Noah's flood story, did it happen?

rational experiences · Jun 13, 2021

Human as a man. A thinker a theist.
Says the beginning. Once stated as other state the change. Big bang blast energy begins.

Then tried to coerce a human you were that moment instant. As if a human as human began as the stated state energy.

Knowing no human image in Pretend as a human is even thought about in the moment. The moment he said energy began as energy.

Yet a big bang is the instant. Burning was after blasting.

Is the coercion he uses everyday as a scientist to quote when God the spiral motioned into circular O movement began. As the spirit movement O spiral G O D. It's word.

It is why his brother a man also not coercing in science said no man is God.

Literal.

Dan From Smithville · Jun 13, 2021

rational experiences said:
I was born a human from sperm and an ovary
I grew into a adult human body from being. Human baby.

Are you a lying human scientific theist who built machines...control machines...chose to direct your machines in atmospheric studies already human programmed by humans to study humans and lie?

I am, but my machines are for global conquest. Shhhh! Don't tell anyone.

Fallen Prophet · Jun 13, 2021

gnostic said:
Of course it is allegory.

Do you seriously think that fruit of one tree can give knowledge and fruit of another tree can give everlasting life?

Or that a serpent can talk, like humans do?

Such things only happened in myths, fables and fairytale.

The allegory is not about literal, AND MORE ABOUT CONVEYING MEANINGS through stories, just like Jesus' parables.

Meaning that are meant to teach lessons to people.

What do both Creation and Flood teach?

It teach them not to sin...for instances, the sins of disobeying God.

That's the true value of the allegory, Fallen Prophet.

If you are going to treat allegories as literal and factual, then you have a problem of portraying God as evil and conniving, or worse stupid and evil.

For instances, was the whole Eden story was simply a test?

Then why would he test them at all if God is omniscient, knowing that they would fail anyway? Here, it make God sadistic, because he has set a trap where they were bound to fail.

And if God really wanted them not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, then why plant them within easy access to the fruit?

God could have planted this Tree where it is inaccessible to them, like placing that angel to guard the tree with fiery sword. Why did God in all his omniscient failed to plan ahead? It make God look stupid and incompetent.

On the surface, people take the story for granted, and accept it without thinking. But when you really look deeper, there are a lot of little holes that make God look "literally" evil, incompetent or just plain stupid, especially if you treat such story as literal truth.

Unless - of course - God wanted them to partake of the fruit all along - which is what I believe.

I believe they were literal people who needed to enter into mortality in order to progress and become like God - but God would never force the conditions of mortality upon anyone - because He is perfect Being - perfectly just and lawful.

Therefore - God gave Adam and Eve all the tools they needed to make the choice for themselves.

Mortality is a blessing - an often painful one - but one that every child of God needs to go through if they have any hope of becoming more like Him.

No - I believe they were real people and that the Fall of Man literally happened - and if someone believes that they are mere allegory - then they should consider the Redemption of Man and the existence of the Lord Jesus Christ to also be allegory.

This journey needs a beginning if it is ever to have an end.

rational experiences · Jun 13, 2021

Science argues for logic.

Said religious practice is not logic. As it is not.

Medical healer advice biology is not logical.

A medical practitioner would tell you what meaning does human sickness or to suffer have and then seek its causes to stop it occurring. For life continuance.

Logic says science did occur.
Logic says science should recur.
Reads destruction advice....
Not logic.

Yes it is he says I cannot perform occult radiation science without destruction.

Science said one only beginning once.

What higher form existing changed it became a big bang blasted burnt event. Once.

One beginning first gone.

First evil action as evil however was burning.

Logic in science it's first is fake.

As natural owned evolution of form via space increasing its size.

Highest state empty cold pressure space.

Law first pressure changed is not first anything.

So when God by image was seen in human chosen events as changes to evolution cold space heavens by conditions that takes over. Also not logic as science says logic is numbers. Space is empty no numbers. Not logic.

Image his human comparison was his giant man god themes as destruction change in the heavens began. Why he is possessed as man as a God.

Teaching less.

Father not scientist after ice age. Modern parents memory to all babies.

Baby to adult man rehears science man's previous memories. Voice as he evolved.

Thinks image of man in giant angel form is his self. Was a cause effect of man in science.

Reapplied. Reconfirmed he caused it as new modern day man image then appeared in clouds.

Knew he caused it.

gnostic · Jun 13, 2021

Fallen Prophet said:
Unless - of course - God wanted them to partake of the fruit all along - which is what I believe.

You haven’t been here long, but I have already covered that too, in some of the older topics.

I had presented view that God wanted them, so they could populate all the land, since in Genesis 1 told them and multiply.

If they populate the earth and people could still live forever, they will overpopulate and will eventually run out of food to eat, causing pain of hunger.

What will they do with overpopulation, depleted resources and no food? Start killing and eating each other?

In Genesis 2 they lived in paradise where food were grown for them, without doing work. Then in Genesis 3, they would have to toil for their food.

Can you imagine what overpopulation of non-working people would do, if they don’t learn to grow their own food?

Starvation will start to occur.

Of course, these are just presenting a different view on the story.

I had also presented the story, where the serpent was God himself. Usually, and especially among church teachings, Christians often assumed that the serpent was Satan or the Devil, but like I said I had many different ideas about the Garden of Eden episode, and presented that the serpent could be God in guise of talking serpent. After all he did it with the donkey that talked to Balaam in Numbers.

