rem

Joined

• started 24 topics
• posted 2,514 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by rem

• 
  251

  space.com dates Noah's flood to 2350 B.C.

  by aChristian in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the watchtower society dates noah's flood to 2370 b.c.e.

  they do this by following bible chronology quite closely, counting backwards from 607 b.c.e., their date for babylon's destruction of jerusalem.

  however, as we know, the society's date for that event is in error.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  rem

  Faithful2Jah,

  Because aChristian is trying to make his interpretations sound mainstream when they are not. I wanted him to expose where he was getting his ideas. When I do research in Non-Fundy liberal Christian reference books, such as Zondervan publications, these interpretations are secondary to the more generally accepted Global flood scenario. Catholic scholarship that I've read agrees that, though the events didn't really happen, the bible account is clearly speaking in global terms. I was trying to draw out how many people actually share his strange interpretations.

  If you ask most people, they'd agree that the language in the account is talking about a global flood. If they are fundies then they probably believe the whole story is true. Otherwise, the majority will probably recognize that the global flood is a myth with some type of lesson or prefiguring Jesus sacrifice. It is the minority who twist the clear language of the Bible to fit a real local flood around 2500 B.C. with a real Noah, ark, and animals.

  rem

  "We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
• 
  251

  space.com dates Noah's flood to 2350 B.C.

  by aChristian in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the watchtower society dates noah's flood to 2370 b.c.e.

  they do this by following bible chronology quite closely, counting backwards from 607 b.c.e., their date for babylon's destruction of jerusalem.

  however, as we know, the society's date for that event is in error.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  rem

  aChristian,

  I'm aware of the interpretations that you have shown as we have had this very same discussion before. I figured that the "others" would include Ross, Young, and Fischer since you have brought them up before in previous discussions.

  Why not accept the words how they are translated in most scholarly bible translations? Why would god allow 99% of Christians and Jews throughout history to believe that the words in the account can be taken at face value if he really meant for them to find hidden meanings in alternate interpretations of words. In fact, even Peter believed in a global flood:

  (2 Peter 3:5,6 NASB)"For when they maintain this, it ecapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded by water."

  The flood story is simple: It is a myth of a Global (Earth-wide) flood. That is how people understood it back in ancient times up till now. Ask any child what the story is about and they'll tell you. If this is not what god meant, then he is an incompetent communicator. Now, since science shows that a global flood is impossible, you conveniently reinterpret the story to fit, ignoring the more obvious and probable option that the story is simply a myth.

  rem

  "We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
• 
  11

  HELP on Bethelite injured

  by Dogpatch in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  does anyone know of situations where bethelites were injured on the job and asked to leave bethel, with no help and no finances offered, even if he is married and wife worked there as well?.

  any cases where a court of law forced the wt to pay out in a case like this?

  if so, email me at [email protected].

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  rem

  I don't have any details, but I know my old buddy was excused from Bethel after a year because he developed Carple Tunnel. He could not successfuly accomplish his duties as a Bethel waiter so rather than finding him more suitable work, he was dismissed. He was not married at the time. He just went back home and lived with his parents.

  rem

  "We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
• 
  251

  space.com dates Noah's flood to 2350 B.C.

  by aChristian in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the watchtower society dates noah's flood to 2370 b.c.e.

  they do this by following bible chronology quite closely, counting backwards from 607 b.c.e., their date for babylon's destruction of jerusalem.

  however, as we know, the society's date for that event is in error.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  rem

  aChristian,

  When you say "we believe" and "those who believe", what other person are you referring to?

  Those who believe that the flood of Noah's day was confined to the land of Noah, generally define "the land of Noah" as being the land of people Noah preached to. We believe God brought His judgment only upon a land that had heard the message of "Noah, a preacher of righteousness," and failed to respond to it. (2 Pet. 2:5) Those who believe that the flood of Noah's day was confined to the land of Noah, generally define "the land of Noah" as being the land of people Noah preached to. We believe God brought His judgment only upon a land that had heard the message of "Noah, a preacher of righteousness," and failed to respond to it. (2 Pet. 2:5)

  So god was so concerned about this little plot of land on the earth that he flooded it, but made arangements for Noah and his family and the animals in the area to survive. God didn't seem to care about the wickedness in other parts of the earth. When he said regretted making man on the earth, he really only meant this little area that Noah could preach to in the Middle East?

