trueone,
I'm getting to it, but it's late...
truthseeker
JoinedPosts by truthseeker
-
-
-
-
-
-
truthseeker
I'll try to keep this short because it's late and I'm tired.
Noah and his family were the only faithful humans living at that particular time. The whole earth was corrupt. God had regrets about making mankind. In the final analysis, God could have wiped out the human race with Adam and Eve, but he did not. The Word, Christ, pointed out in Proverbs, that he found love and joy in the creation of man, even though we are imperfect. God would not let Satan hinder his will for the human race but neither could he go through thousands of human pairs to make it happen.
Adam’s line of flesh is under a covenant with God. When the fallen angels materialized, they took on flesh, but it did not come under the covenant because it was not of the Adamic line of descent. This was an automatic death sentence for the children of the angelic fathers and mothers. They had no covenant with God. It was like being born out of wedlock and not knowing who your father was. The Nephilim were considered outcasts in God's eyes, something he felt should never have happened.
Genesis 6:3: "Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years."
The calling on the name of God in the days of Enoch was not considered good because some of those fallen angels still considered themselves part of the Holy Family despite the fact they had left their duties and forsook their dwelling place (Jude 6). Those fallen angels developed lustful intentions for both men and women companions and took them as partners (Genesis 4:26) Perhaps they thought if humans called upon God's name on their behalf, God might accept their comingling and breeding among the human race. God did not want them as humans. If he had, he would have granted them the right to become humans but they lowered themselves in stature to become less than what they were. God forced the demons to return by flooding the Earth. The flood served as a dual purpose. It was also a judgment for those living on the planet.
-
-
-
truthseeker
thetrueone,
concerning your other question, blood stops circulating at death and bacteria that is present in the gut and normally harmless will start to break through the stomach wall lining.
-
-
-
truthseeker
Yan, there was a time when I did question it for a while. I'm fairly open minded despite what you may think.
What would make me question the validity? Right now, nothing.
-
-
-
truthseeker
thetrueone,
My views on life after death might seem unorthodox but I believe that when we die, we survive the death of our fleshly vessel and are transformed by Christ.
I recently watched a documenatry on near death experiences. Many of the people interviewed said they felt as if they were floating and could see their own body while they were being operated on.
I believe that what is inside of us, the essence of self, is not necessarily something you could point to on an X-ray or CAT scan, and say look, there's the consciounsess, I think it is a form of energy that cannot yet be discerned.
Yes, I speculate but that's why we're all here for one reason or another, to speculate and ponder and there's nothing wrong with that, I'm not pushing my beliefs onto anyone.
-
-
-
truthseeker
Yan,
In response to your question re: post 658
What would be necessary to convince you that the flood account may not be literal and may not have happened as described in the Bible?
There is no easy answer to this question. The global deluge was not just another event that had no importance. It changed everything about the world at that time. That's why it's not so easy to dismiss.
Consider 2 Peter 3:5,6: "But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed."
What you're asking me to do is dismiss everything Peter said about the flood because you don't agree the flood happened.
If I do this, I might as well dismiss everything that I cannot grasp because I don't understand it. It doesn't work that way.
At that time, the ark was the delivery vessel to the new world. The shedding of the old ways were symbolized by Noah and his family coming into the new world, almost as if they had entered the Millennium, because with just 8 survivors there was no evil in the world.
Because sin is inherent in mankind from their youth up, it eventually appeared in the children born to Noah and his sons. In effect, this typfies what will happen in the Millenium as new offspring are born and grow to maturity. If they practice sin wilfully, even after being given sufficient time to change their ways, there is no place for them.
At the end of the Millennium, everyone will be like Noah and his family, knowing God's laws and living them. God knows that time can dull the senses which is why there will be another test at the end of the Millenium. A 1,000 years can make a person overconfident. -
-
-
truthseeker
thetrueone,
I am talking about the only God in creation. Where's your faith?
You make mockery of the account of the talking serpent, Jonah in the belly of the fish and raising the dead.
God follows his own scientific creation in doing many things and when he veers off from the normal operation of something, that in itself defies the science created and is called a miracle.
An example of God following His own science of creation coupled with a miracle can be found in Luke 8:54-56: "So he took her by the hand and called out, "Child, get up!" Her spirit returned, and she got up at once. Then He gave orders that she be given something to eat. Her parents were astounded, but He instructed them to tell no one what had happened."
The raising of a dead vessel is not normal science that occurs on a regular basis.In the case of anyone dying, their spirit is severed from the vessel which decays back to dust over a period of time, but a miracle was performed by the power of God through Christ.
The account continues: "Then he gave orders that she be given something to eat."
Nourishment is needed to sustain the human body and to motivate the digestive process. Her blood had not been circulating and was now doing so in the oxygenating process as she breathed again.
Now she was in unity with her flesh and blood and her spirit had been seared back to her body. Another reason she had to eat was because of her having been dead, it was to get the bowels moving again.
In these things God manipulated His science to perform a miracle over the dead girl's body.
-
-
-
truthseeker
Thanks for your comments, I will address them soon.
Yan, I've always believed the Bible is the Word of God. Perhaps if the flood account wasn't referenced by Peter and Jesus I might have thought differently, but both referred to the flood as an actual event. Why would they do this if it was just a story?
-
-
-
truthseeker
thetrueone,
You would have to ask why would I seek to be a LieSeeker if I truly believe the Genesis account. How does lying benefit me when I already believe the Biblical story?
We are doing our best to convince each other, however, accusing me of seeking lies is beneath you and serves no purpose.
Seeking doesn't mean found.
-
-
-
truthseeker
I get the feeling here, that even if Jesus himself told you there was a flood, you still would not want to believe it or even consider the possibilty.
To be honest, it doesn't affect me one iota if you believe/don't believe.
I recently watched a doucmentary on the Sphinx which is believed to be older than Egyptian culture and could be a relic of the preflood era.
The difference between EntirelyPossible and myself, is that I am willing to consider possibilities unless I am proved to be wrong by an overwhelming abundance of evidence which I have so far not seen.
None of you, as far as I know, are historians, geologists, archaeologists, astronomers, astrophysicists, mathematicians etc, unless you say so, so what qualifies your opinions as FACT when you denounce everything I have to say.