I have also presented the Gnosticism view too, in particular the Gnostic text called Apocryphron of John (or the Secret Book of John, the title differed depending on the translators). Apocryphron of John was one of the many books discovered at Nag Hammadi in the 1940s.

Anyway, it was a dialogue between Jesus and John, where Jesus presented a different narrative to the Genesis, where he, Jesus, was the serpent, and the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, but not of knowing good and bad, but knowledge that would help Adam and Eve receive enlightenment, gnosis, and shredding their soul from the physical bodies they were trapped in, and ascend to the real heaven, pleroma.

There is more to the story then what I have written here. I have covered this story more fully at my old website that was called Dark Mirrors of Heaven, under the page called Gnostic Cosmology.

rational experiences · Jun 13, 2021

Food is wasted by truckloads all over the world everyday.

Bulk food in warehouses and on shelves.

Gluttony warning.
Greedy elite warning.

Lies. You might starve.

In reality I am losing control over my paradises thinking as a self styled living in status for self. Civilization.

Natural humans say paradise is nature and look at what it has become. The song theme "don't tell me this is paradise...open your eyes up"....you don't want any...one.

My choices misguided. Brothers subliminal heard voiced answers in AI. I caused all problems for not acting in balanced standards as I am personally lazy and greedy.

I had opportunity to use resource ideas in planetary support. However it Would not make me enough profit.

Now says we should share all resources as we are family one status.

Really brother. But it is always in your best interest. Never ours.

Father said in the beginning eternal mass was the first mass that evicted God as angel O bodies out of it. O big and o small. Burning was why space opened itself.

In the end mass was newly formed was held as new mass. Space cooled it.

New mass was not in the beginning.
The end now owned new mass.

You took new mass in science and forced a new beginning that gave life it's unnatural end.

Non stop lying and manipulation by word use just as an equal human.

Your problem you pretend you are hierarchy and not equal. Your mind says you are safe in all choices as you pretend you are the God.

Fallen Prophet · Jun 14, 2021

gnostic said:
You haven’t been here long, but I have already covered that too, in some of the older topics.

I had presented view that God wanted them, so they could populate all the land, since in Genesis 1 told them and multiply.

If they populate the earth and people could still live forever, they will overpopulate and will eventually run out of food to eat, causing pain of hunger.

What will they do with overpopulation, depleted resources and no food? Start killing and eating each other?

I do not believe that Adam and Eve were capable of procreating until after they partook of the fruit.

Also - I am not convinced that their bodies needed food before they partook of the fruit.

gnostic said:
In Genesis 2 they lived in paradise where food were grown for them, without doing work. Then in Genesis 3, they would have to toil for their food.

Even though I agree that Eden was a paradise where food grew spontaneously - the Genesis account does claim that God had put Adam in the Garden to both "dress it and to keep it" (Genesis 2:15)

So - this leads me to believe that Adam and Eve were doing something while they were in the Garden.

gnostic said:
Can you imagine what overpopulation of non-working people would do, if they don’t learn to grow their own food?

Starvation will start to occur.

Of course, these are just presenting a different view on the story.

gnostic said:
I had also presented the story, where the serpent was God himself. Usually, and especially among church teachings, Christians often assumed that the serpent was Satan or the Devil, but like I said I had many different ideas about the Garden of Eden episode, and presented that the serpent could be God in guise of talking serpent. After all he did it with the donkey that talked to Balaam in Numbers.

That would be an interesting story - but it would mean that God told a lie - about Eve not dying after partaking of the fruit - and I have come to believe that God does not lie - so I must reject this version.

I also interpret the story of Balaam and his donkey to be the Lord temporarily removing one of the restrictions placed on the donkey caused by the Fall - which allowed the donkey to communicate.

I am of the opinion that any and all animals in the Garden could speak before Adam and Eve partook of the fruit.

gnostic said:
I have also presented the Gnosticism view too, in particular the Gnostic text called Apocryphron of John (or the Secret Book of John, the title differed depending on the translators). Apocryphron of John was one of the many books discovered at Nag Hammadi in the 1940s.

Anyway, it was a dialogue between Jesus and John, where Jesus presented a different narrative to the Genesis, where he, Jesus, was the serpent, and the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, but not of knowing good and bad, but knowledge that would help Adam and Eve receive enlightenment, gnosis, and shredding their soul from the physical bodies they were trapped in, and ascend to the real heaven, pleroma.

There is more to the story then what I have written here. I have covered this story more fully at my old website that was called Dark Mirrors of Heaven, under the page called Gnostic Cosmology.

Interesting stuff.

I believe that the Knowledge of Good and Evil is what helps us receive enlightenment - to become like God.

gnostic · Jun 14, 2021

Fallen Prophet said:
I do not believe that Adam and Eve were capable of procreating until after they partook of the fruit.

That's conjecture.

In Genesis 1, humans were told to go and populate the earth:

Genesis 1:28 said:
28 God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.”

I hardly think people could do that, with only just the two of them, without procreation.

Genesis 1 never said that people would be made from earth, dust or clay.

Genesis 1 never said they were immortal.

And there were no Garden of Eden too in Genesis 1.

And the order of creation is different in Genesis 2, when you compare the two chapters together. The inconsistencies and contradiction are there.