  Gen 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually.
  
  Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
  
  Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
  
  Gen 6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

  People in other parts of the earth were not as wicked and god did not regret making the other men in the earth, just these particular men? You and your other friend are really stretching the scriptures here. Some people just have a higher threshold for cognitive dissonance, I suppose.

  rem

  "We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
• 
  251

  space.com dates Noah's flood to 2350 B.C.

  by aChristian in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the watchtower society dates noah's flood to 2370 b.c.e.

  they do this by following bible chronology quite closely, counting backwards from 607 b.c.e., their date for babylon's destruction of jerusalem.

  however, as we know, the society's date for that event is in error.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  rem

  aChristian,

  This is hilarious:

  How could he have taken the kids? Could he have forcefully abducted all of them from their parents? Maybe Noah could have used some of the lumber he was building the ark with to club all the adults on their heads and then, while they were unconscious, he could have dragged their children kicking and screaming onto the ark. I don't think so.

  So this is such an unbelievable scenario to you, but the rest of the story is not??? At what point do you separate fact and fiction in your world? To say that you severely twist and bend the scriptures to fit your unorthodox conclusions is an understatement. You're obviously and intelligent person to be able to come up with such convoluted reasonings, but then again, so was Bibleman (You remember the crazy chronology guy). Do you understand that you sound JUST LIKE HIM?

  some in adjoining lands which were not totally destroyed by the flood, as Noah's land was, would not only have survived the flood but would have been in a position to witness and recount both its cause and effects

  What's the point of a global flood (or even a local one) if there were survivors to witness it? Were these survivors less evil than the ones around Noah? Surely, even from the perspective of Noah, it could not have been a global flood if there were other survivors that recorded their own version. If they could witness it, then they were not far away enough to not be considered part of the land at that time. I could see if they were on another continent or something, but they supposedly weren't. These people were supposedly in the Middle East with Noah.

  You wrote: Whether any flood happened or not, the Epic of Gilgamesh is still just an old myth. The same is true of the Bible's story(stories) of the flood. It doesn't matter if a myth is based on real events - it's still a work of fiction. It's not an inspired account from god.

  You might try preceding such statements with the words "I believe."

  Usually I do qualify my words, but in this case it would be silly to preface my statements with "I believe". I don't have to say that "I believe" the Odyssey is a myth, do I? I suppose I could have said "Rational people believe" the story of the flood is a myth.

  I'm all for liberal Christians, but you seem to be stuck in some sort of no-man's land where you take the bible's words literally, but twist them into your own interpretation through unusual translations of words. Why can't you give up your silly interpretations and see the Bible for what it is: An ancient book of myths that some believe contains spiritual truth. Anything more and you start getting into fundy territory, and I'm sure you agree that fundies are not the most rational people around. You are doing your faith no favors by taking such fantastic interpretations seriously.

  rem

  "We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
• 
  46

  What happened to freedom of speach/thought???

  by jterfehr in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i have not been to this sight in months.

  i come back and its a complete mess.

  this jw-whoever guy, has a right to speak his mind.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  rem

  D Wiltshire,

  It looks like you still don't understand the point. These rude individuals can behave any way they want, but just not on this board. As the owner of this board, Simon has the authority to determine acceptable use. Spamming is not acceptable use. If they want to spam, then they can put up their own web site and foot the bill.

  No one is denying them free speech. It's not WHAT they say, it's HOW they say it. If they don't observe generally accepted 'netiquette' and spam the board, then they are just being rude and it disrupts the board. Any nuggets of insight they might be able to contribute are lost through their masterbatory behavior. They can pretty much express any views they want without disrupting the board by spamming. People's views are not being silenced, spamming is being controlled. Perhaps you are new to the Internet and you do not understand how rude spamming is.

  The policy is fair. Spamming is not tolerated. Almost anything else, save porn (shucks!), is allowed here. Opinions can be expressed without spamming the board, so there is no denying anyone free speech.

