Hello!

[willieH]

willieH: Hi Joyful1!   :icon_flower:

Just wanted to welcome you  :welcome:

And tell you that we are glad you're here at TM...

PeAcE...
...willieH  :cloud9:

[martincisneros]

 :teaching: :Book: :soap:

Could you elaborate a little more, WillieH?  i.e. on your perspective on the UFO thing.

As I've previously been long-winded about: some of it's made up; some of it's the government and other natural phenomenon; and a tiny percentage seems to be just weird and "who knows?" type stuff.  All of our answers are unquestionably in the Word.  Coming to a clear understanding of what the Word would have to say is the only place where I personally wish to have all of my question marks, rather than in going from conspiracy magazine to conspiracy convention to whatever.  I don't believe that God gave us the Word so that we'd keep our question marks about anything, though obviously some of our answers seem to take longer to fully SEE than others 'cause of these and other things honestly being things where we don't know what we're dealing with.  Strong's Concordance seems to run into a blank page on "UFO."  But obviously if God said anything about other living creatures besides those of this world and besides those that surround the throne, then the Biblical language would be a little different.  To God, it obviously wouldn't be Unidentified Flying Objects.  He'd know if they were martians, secret Chinese government experiments, or whatever.  This is my one area of departure from any type of preterism whatsoever, is if it in any way proports that all of the questions that mankind would have ever had or that God would have ever answered in the Book were only the questions leading up to 70AD.

I can accept it if it could ever be conclusively Biblically proven that all God's created are the things that all Christians acknowledge are descriptions of things immediately surrounding the Throne, and mankind within this universe and the animals that surround us.  But the earth seems to be horribly too young to be all that God's ever created besides the creatures that immediately surround His Throne.  The same God that created the rose created the skunk.  That's quite a bit of variety!  I have both personal and Biblical difficulty with believing that that's all that God's created.  Wheels within wheels and flying scrolls seem to be a part of the description of things in Ezekiel chapter one and I can't remember the exact chapter of Zechariah.  One could argue that it's just symbolic stuff, but what do these symbols mean?  Christians have never been able to fully nail it down and some of the Rabbis have allowed for unearthly things to be a part of God's creation with those very passages because of the very belief that God didn't leave us too far in the dark about any area of faith, practice, or the Creation around us.  The Scriptures obviously take us to Jesus Christ, but they also have to take us to a knowledge of His creative work so that we're not just to assume that our great great great great great great great grandparents were monkeys!  If it's all been created for and by Him, but at the same time if it's all been placed under the foot of the New Man, then what all has God created and what all are we leading out of darkness to light through the Gospel and His grace?

[willieH]

willieH: Hi brother M... :hithere:

:teaching: :Book: :soap:

Could you elaborate a little more, WillieH?  i.e. on your perspective on the UFO thing.

One thing is for sure concerning UFO's... some of the incidents are just plain WITHOUT EXPLANATION...

As you said... Most of it can fall into one category or another, hoaxes, scientific technological experiments, natural phenomenons which enact quirks in camera angles, and lighting, etc...

But some, even a FEW, are just plain MYSTERIOUS... and without understanding by finite human beings with our present observational techniques and knowledge...

I was discussing computer technology with a friend who is in touch in the industry... and he said that in the next 5-10 yrs the human brain will be the "hardware"... able to upload or download... WHOA!

What are they (science) messing with????

If a race were even 100 "years" our senior... they might EASILY be capable of MAGICAL abilities (by our present observation)...

As far as WHAT the UFO's actually ARE... wow!  They could be TIME machines rather than SPACE machines... also, they could be from the depths of the OCEANS, about which we have literally NO knowledge...  :dontknow:

I tend to think that if GOD has allowed ANY interaction with beings of a higher intellect that have we... that they are from here on this world somewhere, not out there...

SIN and DEATH, I would think is confined to the earth... but then again, maybe our SINFUL presence in the Universe has tainted the entire Universe...  And maybe beings outside our planet, are part of the end... who knows?

It is quite interesting, the prophetic touch that many "IMAGINED" Sci-Fi stories have shown... in one era sounding too far-fetched, and 20-30 years later, actually coming to pass!

HG Wells wrote many such stories... Jules Verne's stories bore UNCANNY references to "imagined" things which came to pass...

The movie "First men in the Moon" bore unbelieveable correlations to Man's first "moon landing"... the name of the ship, where it took off, where it landed, the amount of time the voyage took, etc... ALL facts which were just "IMAGINED" by Jules Verne...  :dontknow:

When it comes down to it... For no especially BIBLICAL reason, ...I believe the "UFO" thing will have to do with the end of this world somehow...  Guess we'll all just have to "wait n' see"   :laughing7:


PeAcE...
...willieH  :cloud9:

[martincisneros]

Hi Willie,

Funny how you should mention the deep sea possibility for the source of some of these UFOs.  A couple of Doctor Who episodes come to mind from the sci-fi genre.  There has been an unusual prophetic gifting to the whole sci-fi thing.  Not necessarily word for word, though obviously with things set in the future there's still time to "wait and see."  But cell phones and quite a few other things seem to have been anticipated by Star Trek and various other programs.  Time Travel is definitely a possibility.  I've been aware of the occasional historical abberation while I've been growing up for the last thirty-something years.  Something that I thought that I knew winds up being slightly different later.  Not a lot of things, but enough oddities to know that someone's tapped into the stream of time and is riding it like a city bus for educational purposes or the demonic agenda of undoing all that's been thus far done by the Lord.  Besides deep space exploration, time travel seems to be the only other major biggy that real life hasn't "fulfilled" from the sci-fi literature -- unless we're talking about technologies that are still in the hands of the "few," with "prototypes" or whatever.  In the hands of our military, Time Travel may go back to WWII experiments with stealth, but I don't have the details handy on projects that went totally black around that time period.

Not sure if you were talking about quantum computers that may have some cloned brain cells or what you were referring to that's on the horrizon.  Downloading things right into the brain from nanotechnology and other means is also a future probability.  Again, anticipated by the sci-fi world, but now articles of the "possibilities" in leading scientific periodicals.  If God wanted to do something special for me before I turned 50, it would be a Time Machine so that I could continue my studies without "knowing in part" based upon the point of view of historical authors and biographers.  I'd want to study past and future.  Not to come back and win the lottery 'cause when you've got access to both unlimited time and space travel, you're already wealthy beyond imagination if it doesn't take gasoline to run your little machine.  You could be there for the best of the best of everything as you needed it, from the freshest strawberries to what you could fill your pockets with with diamond and gold mines.  Lottery numbers are a bit juvenile when the universe would truly be yours, along with the best pickings from all of the crops everywhere.

You were right that anyone even a century ahead of us could have what we'd consider "magic" by comparison in technological ability 'cause we've been continually hindered by our own wars, plagues, Noah's flood, and countless other catastrophies to where if some other race of creatures simply avoided half of the same kind of nonsense, they could have just about been created alongside of us with days 5 and 6 of Creation -- whether those are eons or 24hr days, since there's evidence for either/or interpretation.

I'm totally convinced that God gave us the genre of sci-fi so that we'd be released to dream without being charged with heresy, black magic, etc. in really developing a thought that our faith could then give substance to -- such as with the cell phones that I observed earlier in this post.  Those have saved countless lives, although we've got turkeys that chat about absolutely anything while driving and fixing their hair and makeup at the exact same time, as they fit in eating from their bag of chips and beating their kids in the back seat of the car.  Though they've saved countless lives 'cause of people being able to dial the emergency numbers right when they saw something happen so that police and other emergency vehicles could come on the scene, yet even a hundred years ago if you'd had one of these cell phones you might have gotten chased out of Church 'cause they'd of thought your little box with numbers was in the same category as a weegee board.  And then to think that someone would speak through it to you!  Oh, you're a medium for sure!!  they'd of thought just a hundred years ago. :laughing7:

[joyful1]

Martin and all...hello again!
Just a side note here...
You guys ever notice the wording in the OT about "the sons of God" and then compare to the Greek in the NT "sons of God."

If you were to use them interchangeably you'd end up with us becoming something that we definitely do NOT want to be....right? Or no?

Since we are on this whole alien/ufo/nephilim thingy....I thought I'd just ask...has anyone here got a handle on the translations and usage of "the sons of God"?

Just curious...
Joyce  :icon_flower:

[martincisneros]

It would be interesting to see how the Septuignt (ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament) would compare with the New Testament Greek on those phrases.  I don't have that information within easy reach today though.  Does anybody reading this thread have [at least] a copy of the Concordant Literal Old Testament where you could give us a sense of how they handle what I'm thinking might be a sloppy KJV handling of the Old Testament phrase "sons of God?"  B'nai Elohim, I think, but that's attempting it from memory on the OT phrase.  I could be totally off on that.  I'm about to head to bed for the next few hours, but I'll try to remember to have a peak at this in Rotherham's Emphasized Bible online when I'm more awake.  www.studylight.org if anybody wants to beat me to it while I'm asleep.  I don't remember the particular URL that'll take you straight to the particular translation, but it's at that website.  Young's Literal Translation is also readable from that site.

[joyful1]

Thanks Martin! Hope you get some good sleep! To Sleep! ahhh! what a luxury these days!   :bigGrin:

[autoimmune]

Hi, Joyful.  I have 7 children myself and 18 grandchildren so far, so I know what you're talking about!

Lots added since the last time I posted, so just a few comments in passing to each.  I agree with you about the "sons of God" thing, though I don't have the energy or desire right now to do the research needed to make a scholarly rebuttal.

Hi, Willie. I read what you had to say and will take it all into consideration before God in prayer.  We definitely differ in our interpretation of scripture, primarily on the nature of man in general and Christians specifically. I can tell you why I disagree with you, but I'm not sure that would serve a purpose in a discussion on aliens, which I entered in speculative mode, rather than a scripturally argumentative one.

If you say angels aren't created, then how do you view them?  As you do men, that they are simply extensions of God's uncreated Being-ness?

ME

     

[joyful1]

:icon_flower:
For anyone interested in a good explanation of the above mentioned topics... check out: http://www.spiraloflife.com/conspiracy.html He puts the OT usage of "sons of God" as fallen angels. Not the same term for the "Sons of God" in the NT. We will be LIKE the angels in some respect, but not angels.


Well....after weeks now of immersing myself in everything "alien and ufo" ....from gov. cover-up, to secret space program, to nephilim, to DNA being altered, cross-breeding of animals and humans, ...sun spots and solar wind...mix in with that my own experience with overcoming sleep paralysis and the similarities with Christians being able to stop alien abduction with the name of Jesus (the name that is above every other name)....I've come to the conclusion (at this point) that aliens are demonic, that nephilim probably are here and connected with a grand delusion for the end-times, but that nothing can separate us from the love of God and that the Holy Spirit will guide us into all truth.  

I think the archaeological evidence for giants is real, and that the archaeological and textual evidence for aliens (ancient astronauts) was ALL planted here thousands of years ago by demonic entities, nephilim and the like to assist them in pulling off this grand delusion in the last days before Christ's return. Remember that you are dealing with spirit beings that have not died and are intelligent above humans. I think there is valid evidence for the "kings of the earth" being directly influenced by demons and or nephilim in an array of projects that are fruitless to list here.  The end result is the same. The wheat and the tares are being brought to maturity for the harvest.  End of story for me.

I am physically, mentally and spiritually exhausted from this endeavor and plan a long peaceful retreat to the scriptures for the weekend. I wish you all the best....I'll get back with you on Monday, unless, of course I end up being abducted in some "wheel within a wheel!"   :laughing7:

God bless! And thank you for being patient with me and allowing me to discuss these issues with fellow believers!
Joyce :)

[joyful1]

Oh yes...hello autoimmune--
was  your question for me or Willie?
Joyce :)

[martincisneros]

I agree that a lot of what we're exposed to on this planet of so-called aliens is demonic, or that at the very least that the demonic is involved in all of the sensationalism, the fears of cover-ups, and the phobias that are coming out of this for a great many people.  Just like I couldn't reconcile a belief in eternal punishment with the anointing while I'd be trying to teach the Word and would always notice a waning in the anointing when I'd "go there" about eternal Hell, there's something that can be learned from all of this alien hoop-lah from the anointing that's within us. 

Ever noticed that on all, or at least on much of the X-files type of stuff that there's such a dark presence??  A certain degree of that can be the darkness in the hearts of the people offering all of the commentary on this subject when they do the big educational television programs on the history of alien visitations among us and all of that kind of stuff.  But I can't entirely discount a demonic agenda with a lot of the sightings and particularly with the alleged abductions without a lot more info and clarification.

Have a great weekend studying the Word and I'll do the same :cloud9:

[joyful1]

Hello Martin!
My weekend ended up being refreshing, but NOT without alien conspiracy and ufos!! I'm reading Enoch.....
oh my!Lol!
anyway....how about you, how was your weekend?
:icon_flower:
Joyce

[martincisneros]

Hello Martin!
My weekend ended up being refreshing, but NOT without alien conspiracy and ufos!! I'm reading Enoch.....
oh my!Lol!
anyway....how about you, how was your weekend?
:icon_flower:
Joyce