This is why there are 2 versions of creation in Genesis.

And Genesis 2 never said they were created "immortal" at the start. That's just more Christian misinterpreting the text.

rational experiences · Jun 14, 2021

A human who claims that the creator told him how to practice science that says I will and can find God then change God states the contradiction.

If God was found then God cannot be God.

Men in science therefore should ask what did they find?

They said the magic to convert and obtain new power. Not old power.

Nothing new under the sun said his science brother.

Meaning it was all the same.

When a man says I said God owned two forms.

The God that rebelled.
And God.

One God is therefore a contradictory God not God.

Plainly stated.

Jose Fly · Jun 14, 2021

Fallen Prophet said:
Yet - you want to argue Creationism with religionists?

Seems that you are a glutton for punishment. Sadist.

The only value I see in debating religion is learning more about other's beliefs - as well as your own.

I mean - no one is going to convince anyone of anything - so we just need to chalk it all up as learning experiences - nothing more.

I enjoyed debating creationists mostly for two reasons. First, it motivated me to learn some science that I likely otherwise wouldn't have. Second, although I rarely debate religion I am fascinated by religious people, especially fundamentalists. Their way of thinking and processing things is so foreign to me, I find it...well, like I said, fascinating.

Are you telling me that you never found solutions for those problems? Never got good advice? Never had any source of comfort?

As I described earlier, yes...when I realized that praying and relying on gods was a waste of time, and decided to change things myself.

God can send us these things in all kinds of ways - usually in the best of ways - and we have no right to specify how we receive them.

It's like that story about the guy on his roof because his town flooded and he was praying for God to save him - remember this one?

Boat after boat came with people telling the guy to get in and get to safety - but he told them all that he didn't need them because God was gonna save him.

Then when he drowned and went to Heaven he asked God why He didn't save him - so God told him that He had sent boat after boat of people to save him - but he refused all the help God had sent.

I understand that we may be disappointed in the way God chooses to answer our prayers - but that doesn't mean He doesn't answer them.

I know you've heard all that before - but I still believe it's true.

Well, if God's "boat" to me was "stop praying, going to church, and reading the Bible, and fix things yourself", then I've certainly implemented that!

Besides - from what I've been hearing about your wife - you did alright.

Oh I've done better than I ever expected.

We all suffer from unreasonable expectations sometimes.

Maybe because they viewed prayer as nothing more than a "wish list".

Or maybe it was because there are no gods.

My wife wasn't converted until a couple years after we started dating.

I told her she didn't have to - because I was quite smitten - but she was intrigued by what I offered her.

I'm not talking about that! You perv!

LOL....I'd get my mind out of the gutter, but the rest of my body is still there.

Glad to hear that both of you found what works for ya!

I love hearing that.

Sometimes I feel like my life didn't even start until I was married. Or was it when my first kid was born? The second? Third?

Either way - I've had a lot of events that made me feel that my life was new and exciting and I'm always glad when people can relate with that.

For sure. Neither of my brothers have been married or had kids, and when we talk they simply can't relate to many of the things I talk about. They don't know what it's like to sacrifice much of your time and money for the good of your family. They do what they want, when they want.

Raising a family is something you just have to experience to understand, eh? And we wouldn't trade it for anything.

Fallen Prophet · Jun 14, 2021

gnostic said:
That's conjecture.

In Genesis 1, humans were told to go and populate the earth:

To be clear - Adam and Eve - only the two - were commanded to "be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it".

Even though I do believe that this is a command to procreate - among other things - that could just be my interpretation - perhaps the being "fruitful", "multiplying", "replenishing" and "subduing" are all references to things He wants them to do to the Earth?

Either way - I believe that Genesis 1 is a record of the spiritual organization of the Earth and all things on it. A sort of "setting the stage" Creation event.

The start of Genesis 2 makes it clear - to me at least - that it was a spiritual organization - because He had completed the work of Genesis 1 and rested yet all that took place before any plant or herb was planted and before there had been rain on the Earth and Man to till the ground (Genesis 2:5)

And just because God commanded them to do something - that doesn't mean they could or did do it.

I mean - Adam was also commanded not to partake of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in Genesis 2 - but he did so anyway.

And the fact remains that the Genesis account does not record Adam and Eve "doing the deed" until after they were expelled from the Garden (Genesis 4:1)

Now - this could mean that Adam and Eve just decided to wait until that time - or the record was sparse on those kinds of details until that time - or they couldn't have done it until they gained a Knowledge of Good and Evil and became subject to death (mortality).

Considering that the commandment to be fruitful and multiply was the first recorded commandment given by God to Man - I don't think the record would have missed their first fulfillment of that command.

And what possible reason would Adam and Eve have to wait to fulfill that commandment until after they had left the Garden?

And I also find it strange that God would wait until after Eve had been deceived by the serpent and they partook of the fruit before He placed the "enmity" upon the seed of the woman.

I mean - what was that about?

gnostic said:
I hardly think people could do that, with only just the two of them.

Conjecture!

Man - people are quit to say something like, "You can't believe that because it wasn't recorded exactly that way in the Bible!" - when someone says something they don't agree with.

However - when it suits their own purposes - they are quick to add their own ideas.

If I can't believe that Adam and Eve were incapable of procreating in the Garden - even though it does not record them doing so until after they left - then why can you believe that there were more people around than the Genesis account records?

gnostic said:
Genesis 1 never said that people would be made from earth, dust or clay.