  I beleive in fairness, and then why not make others, who have done the same thing why not make their acconts inactive tooI beleive in fairness, and then why not make others, who have done the same thing why not make their acconts inactive too

  Who else has behaved in the same manner on this board and not been deactivated? Perhaps someone has slipped through the cracks, but this behavior has never been acceptable as long as I've been on this board, or on the Internet in general.

  Notice that no one deleted your unpopular or divergent views in this thread or any others because you do not spam.

  rem

  "We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
• 
  251

  space.com dates Noah's flood to 2350 B.C.

  by aChristian in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the watchtower society dates noah's flood to 2370 b.c.e.

  they do this by following bible chronology quite closely, counting backwards from 607 b.c.e., their date for babylon's destruction of jerusalem.

  however, as we know, the society's date for that event is in error.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  rem

  aChristian,

  If what you say is true about the Epic of Gilgamesh and this meteor, then it seems that the Gilgamesh account is more accurate than the Bible. Which one is really inspired, then? Why were the birds taken along in the supposed ark if it were just a local event? (Good question, Gweedo)

  You see, whether any a flood happened or not, the Epic of Gilgamesh is still just an old myth. The same is true of the Bible's story(stories) of the flood. It doesn't matter if a myth is based on real events - it's still a work of fiction. It's not an inspired account from god.

  It seems to me that since you accept Evolution and that the first chapters of Genesis can be taken figuratively, why not take the flood legend figuratively as some sort of lesson?

  It just seems such a silly belief to hold on to.

  rem

  "We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
• 
  75

  Marry Christmas Jan-evolution goes down in flames

  by clash_city_rockers in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  darwin on trial is the title of a book on evolution that has ruffled the feathers of the secular scientific community.

  though a christian, author philip johnson critiques evolutionary theory from a secular standpoint as he examines the philosophical games many scientists play to protect their evolutionary ideology.

  johnson, a law professor at the university of california at berkeley, attacks head-on the often-heard statement that evolution is both a fact and a theory, an evolutionary dogma that has been a major source of confusion for a long time.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  rem

  Oh boy, the trolls are really out in force this week. Is it a full moon or something?

  rem

  "We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
• 
  75

  Marry Christmas Jan-evolution goes down in flames

  by clash_city_rockers in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  darwin on trial is the title of a book on evolution that has ruffled the feathers of the secular scientific community.

  though a christian, author philip johnson critiques evolutionary theory from a secular standpoint as he examines the philosophical games many scientists play to protect their evolutionary ideology.

  johnson, a law professor at the university of california at berkeley, attacks head-on the often-heard statement that evolution is both a fact and a theory, an evolutionary dogma that has been a major source of confusion for a long time.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  rem

  Clash,

  You are funny - you actually unwittingly proved my point!

  Johnson's book is called "Darwin on Trial", not "Evolution on Trial". Darwinism (Natural Selection) is a mechanism of Evolution. Johnson understands that the fossil record and DNA evidence show that all life has a common origin, but he just rejects the purely materialist mechanism. He believes some greater power (such as god) helped Evolution through the ages.

  He is definitely not a Young Earth Creationist like yourself. He wouldn't be caught dead associating with the likes of you guys. LOL

  Perhaps you will read a bit more carefully next time?

  Six,

  I think you are right. This is a huge waste of energy. I don't know how this guy got out of his padded room!

  rem

  "We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
• 
  75

  Marry Christmas Jan-evolution goes down in flames

  by clash_city_rockers in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  darwin on trial is the title of a book on evolution that has ruffled the feathers of the secular scientific community.

  though a christian, author philip johnson critiques evolutionary theory from a secular standpoint as he examines the philosophical games many scientists play to protect their evolutionary ideology.

  johnson, a law professor at the university of california at berkeley, attacks head-on the often-heard statement that evolution is both a fact and a theory, an evolutionary dogma that has been a major source of confusion for a long time.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  rem

  Clash,

  If I'm not mistaken, Johnson takes issue with the proposed MECHANISM of Evolution, not the FACT that it did happen. Johnson does not believe in creation as explained in the Bible. How does it feel to support the arguments of an Evolutionist, Clash?

  rem

  "We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain