { He absolutely said it better. }

Bill Cosby i thought

You're right.

good god YZF is back. Me so happy:knob:

good god. there is no god that answer prayers anyway

Wrong thread.

Tozer's words (not surprisingly) echo the scriptures

Galatians 1

I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ.
Um... that doesn't really answer the question.

Hey Mark, Christ just called. He says you're a cunt and you're not going to heaven. :bigthumb:

Alright, so only God can be trusted and any other apparitions should be ignored until their message is deemed Biblically credible. What if a man, suffering from delirium is convinced that God is directly speaking to him? What if this man lived during Biblical times when a proper reference for the truth was not available? Would he be held accountable for believing that the voice was genuine?

think about it for a minute: Noah and his family were spared, everyone else (likely millions of people) were buriedNo, you think about it for a minute.

If the Bibilical account of the flood were true, Noah and his family -- who all believed firmly in the Christian God, all spoke the same language, and were all of the same race -- would have to be the root of all the various races, religions, and languages on the planet today. How likely do you think that is, and why doesn't the Bible record any of that "history"?

Seriously Mark, deductive reasoning and rational thought just aren't among your multitude of talents... :roll:

ever read Genesis 10?Well hell, that explains everything. :bigthumb:

actually it doesNo, not even close.

If it looks like horseshit and smells like horseshit... it's probably something you posted.

So, let me get this straight. All these descendants of Noah's family, who believed in God and were saved by God during the flood, then willfully decided to go out and become Chinese, Japanese, Inuit, Native America, African, Mayan, and two or three dozen other distinct non-European or Middle Eastern nationalities (not to mention overcoming the logistics of traveling the vast distances involved in migrating to their various locations), developed their own new individual languages (most of which don't share anything in common with Middle Eastern or European languages or eachother, for that matter), and forsake the God that saved their ancestors to develop their own new forms of religious and ancestral worship. Yeah, that's believable.

Now... how would a jealous and spiteful Christian God who supposedly swept the earth clean once to do away with all the non-Christian hanky panky going on feel about that, and why in fuck's sake hasn't he done anything about it in the last several thousand years? Ah, that's right... because he made a promise to Noah never to do anything miraculous after the great unwashed masses became literate. How convenient.

Mark, for someone who touts the rigor of his own education and abilities as a deep thinker on all matters physical and spiritual, you're a fucking moron.

actually it does, the roots of all the major world civilizations can be traced back to those early middle eastern clans

remember, contrary to atheist speculations, there are no records of human civilizations beyond 5,000 years or so

regardless, atheists conveniently ignore that little problem and ramble on about "hominids" and "millions of years"

it's a house of cards

let's see about this for a minute......

One jewish family survives while every other living thing on the planet is killed. That jewish family repopulates the earth....and suddenly, even though this is a jewish family, these jews became arabs instead of remaining jews.....they became oriental, instead of remaining jews.....they became all the other races of people, even though they were originally jews. How many people do you know of that were jewish at birth, then became asian? Different tribes, yes, I can understand this.....but Shem did not miraculously father a little Japanese boy. One ark existed. On that ark were only Jews. From those Jews came everyone else. hmmmm......

excellent readI have to admit that you absolutely excel at shoveling horseshit. I think you missed your true calling.

you're neglecting the impact of BabelYeah, let's not forget the Tower of Babel... which though built of simple baked bricks, was apparently 5 times the height of the tallest structure modern technology has made possible, the Taipei 101.

Those must have been some good bricks... :roll:

you're a rock headed moronhttp://www.theforumlounge.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=1964&stc=1&d=1170261031

is that from Discovery Channel?The Book of Jubilees (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Jubilees) or "Lesser Genesis".

Jubilees 10:20-21
And they began to build, and in the fourth week they made brick with fire, and the bricks served them for stone, and the clay with which they cemented them together was asphalt which comes out of the sea, and out of the fountains of water in the land of Shinar. And they built it: forty and three years were they building it ... its height amounted to 5433 cubits and 2 palms

that's an apochryphal work written by a Jewish pharisee long after Moses wrote Genesis, and is likely not credible,

heh :bigthumb:

likely not credibleNone of the Bible is credible, so what makes Jubilees any more far-fetched than Genesis?

Because it's not included in your version of the Bible?

:roll:

cred·i·ble (krěd'ə-bəl)
Capable of being believed; plausible.

plau·si·ble (plaw-zuh-buhl)
Seemingly or apparently valid, likely, or acceptable.

like·ly (lahyk-lee)
Seeming like truth, fact, or certainty; reasonably to be believed or expected.


The Bible is capable of being believed, assuming a willing suspension of disbelief*... but credible, plausible, or likely? No, no, and um... no.



*We're talking about the level of willing suspension of disbelief required to reach the conclusion that The Lord of the Rings was based on historical fact...

again, that's your opinionNo, that's fact. The parables in the Bible are far-fetched at the very least and out-right preposterous in many cases.

It's your opinion that the Bible is 100% factual... are you able to tell the difference?

No, that's fact. The parables in the Bible are far-fetched at the very least and out-right preposterous in many cases.

It's your opinion that the Bible is 100% factual... are you able to tell the difference?

um, jim, the parables in the bible were not ever meant or claimed to be factual accounts of real events. The parables were more or less analogies--by telling a story, Jesus would illustrate a point. If you read further, you will see explanations for them. The goal needs to be reading for the purpose of understanding, not just reading to say you know what the words are.

um, jim, the parables in the bible were not ever meant or claimed to be factual accounts of real events. The parables were more or less analogies--by telling a story, Jesus would illustrate a point.I was referring to parables like "Mr. Noah's Wild Ark Ride" and "The Leaning Tower of Babel"...

the account of the Flood of Noah's day and Babel are far from "parables", they are literal historyNo, the sinking of the Titanic is literal history. The construction of the leaning Tower of Pisa is literal history. Noah's Ark and Tower of Babel are fairy tales.

but there's always "hominids", "goo-to-you", and "millions of years"

ya....that's it...that's how it happened....that's SCIENCE babyAs scientific as a 400-foot long wooden boat with several thousand animals onboard or a tower 6,800-something feet tall built of mud bricks?

if the ark is ever found...Not much danger of that, is there. :roll:

the account of the Flood of Noah's day and Babel are far from "parables", they are literal history, essential to a correct understanding of the earth's past

:roll:

Does the term genetic bottleneck mean anything to you? Feel free to explain how the human population went from a maximum of 16 HLA-B alleles to 627 in less than 5000 years. :roll:

but there's always "hominids", "goo-to-you", and "millions of years"

ya....that's it...that's how it happened....that's SCIENCE baby

:rolleyes:

Creationism...that's scien...er, wait a minute. It's not.

if the ark is ever found, I wonder what you would say

That Gilgamesh is true? :scratch:

the genetic bottleneck resulted in a drastic reduction in life spans, as described in Genesis 11

That's not what I asked you to explain. Explain how you go from a maximum of 16 HLA-B alleles to 627 in ~100-200 generations. That's not a "life-friendly" mutation rate.

if the Bible was written by "dumb cavemen" as some people assert,

"Dumb" (Ignorant is a better word) Nomadic shepherds.

they did an amazing job of answering questions

Right. Like the number of legs an insect has, which animals "chew their cud", how the Earth stopped spinning for a day, etc. :rolleyes:

They're nothing more than campfire stories. No more relevant than those told by aboriginals or Native Americans.

and the Quran?

What about it? It's preserved "inerrantly" as well.

contians a parallel account of the Flood

Right. And it predates Genesis.

so?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0329gilgamesh.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/flood/introduction.asp

So despite what your favorite handwavers like to say, one is clearly a copy of the other.

Now stop avoiding my question and explain how you go from a maximum of 16 HLA-B alleles to 627 in ~100-200 generations.

"Genesis is older
Funny you didn't provide the link. Wonder why that is? :rolleyes:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0329gilgamesh.asp

I don't give two shits what Jonathan Sarfati or AiG has to say about it. They both have a serious credibility problem.

care to back that up with something besides a website with an atheist agenda?http://www.theforumlounge.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=1964&stc=1&d=1170261031

care to back that up with something besides a website with an atheist agenda?

How can I when you think anything that isn't overtly Christian (in the fundamentalist sense) has an atheistic agenda? :roll:

A quick google search with keywords "gilgamesh" "genesis" and "age" yields the following.

http://www.spiritualwisdom.org.uk/epic-of-gilgamesh.htm

The Epic of Gilgamesh has been hailed as one of the great masterpieces of world literature ever since its first translation into modern languages. The original manuscripts of the Epic are cuneiform tablets – small rectangles of clay inscribed with wedge shaped writing – found in a number of ancient cities especially in the land now called Iraq. This style of writing developed in about 3000BC and the Epic was first written down about 2000BC at least 1000 years before the story of Noah in Genesis was committed to a written record.

http://www.123helpme.com/view.asp?id=8421
The two stories closely parallel each other, though Gilgamesh was written down before 2000 BCE and the version in Genesis was compiled ca. 400 BCE. Biblical writers probably knew of the much older myth but revised it so that it fit with their own history and worldview. They intended it to fit with their own mythology. Despite the many similarities between the two stories, this difference in intention is revealed in a number of motifs that distinguish the biblical story from the ancient myth

Feel free to provide a non-christian source that suggests otherwise.

Either way it's irrelevant. They are clearly both mythology.

lol

of course!

care to back that up with something besides a website with an atheist agenda?

well, we COULD just use your favorite one--after all, I have used it before to show their errors and prove you wrong....let's try it again. From the link you posted earlier:

The Gilgamesh Epic has close parallels with the account of Noah’s Flood. Its close similarities are due to its closeness to the real event. However, there are major differences as well. Everything in the Epic, from the gross polytheism to the absurd cubical ark, as well as the worldwide flood legends, shows that the Genesis account is the original, while the Gilgamesh Epic is a distortion.

1--the concept of polytheism is just as proveable right now as the concept of one god. The fact is that no one will be able to prove the existence of either one god or many until they die....so using a BELIEF as a statement of factual information = fail.

2--the design of the ark does not prove one single thing--think about it...God could flood the entire earth, but He couldnt save one boat on the ocean unless it was designed according to the thoughts of a modern shipbuilder?? Jesus walked on water....God made many miracles happen, but the shape of the ark would have been too much for Him to overcome suddenly?? FAIL....this is the problem when you try to prove a faith issue using human logic....you FAIL. God can do anything, even more than any human could ever imagine, yet the shape of the ark in the other account automatically means failure to you?? Sorry, but that doesnt prove anything.

3--so, there are other global flood stories--so what??? Again, FAITH is not something that can be proven in this life. And going through so much effort only makes for a futile attempt. If proof could be found while we are all still living, then faith would no longer be needed....FAIL.

Genesis was written by Moses ca. 1500 BC; common knowledge

Yeah, Common knowledge. :rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis
There are also fragments of unvocalized Hebrew Genesis texts preserved in some Dead Sea scrolls (2nd century BC to 1st century AD). According to tradition the Torah was translated into Greek (the Septuagint, or 70, from the traditional number of translators). in the 3rd century BC. The oldest Greek manuscripts include 2nd century BC fragments of Leviticus and Deuteronomy (Rahlfs nos. 801, 819, and 957), and 1st century BC fragments of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and the Minor Prophets (Rahlfs nos. 802, 803, 805, 848, 942, and 943). Relatively complete manuscripts of the LXX (i.e.e, the Septuagint) include the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus of the 4th century and the Codex Alexandrinus of the 5th century - these are the oldest surviving nearly-complete manuscripts of the Old Testament in any language. There are minor variations between the Greek and Hebrew texts, and between the three oldest Greek texts.

Although the text of Genesis makes no claim about authorship, the traditional Jewish, and later Christian, belief was that the five books of the Torah were dictated by God to Moses on Mount Sinai. For a number of reasons this is no longer accepted by the majority of modern biblical scholars, and contemporary academic debate centres instead on the proposal known as the documentary hypothesis. This postulates that Genesis, together with the other four books, is a composite work assembled from various sources.

where do you get these crackpot anti-Christian websites? :roll:

I told you exactly how I cam across them. Google.

Genesis was written by Moses ca. 1500 BC; common knowledgeI think "perpetuated fiction" is the phrase you were looking for... and unless you were there to watch him write it, all you've got to go on is several thousand years of conspiratorial hearsay.

oh brother, wiki again

I have noticed that you don't like 'wiki', why ?

is there an icr page that will explain it to me or would you type the why for me, please, I really am curious.

{note "when respect is given ..." } :peace:

http://www.trueorigin.org/tablet.asp

All of the original tablets have been long and completely lost, so we don’t know anything about what they were like. All of what I’ve written above is from textual evidence, not from physical remains.

We know, from the ancient Nuzi library, that clay tablets were commonly used, at least as far back as Abraham’s time. These have lasted for over 4000 years, and are still legible, in museums today. Clay is certainly a likely material for the early Biblical tablets.

so we have the original inerrent manuscripts written on a medium which ABSOLUTELY could be preserved for the entire history of mankind for the benefit of all humanity and the glorification of god, and they got "lost" too.

:rolleyes:

oh brother, wiki again

Nothing inherently wrong with the wiki. It's usually a good starting point for a nice overview. I'd trust the wiki before I'd trust you and your merry group of Tru-Believersâ„¢.

you're supposed to be smarter than superhack, but sometimes I wonder

Whatever. You're not in a position to pass judgment on anyone's coginitive abilities.

"wiki" doesn't sit in judgment on God's Word, which spans 3500 years

it's like comparing a mite to the Washington Monument

man, no one here cares to know how small your package is...keep that info between you and your goat

"wiki" doesn't sit in judgment on God's Word, which spans 3500 years

it's like comparing a mite to the Washington Monument

If you say so. Of course, your opinion isn't any more valid or relevant than the next guy's. *shrug*

Hey Mark, are you the most psychotic zealot in your coven of radical Christians?

:roll:

and below