Correct - and I believe that was because that was a record of the spiritual organization of Man - not the physical formation.

gnostic said:
Genesis 1 never said they were immortal.

It also doesn't say they had sex either - but I'm assuming you believe that they did?

To get to the idea that Adam and Eve were not subject to death until they partook of the fruit - we go to the New Testament.

"But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." (1 Corinthians 15:20-22)

The Apostle Paul taught that it was Adam - not God - that caused death to come upon all of Mankind.

And it is interesting that death is attributed to Adam - and not Eve - considering that it was she who first partook of the fruit and offered it to Adam.

The answer to this distinction may be found in Paul's epistle to Timothy,

"And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (1 Timothy 2:14)

She had been deceived by the serpent when it claimed that she would not die if she partook of the fruit.

It is our ignorance, doubt - our faith - that saves us from condemnation.

For Adam was not deceived. He knew that his partaking of the fruit would cause death to pass to all Mankind.

Therefore - the death of all Mankind is attributed to him - not Eve - or God.

When God first created Man - they were not subject to death - it was Adam - by his willful act - who caused death to come into the world.

And I believe that he did that because he wanted to remain true to the first commandment God had given to him - to be fruitful - and he could not do that without Eve.

Which is why he said, "The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat." (Genesis 3:12) (Bold and italics added)

He was explaining to God - with complete honesty - why he decided to bring death into the world - to remain with the mate God had given him - to be obedient to the first commandment.

And that was the reason why I believe God commanded them to be fruitful and multiply during the spiritual organization - even though they were incapable of mating at the time.

It was the motivation of that first commandment that gave Adam the reason to willfully choose to enter into morality - to be with Eve.

I believe that God set everything in place for Adam and Eve to Fall - and gain Knowledge of Good and Evil. It was all part of His plan for them to become like Him.

gnostic said:
And there were no Garden of Eden too in Genesis 1.

Correct - because there were no physical plants, herbs, rain or Man upon the Earth yet.

Genesis 1 is describing a spiritual organization.

gnostic said:
And the order of creation is different in Genesis 2, when you compare the two chapters together. The inconsistencies and contradiction are there.

Correct - because they are describing two separate and distinct Creation events.

gnostic said:
This is why there are 2 versions of creation in Genesis.

I disagree - two different Creations - not two different versions of Creation.

I mean - in Genesis 1 - there was "light" before the Sun and Moon were placed.

What was the source of that light? And why wasn't it mentioned again in Genesis 2?

gnostic said:
And Genesis 2 never said they were created "immortal" at the start. That's just more Christian misinterpreting the text.

We have our reasons for believing it.

gnostic · Jun 14, 2021

Fallen Prophet said:
To be clear - Adam and Eve - only the two - were commanded to "be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it".

Even though I do believe that this is a command to procreate - among other things - that could just be my interpretation - perhaps the being "fruitful", "multiplying", "replenishing" and "subduing" are all references to things He wants them to do to the Earth?

Either way - I believe that Genesis 1 is a record of the spiritual organization of the Earth and all things on it. A sort of "setting the stage" Creation event.

The whole spiritual organization is just that, more speculation.

Genesis 1 say nothing about it being spiritual creation.

Fallen Prophet said:
The start of Genesis 2 makes it clear - to me at least - that it was a spiritual organization - because He had completed the work of Genesis 1 and rested yet all that took place before any plant or herb was planted and before there had been rain on the Earth and Man to till the ground (Genesis 2:5)

And just because God commanded them to do something - that doesn't mean they could or did do it.

I mean - Adam was also commanded not to partake of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in Genesis 2 - but he did so anyway.

And the fact remains that the Genesis account does not record Adam and Eve "doing the deed" until after they were expelled from the Garden (Genesis 4:1)

Now - this could mean that Adam and Eve just decided to wait until that time - or the record was sparse on those kinds of details until that time - or they couldn't have done it until they gained a Knowledge of Good and Evil and became subject to death (mortality).

Genesis 1 and 2 & 3 are two completely different stories, because in Genesis 1 have creation of humans, last - AFTER the creation of vegetation, AFTER the creation of sun, moon and stars, AFTER creation of marine life and birds, and AFTER the creation of land animals.

Genesis 2 on the other hand, have man created before any vegetation and then land animals, the order of Genesis 2 is a complete contradiction of the order in Genesis 1.

It is quite clear that not only these 2 chapters were were 2 completely stories, they were written by 2 different groups most likely at different times, hence the contradictions.

There wouldn’t be any contradiction and confusions in the Genesis creation if one or the chapter were omitted or removed from Genesis.

All you are doing is making excuses with interpretations that also contradict each other, because you believe they are only one creation myth instead of two.

Fallen Prophet said:
It also doesn't say they had sex either - but I'm assuming you believe that they did?

To get to the idea that Adam and Eve were not subject to death until they partook of the fruit - we go to the New Testament.

"But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." (1 Corinthians 15:20-22)

The Apostle Paul taught that it was Adam - not God - that caused death to come upon all of Mankind.

And it is interesting that death is attributed to Adam - and not Eve - considering that it was she who first partook of the fruit and offered it to Adam.

Believe or not, I was once a believer in the Bible, starting when I was a teenager, when my sister gave me one of her bibles for me to read at 15 or 16.

