GWEEDO

Joined

• started 13 topics
• posted 226 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by GWEEDO

• 
  140

  Just As In the Days of Noah

  by Farkel in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

  farkel

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  GWEEDO

  It seems those here whose position is, in effect, "The Bible definitely teaches a global flood so the Bible is dumb," have been reduced to doing nothing more than making personal attacks. ("braindead", "nuttier than a fruitcake", "deluded", "living in lah lah land", etc.) That being the case, I hereby declare this debate to be officially over and declare those who believe that Genesis may be describing a large local Mesopotamian flood, to be its winners.

  Faithful2Jah, Waiting, aChristian, Amazing, RWC, Gumby, and Stocwach <----------------- Taking their bows and graciously accepting their JWD Gold Medals for Excellence in the Debating Arts.

  He's dreamin'[8>]
• 
  140

  Just As In the Days of Noah

  by Farkel in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

  farkel

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  GWEEDO

  Thanks Joseph

  I like your work

  Dig your site too

  keep it up!
• 
  140

  Just As In the Days of Noah

  by Farkel in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

  farkel

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  GWEEDO

  AC

  You say no one will buy this local flood stuff. But they do. I do and a lot of other Christians do. Motre and more every day.

  Yeah..well..sorry if this sounds insulting. But I feel like calling a spade a spade. I guess your above statement just means there's just a lot of braindead people outside of kingdom hall! My mistake to think people outside KH don't believe dumb stuff huh!.
• 
  140

  Just As In the Days of Noah

  by Farkel in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

  farkel

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  GWEEDO

  AC

  What are you asking me to believe????

  lets see here...

  Gods reason for having Noah build a big Ark and then flood a whole lotta land, aside from killing a lot of people (babies included), was to prefigure baptism. Why he needed to do is beyond me! But he certainly didn't have the flood to kill everyone around... cause, from memory, you admit in another thread that there would have been people on the fringe of the flood that would have survived. Noah definitely didn't take all the animals aboard 'to preserve offspring alive in the entire land' AS THE BIBLE SAYS, because if a local flood happened not all animals would have been killed. Animals on the fringe of the flood etc would have just re-populated the land anyway. Birds would have flown away and just flown back. No...the reason he preferred to do this flood stuff, as opposed to have Noah walk to the high country, was to somehow prefigure in a cryptic sort of way: baptism. What a God...makes a lot of sense.

  Oh oh

  and when the bible says: "WHOLE heaven"..which doesn't exactly translate to: the land of Noah. It must mean something like: 'to the visible horizon'. hmmmm. Very sensible.

  I think you been drinking too much green beer AC
• 
  140

  Just As In the Days of Noah

  by Farkel in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

  farkel

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  GWEEDO

  AC

  No, they are based on Holy Scripture. The apostle Peter said that the waters of the flood were intended to symbolize Christian baptism.

  WHY WHY WHY

  why would he need to play around like that???

  Just another point...there is no point taking the animals is there either...like birds huh. Unless he was intending to symbolize the time when he would baptize birds too...maybe?

  Yes, God could have simply told Noah and his family to leave the area. But in order to symbolize how people would be saved in the future, God saved Noah and his family as they passed through water, not as they ran from water. (1 Pet. 3:20,21)

  God is weird. Face it.

  Besides, I believe Noah took a long time building that ark. The story of him building a giant boat nowhere near any body of water big enough to float it in, and why he said he was building it, probably spread throughout his land, helping greatly to spread the message of righteousness which Peter said he preached.

  yeah...and I'm Santa Claus

  See...now AC...

  If thats as good as you can do...it's really not very much, IS IT. Take off your Rose colored bible goggles for a second and look at what your asking me to accept. It's wishful thinking on your part. If God is going to convince people that a local flood happened and the bible is real, I think a bit better rebuttal to the above point is in order...dont yah fink...just maybe?????????????hmmmmmmm!