And though I never join any church, for almost 20 years, I consider myself believer and had no doubt that everything were true in both OT & NT...but for 14 of those years (14-year hiatus), I did not open the Bible again until 2000.

And when I did (restart reading the Bible again), I realize the inconsistencies of the New Testament’s interpretations of passages from Old Testament, beginning with Matthew 1:22-23 reinterpretation of Isaiah’s sign from Isaiah 7:14.

That when I first began to doubt NT interpretations of OT passages. Isaiah 7:14 had nothing to do with the messiah, with Jesus or with the Virgin birth. Immanuel was never Jesus, because the sign wasn’t just about 7:14; the sign was about the Assyrian intervention in the war between Judah and the two kingdoms, Israel and Aram.

The whole sign should have been read as one, from verses 14 to 17, that tell us the sign had nothing to do with Jesus. And the more other OT passages quoted as NT interpretations as sign for Jesus, rereading them made me realize they weren’t Messianic prophecies.

These discrepancies between OT & NT tell me that I cannot trust the gospel authors and Paul to interpret the Old Testament.

I don’t know why that I didn’t see the contradictions and discrepancies when I was younger, but it is all there. And it wasn’t Genesis creation and flood to make me doubt the Bible, it was NT reinterpretation of the OT that sow the seed of doubts.

From 2000, I began to question everything about the Bible, including church teachings and interpretations of the Genesis creation.

All I see from your reply is just more of those same “Christian” interpretations, making excuses for its inconsistencies and discrepancies. You are conflating the non-Christian Genesis creation with Christian ideas, making it stinks with Christian propaganda.

rational experiences · Jun 14, 2021

A man says as his man abstract from his human. Knowing he says God is a he him his man or son. Male defined words by men. Human.

Thoughts. Thoughts for the subject topic he never owned controlled nor was involved. Any other body.

Natural history of any form not his self.

His conscious idea self human states you are only a human. No man is God.

Said it himself as a human. No man is God. As he scientifically perused bible info as he no longer owns new thesis. Used all old references to infer new.

Pretends.

The status science is a liar the destroyer.

As info he seeks as just a human is to compare when he never owned any of the bodies he looks at. Looks at past destruction and all things dead.

So his medical human science self says I am correct. Aware first was using natural whole products not charging for service and was an assistance to family as a wise human.

Changed medicines patented them and then caused sevondary suffering whilst he got rich. As you cannot own natural. Natural did.

Our inferior superior personality displaced science human brother.

Who was told honour your human mother and father your life
continuance your awareness your psyche your consciousness. Human as any one self.

Yet he doesn't even apply what he told his own self. Human not a scientist. As human was first.

His mind is now so filled with non human aware use of information for self he no longer believes he is human first. By conscious mis use of being informed for human self presence.

All his words about any body he is not.

So spiritually conscious we see him.

The destroyer of our life.

He only sees himself via his egotism of I am a creator by my self destructive inventing. My displaced non thoughts for self forced me to believe not in my natural life or my natural presence.

So his science self said just tell your human life you are instantly instant so you can't argue and destroy life on earth.

So he did.

Then his brother decided to try to make instant a theory also.

Male egotism is science I know more than you. As I always pretend that I do as I change your own info into egotistical retorts.

Brother versus brother his human status reason due to fakery. Science.

A human did not create any presence in presence except a human baby by human sex.

By the time your words telling fake stories about everything else arrive back at the moment a human baby is born your fakery said God gave the baby to a human female and not a man in sex.

Proof what falsifying natural human consciousness did to your natural living status.

Fallen Prophet · Jun 15, 2021

Jose Fly said:
I enjoyed debating creationists mostly for two reasons. First, it motivated me to learn some science that I likely otherwise wouldn't have. Second, although I rarely debate religion I am fascinated by religious people, especially fundamentalists. Their way of thinking and processing things is so foreign to me, I find it...well, like I said, fascinating.

What do you consider a "fundamentalist"?

Jose Fly said:
As I described earlier, yes...when I realized that praying and relying on gods was a waste of time, and decided to change things myself.

I've never had God "fix" anything for me - not like in some miraculous way.

He wants us to use what He has given us - to make the changes ourselves.

It's a good lesson to learn.

Jose Fly said:
Well, if God's "boat" to me was "stop praying, going to church, and reading the Bible, and fix things yourself", then I've certainly implemented that!

Heh.

Just think if you had continued to pray, attend church and study the Bible - do you think your life would be so dramatically different?

Without knowing any particulars - I don't think so - because I think you learned the lesson that it is up to you to make any and all changes in your life.

That's what "repentance" is - us making changes in our lives.

Jose Fly said:
Oh I've done better than I ever expected.

A toast then! To us Reachers and to those poor souls who settled for us!

Huzzah! *clink*

Jose Fly said:
Or maybe it was because there are no gods.

I'm beyond coming to any conclusion like that - but I'm thinking you learned what you needed at the time.

Jose Fly said:
LOL....I'd get my mind out of the gutter, but the rest of my body is still there.

Glad to hear that both of you found what works for ya!

We trying for a fourth kid. Hoping for a girl.

Jose Fly said:
For sure. Neither of my brothers have been married or had kids, and when we talk they simply can't relate to many of the things I talk about. They don't know what it's like to sacrifice much of your time and money for the good of your family. They do what they want, when they want.

Raising a family is something you just have to experience to understand, eh? And we wouldn't trade it for anything.

This is funny because this kinda sums up a lot of what I have been saying.

Receiving revelation from God is an experience that no one could ever understand until they receive it - and I wouldn't trade it for anything.

No matter how much I try to explain it to people - they just can't relate - they just don't get it. Not unless they have had similar experiences.

There are just so many things like that in this life - we need to keep ourselves open to possibilities - or we are gonna miss out.

Fallen Prophet · Jun 15, 2021

gnostic said:
The whole spiritual organization is just that, more speculation.

So is believing that Genesis 1 and 2 are two versions of the same Creation.

Oh - and that Adam and Eve had sex in the Garden.

gnostic said:
Genesis 1 say nothing about it being spiritual creation.

It also doesn't mention gravity or nuclear fission - but those things would be involved with any claim about the Creation of the Earth, Sun and other planetary bodies.

I feel that the beginning verses of Genesis 2 claiming that the heavens and the earth were finished and "all the host of them" - yet there was not yet plant life, rain or Man on the Earth - should make anyone wonder.

This - to me - was an explanation that "all the hosts" of Heaven and Earth - all things that would ever dwell on the Earth or observe it from Heaven had been organized - set apart - in preparation for the physical Creation.

gnostic said:
Genesis 1 and 2 & 3 are two completely different stories, because in Genesis 1 have creation of humans, last - AFTER the creation of vegetation, AFTER the creation of sun, moon and stars, AFTER creation of marine life and birds, and AFTER the creation of land animals.

Correct - they are describing different Creation periods.

In the spiritual organization - everything was set up before Adam and Eve - (who didn't even have names given to them until they were created physically later).

The man and woman were all a sudden just there - no mention of Man coming from the dust or the woman from the man - because they were not formed physically.

I mean - even "light" was organized before the Sun and Moon - which would make you wonder what that was in reference to - possibly the spirits of all things or the Lord Jesus Christ who is the light of Men?

Also - the commandments to be fruitful, multiply, replenish and subdue the Earth were recorded in Genesis 1 - and not repeated in Genesis 2.

That causes me to believe that the desire to procreate is a spiritual attribute and the stewardship of the Earth given to Man is a spiritual authority.

And Genesis 2 recording Adam being created first before the animals coincides with New Testament writings - that he was the "first flesh" on the Earth - which wouldn't be so if Genesis 1 was describing Adam's physical formation.

There were no Trees of Knowledge or Life mentioned in Genesis 1 - because there was no Garden and no need for them until the physical formation.

And God explaining to Adam what he could eat, and that he was going to "dress and keep" the Garden and his bringing the animals to Adam to name point to a physical formation - an orientation of his stewardship of the Earth - because none of that was brought up in Genesis 1.

Also - the man and woman were not described as being naked until Genesis 2 - and Eve was not referred to as the man's "wife" until Genesis 2 either - intimating that marriage is an ordinance had only in the physical world - which is what I believe the Lord Jesus Christ was referring to when answering the question about marriage and the Resurrection.

gnostic said:
Genesis 2 on the other hand, have man created before any vegetation and then land animals, the order of Genesis 2 is a complete contradiction of the order in Genesis 1.

It is not a contradiction if they are not describing the same events.

Ancient peoples were not stupid - despite what we want to think.

If you see any of these "contradictions" - you don't think ancient Israelites didn't?

Perhaps they understood things that we do not?

gnostic said:
It is quite clear that not only these 2 chapters were were 2 completely stories, they were written by 2 different groups most likely at different times, hence the contradictions.

They are different stories and they could have been written by different people at different times.

gnostic said:
There wouldn’t be any contradiction and confusions in the Genesis creation if one or the chapter were omitted or removed from Genesis.

Sure there would be.

There wouldn't be those two commandments - to be fruitful and to not partake of the fruit - there would only have been one.

I believe that we need to know both of those commandments to properly understand the Fall of Man.

gnostic said:
All you are doing is making excuses with interpretations that also contradict each other, because you believe they are only one creation myth instead of two.

I am not seeing any contradictions.

gnostic said:
Believe or not, I was once a believer in the Bible, starting when I was a teenager, when my sister gave me one of her bibles for me to read at 15 or 16.

And though I never join any church, for almost 20 years, I consider myself believer and had no doubt that everything were true in both OT & NT...but for 14 of those years (14-year hiatus), I did not open the Bible again until 2000.

And when I did (restart reading the Bible again), I realize the inconsistencies of the New Testament’s interpretations of passages from Old Testament, beginning with Matthew 1:22-23 reinterpretation of Isaiah’s sign from Isaiah 7:14.

That when I first began to doubt NT interpretations of OT passages. Isaiah 7:14 had nothing to do with the messiah, with Jesus or with the Virgin birth. Immanuel was never Jesus, because the sign wasn’t just about 7:14; the sign was about the Assyrian intervention in the war between Judah and the two kingdoms, Israel and Aram.

The whole sign should have been read as one, from verses 14 to 17, that tell us the sign had nothing to do with Jesus. And the more other OT passages quoted as NT interpretations as sign for Jesus, rereading them made me realize they weren’t Messianic prophecies.

These discrepancies between OT & NT tell me that I cannot trust the gospel authors and Paul to interpret the Old Testament.