  I quite like you AC...but this stuff is just weird. You really think you got any hope of convincing people of this local flood stuff with rebuttals like what you just put up. Sorry,,,your living in lah lah land!

  have a nice day!
• 
  140

  Just As In the Days of Noah

  by Farkel in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

  farkel

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  GWEEDO

  Its very easy to debunk this local flood thing. If it was a local flood that came upon the earth, then God wouldn't have made Noah build an Ark... he would have just moved him to higher ground. I know what what AC will say to that.It's here that his arguments become reeeaaally strained, and seem to be based on nothing more than wishful thinking.

  case closed!
• 
  11

  Jesus sweating blood

  by Simon in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  just watching a programme about the gospel accounts and one thing struck me - the notion that jesus sweat blood.

  apparently it was the stress of his impending death.. now, as a sceptic, the problems i have with this account are:.

  it's medically impossible to sweat blood.. there is a disease (hematohidrosis) where plasma cells can color the sweat to make it appear to be 'as if blood'.. jesus was supposed to be perfect!

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  GWEEDO

  Jesus was supposed to be perfect! Why would he have any disease, let alone and incredibly rare one?

  Was Jesus really supposed to be perfect? I think that is leftover Watchtower assumption. Jesus became flesh. Flesh is NEVER perfect. It is corruptible matter.

  Didn't Jesus walk around curing the sick and ill. If he had such a disease as Simon says...then you'd think he'd atleast cure himself. huh?
• 
  140

  Just As In the Days of Noah

  by Farkel in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

  farkel

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  GWEEDO

  AC

  Gweedo,

  Earlier in this thread I discussed the fact that Bible writers often used universal language to describe nonuniversal events. I gave several examples of their doing so. The literary term for such language is hyperbole. Thec one using such language in such a way is not considered to be either dishonest or inaccurate in his writing. Hyperbole is a widely used literary devise today and it was even more widely used in Bible times.

  yeah I know what you guyz say.

  "All the high hills under the whole heaven were covered"

  actually means:

  "the waters covered all the mountains above the horizon visible to the people on the ark."

  Atleast that's what COJ says.

  Whats the point in using hyperbole here. Why use it???? Why not just say what you mean. It's very misleading to say "WHOLE heaven" when you really mean "to the horizon". I mean, I understand the use of hyperbole. I know hyperbole is good to use to emphasize a point. But what point was the biblical author trying to get across when he uses the term 'WHOLE heaven'. He doesn't seem to be emphasizing anything...he's just being completely misleading, as I see it.

  I might have understood if he had just said:

  "all the high hills under heaven were covered"

  but he has thrown in the word WHOLE

  HEY...maybe he did that to emphasize a point. That being that the hills under the WHOLE heaven were actually covered.

  Now...'WHOLE heavens', to me, doesn't exactlty translate into: 'the land of Noah'. I think a more apt description would maybe be: the whole world as Noah knew it. Of which I find hard to believe didn't include knowledge of some high mountains. I mean, the guy eventually made it to ararat...to Northern Iraq somewhere, and if your've seen a few news reports of the Kurds fleeing Sadams troopers, you'll know it's pretty hilly terrain up there.

  SO

  I have to conclude that the bible is talking of a pretty big deluge. The likes of which could never have happened.

  what do ya fink?
• 
  140

  Just As In the Days of Noah

  by Farkel in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

  farkel

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  GWEEDO

  The account simply tells us that all the highest hills in the land of Noah were covered with water.

  All the highest hills under the WHOLE heaven, to be exact.
• 
  140

  Just As In the Days of Noah

  by Farkel in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

  farkel

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  GWEEDO

  AC

  But doesn't the Bible's story of the flood say that all the high "mountains" were covered with water? And if that was true, since water seeks its own level, wouldn't that mean the whole earth had to have been flooded? For an answer to such questions we again have to look at the ancient Hebrew language. The ancient Hebrew word which has been widely translated as "mountains" in the flood narrative is translated elsewhere in the Old Testament simply as "hills." You see, the ancient Hebrews had only one word to describe what may have been either a small mound of earth or a Himalayan peak. That being the case, the flood narrative can certainly be understood as telling us that "all the high hills in the land of Noah were covered with water to a depth of about twenty feet." (see Gen. 7:20, 21)

  I find it extremely hard to believe that Noah didn't have any concept of a mountain, something around 600 metres or above. This guy walked around preaching for...what??...a hundred years. I'm expected to believe that he didn't see a mountain in the distance...say like the Zagros mountains that run down the border of Iran and Iraq. I mean, Mankind had been around quite some time by the time Noah came to earth. I'm supposed to believe that they hadn't done just a little walking and seen a few rather big hills...That mans only concept of a "HIGH" hill would have been a mound of dirt. This really stretchs my imagination AC