I don’t know why that I didn’t see the contradictions and discrepancies when I was younger, but it is all there. And it wasn’t Genesis creation and flood to make me doubt the Bible, it was NT reinterpretation of the OT that sow the seed of doubts.

From 2000, I began to question everything about the Bible, including church teachings and interpretations of the Genesis creation.

All I see from your reply is just more of those same “Christian” interpretations, making excuses for its inconsistencies and discrepancies. You are conflating the non-Christian Genesis creation with Christian ideas, making it stinks with Christian propaganda.

Neat.

You don't think that it is possible for Isaiah 7:14 - and other scriptures - to have layers of meaning?

It couldn't have been about current and future things?

Like how I believe the "enmity" that God placed between the serpent and the woman - or rather her seed and its seed - and the bruising of his (the woman's seed) heel and the serpent's head - was not only a reference to the protections offered Man against the possession of evil spirits - but it was also a prophecy about the Lord Jesus Christ.

gnostic · Jun 15, 2021

Fallen Prophet said:
You don't think that it is possible for Isaiah 7:14 - and other scriptures - to have layers of meaning?

It couldn't have been about current and future things?

You are ignoring the fact, that no one called Jesus by Immanuel in the entire New Testament.

The second fact is that Immanuel is mention again in relation to the war and to Assyria in the next chapter, verse 8:8

“Isaiah 8:5-8” said:
5 The Lord spoke to me again: 6 Because this people has refused the waters of Shiloah that flow gently, and melt in fear before Rezin and the son of Remaliah; 7 therefore, the Lord is bringing up against it the mighty flood waters of the River, the king of Assyria and all his glory; it will rise above all its channels and overflow all its banks; 8 it will sweep on into Judah as a flood, and, pouring over, it will reach up to the neck; and its outspread wings will fill the breadth of your land, O Immanuel.

Plus, the sign in Isaiah 7:14-17 is very similar to Isaiah 8:3-4, except instead of using Immanuel, this chapter used Maher-shalal-hash-baz, both related to Judah’s war with Israel and Aram, and to Assyria’s intervention.

The gospel’s interpretation on Isaiah’s sign is more like a propaganda piece.

Jose Fly · Jun 15, 2021

Fallen Prophet said:
What do you consider a "fundamentalist"?

It depends on the context. Here, it refers to conservative Christians who take a literal approach to the Bible and especially the Genesis creation account.

I've never had God "fix" anything for me - not like in some miraculous way.

He wants us to use what He has given us - to make the changes ourselves.

It's a good lesson to learn.

I agree. Self-reliance is vital.

Heh.

Just think if you had continued to pray, attend church and study the Bible - do you think your life would be so dramatically different?

Without knowing any particulars - I don't think so - because I think you learned the lesson that it is up to you to make any and all changes in your life.

That's what "repentance" is - us making changes in our lives.

It's hard to say. I can't imagine staying in the fundamentalist Baptist church of my family. Their way of thinking and viewing the world was the complete opposite of mine. But I suppose if I'd ended up in my wife's less conservative church things might not be all that different.

It's a bit of a running joke with some of my friends from that church. I sometimes point out that we all pretty much live the same lifestyles, with the only difference being that they go to a building once a week and tell a god they're sorry....only to go out and do it all over again.

A toast then! To us Reachers and to those poor souls who settled for us!

Huzzah! *clink*

We trying for a fourth kid. Hoping for a girl.

Well good luck! My youngest daughter just graduated high school and will be off to college in two months. I'm both very excited for her, and sad about how much I'll miss her.

This is funny because this kinda sums up a lot of what I have been saying.

Receiving revelation from God is an experience that no one could ever understand until they receive it - and I wouldn't trade it for anything.

No matter how much I try to explain it to people - they just can't relate - they just don't get it. Not unless they have had similar experiences.

There are just so many things like that in this life - we need to keep ourselves open to possibilities - or we are gonna miss out.

That's how I've always looked at it, and is why I don't try and argue against people's religious experiences. If you experienced something and it's helped to make your life better, then I'm happy for ya'.

The only thing I ask is for the same consideration. When I describe my experiences, too many believers try and convince me that, since I didn't have the same experiences they did, I must have done something wrong, I must have misinterpreted it all, etc. I've read some articles about how some folks have a psychological need to have as many people agree with them as possible and how they cannot deal with differences and dissent, and it seems to make sense to me. So now when I see someone rather desperately try and force my stories into a framework that they can accept, I kinda feel sorry for them.

rational experiences · Jun 15, 2021

If a human not ark owner theories an ark. Ark theory a science memory covenant stone of mountain above flooded earth with UFO radiation mass removed mass above water to a flat top mountain.

No mountain landing. No animals or human disembarking. First ark thesis.

First thesis science about UFO ark.

As then water evaporation removed ark. Mass radiation dispersed in evaporation ground water.

Notice water not any string to ark or radiation mass theist.

Reaction began ended removed mountain tip became pyramid wisdom.

To copy when you were never copying.

Reality the scientist just a human lied.

The pyramid was not a copy of anything.

Man gained wisdom how to practice conversion of gods stone mass.

So when a man says as a man I am Satan he was a thinker theist man lying.

As no man is God.

Actually. What a human egotist is. A human with a personality disorder.

The ark in Moses pyramid science hit Ararat ending the UFO mountain temple circuit science attack. That destroyed multi temples and disintegrated mountain face in cause effect.

It never landed it crashed.

Clouds amassing above burning face of mountains put image of ground nature microbe carbonized in water into clouds. Where nature's image is still reflected today.

As ground life bio form was self combusting carbonising. Bushes burning teaching.

Reason our life spirit water had been UFO radiation abducted to save life on ground by flooding rain to cool carbonising in water of life beginnings.

Microbes.

Is a human science teaching.

Said by humans.

It never said microbes were ark formed it said water saved life already living in water. The ark was carbonising microbe first life bodies in water at the same time humans bio body was attacked.

All stories told by humans not gods.

Fallen Prophet · Jun 16, 2021

gnostic said:
You are ignoring the fact, that no one called Jesus by Immanuel in the entire New Testament.

Immanuel is a name-title that translates to "God with us" or "God is with us" and was given as a sign God's deliverance.

It could literally be used for anyone or anything that could be viewed as God intervening in our lives.

The Lord Jesus Christ being the ultimate example of this.

gnostic said:
The second fact is that Immanuel is mention again in relation to the war and to Assyria in the next chapter, verse 8:8

So - you are arguing that Assyria - or rather its king (was that Sargon?) - was born of a virgin and was referred to as Immanuel?

If you can claim that Immanuel was not a reference to the Lord Jesus Christ - because that was not His literal name in mortality (no matter how accurate the title is at describing Him) - then you cannot claim that it was used to describe the king of Assyria - because that was not his literal name.

And this Assyrian king refused evil? And while he was still a child which kingdoms forsook their kings?

I don't believe any of these thing anything to do with the king of Assyria.

In both Isaiah 7 and 8 I believe that the name-title Immanuel was used to celebrate deliverance - but like many scriptures - it came in multiple layers.

For how pointless would be the salvation of the nation of Judah from destruction by Syria and Israel but if they were to lose their own souls?

So - yes - Immanuel was used in Isaiah 8 to describe God's delivering Judah from destruction - even though the citizens of Judah often "rejoiced" in wayward Israel - thereby refusing the "water of Shiloah" - which I believe is another reference to what the Lord Jesus Christ offers us - so God gave them the "strong and mighty" waters of the king of Assyria instead - which robbed them of their independence.

So - instead of justified destruction - occupation by foreign power - "O Immanuel!"

I believe it to be a parallel of mortality - that we all deserve destruction - but God spares us through the merits and grace of His Son - even though we are subject to the world for a time - O Immanuel!

So - I do not believe it was given as a sign of Assyria's captivity of Israel - but of God's deliverance as a whole. From physical destruction by Syria and Israel as well as eternal destruction.

I do not believe that the verses explaining the sign given in Isaiah 7 should extend to verse 17 because of the pilcrow - symbolizing a new paragraph. It should be from 10-16.

"10 ¶ Moreover the Lord spake again unto Ahaz, saying,

11 Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.

12 But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the Lord.

13 And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?

14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.

16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings."

17 ¶ The Lord shall bring upon thee, and upon thy people, and upon thy father’s house, days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah; even the king of Assyria." (Isaiah 7:10-17)

My understanding is that the sign was described from verses 10-16 only - even though occupation is preferable to destruction - O Immanuel!

gnostic said:
Plus, the sign in Isaiah 7:14-17 is very similar to Isaiah 8:3-4, except instead of using Immanuel, this chapter used Maher-shalal-hash-baz, both related to Judah’s war with Israel and Aram, and to Assyria’s intervention.

The gospel’s interpretation on Isaiah’s sign is more like a propaganda piece.

I believe that the Lord Jesus Christ created the physical universe and that the Old Testament is filled with foreshadowing of Him.

There is nothing that can make it doubt it.

gnostic · Jun 16, 2021

Fallen Prophet said:
So - you are arguing that Assyria - or rather its king (was that Sargon?) - was born of a virgin and was referred to as Immanuel?

No. The signs as given in both 7:14-17 and 8:3-4 had nothing to do with child being messiah, or the immaculate conception.

The signs were WHEN the child in 7:15-17 and 8:4 reach a certain age -

14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel. 15 He shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16 For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted. 17 The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on your ancestral house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria.”

3 And I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and bore a son. Then the Lord said to me, Name him Maher-shalal-hash-baz; 4 for before the child knows how to call “My father” or “My mother,” the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried away by the king of Assyria.

- that when the Assyrians will intervene in the war, where the Assyrians will take the land of the two kings; a war that began with armies of Pekah and Rezin attacked Judah and besieged Jerusalem during Ahaz’s (Isaiah 7:1; 2 Kings 15:29; 2 Kings 16:5-9).

And the signs were to occur in the reigns of Pekah and Ahaz, so the king of Assyria at that time was Tiglah-pilesser III, not Sargon II. The Sargon you are talking about, was the Assyrian who caused the final destruction of Samaria (721) during the reign of Hoshea of Israel.

Did you even bother reading all of Isaiah 7 & 8 ( as well the relevant parts of 2 Kings 15 & 16)?

As to the rest of your reply, Jesus have nothing to do with with Isaiah 7 & 8.

Noah's flood story, did it happen?

Veteran Member

What we've got here is failure to communicate.

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

The Lost One

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

The Lost One

Veteran Member

Fisker of men

Well-Known Member

The Lost One

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

The Lost One

Fisker of men

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

The Lost One