Oh, my weekend was pretty good.  It was just a little short.  I got to see Cat Woman for the very first time, with Halle Berry.  It's a better movie than I thought it would be.  I found a copy of the DVD here locally for about $5.  I had an experience with a kitten when I was a little kid that was just strange enough to make me wonder a little bit about cats as I was watching the movie.  Little baby golden kitten never got within 3 feet of me while it hissed at me, but I had a weird animal bite on my hand afterwards that I've still not been able to account for all of those years later.  I don't think that cats necessarily have supernatural powers, but perhaps they're in touch with their guardian angels a little more than a lot of people would think.  Or maybe a momma's love is just a bit more powerful than you might think when it comes to a momma cat that might have been observing from a distance and misinterpreting my intent and either psychically lashed out in some weird way or....I don't know what to think.  I hadn't thought about that more than two or three times in all of those years and this movie made me think of that again.  I can still see myself on my grandmother's porch and there's absolutely no way that I could have cut my hand on something in a way that would have left a bite mark.  One more of those things to mentally backfile with the mental X-files of "one of these days, the Lord will explain that one to me too!"  Halle Berry's a good actress.  I don't think that I've seen very many of her movies.  Not sure what I saw previously that she's done.  I think that every Christian at some point winds up having to read through the book of Enoch a couple of times so that they can make up their own minds about what to think of that book.  I sincerely wish we had an Enoch board here, although I understand why we don't and probably won't.

[joyful1]

Martin--
That was weird, but I believe you may have experienced something supernatural. If I ever get the nerve to, I'll post a similar thing about what happened to me years ago.

About Enoch...
It was one of those things I picked up years ago and intended to finish, but didn't. The book just didn't make any sense to me back then....I gave up. It's a long book!

There are statements that are so bazaar that you can't take them literally....they must have a cryptic meaning.  But I'm not even going to go there, not knowing what I am doing. There are a few statements that seem to contradict other scripture, which leaves me wondering if the critics are right about it....but I have not written it off completely. Something seems to be hidden in there. And it could be very important to our generation. The fact that the entire book was written to and for the elect in the last days, seems to explain, possibly, why it has remained hidden, both physically and spiritually for so many years.

I can understand both the need for a place to discuss it and the potential danger of causing more confusion in the body. Glad I'm not in your shoes!

Remember the cat in Denzel Washington's movie: Fallen?
Joyce :)

[martincisneros]

I thought I'd posted to this thread a couple of days ago.  Must have had either a computer glitch on my end or a board glitch right when I tried to post to this.

One of the things about the book of Enoch is that people decide too readily that because they didn't know what the book was saying, that therefore it's automatically been corrupted over the centuries.  In other words, because their interpretation is nonsense, therefore the book's relegated to being nonsense rather than there being humility enough to acknowledge that they simply didn't understand what they read or where it fit in with everything else that they understand.  I don't hold the book on the same level as Scripture, but people tend to do the exact same thing with Scripture, that because they don't understand how a certain page of the Bible fits in with "the big picture," therefore the Bible is full of nonsense instead of themselves being the ones that are full of nonsense!  The book of Enoch -- the one thing that's currently "hopelessly" against it is that it simply lacks the manuscript authority that the Biblical texts do.  There's probably not even a dozen ancient Enoch manuscripts that have been recovered yet, and none of them old enough to lend credence to it's antiquity.  It easily looks corrupted, interpolated, etc., in the view of scholars because of it's lack of ancient manuscript support.  We can't say with clarity or any degree of authority that we have the complete book that Origen, Tertullian, Polycarp, Jude, Paul, the authors of the Gospels, etc. would have been citing.  It's attested by the early Church as a most valuable document on par with the Psalms or the wisdom literature of the Bible, like Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, or Hosea, but it's just impossible to know for certain that we have very much of even a 2nd century B.C. document.  Enoch's actually easier to interpret than the book of Revelation, although the book of Enoch seems more like a collection of fragments from ancient writings rather than as one coherent composition.  It has three major parables about the perdition and recovery of the ungodly, the coming of the New Testament, etc.  It's got stuff about Noah.  There's an interesting cosmology that would have made more sense in a preflood context than it would now because of plate tectonics, magnetism and gravitational changes, the spread of the universe from that time period to the present which has been ongoing since the "big bang," etc.  And then it gets into a brief demonology that a lot of Christians aren't comfortable with.  And then there's obscure details about the world that it was written in, or supposedly written in that there's not a lot of elaboration of, such as perhaps more of a Matriarchal society in the preflood world per God's Word to Eve in the Garden that she'd want her husband's place.  How far they took it, again, we're not given specific details of, although it does seem to make the origins of make-up to seem more associated with black magic.  But again, we're not given any real commentary as to whether it's just demonizing make-up in the modern sense, or the reason they were using it and perhaps what they were using back then for make-up.  There are moments that when you're re-reading it, it seems like it's just a collection of sayings, or that at least it's got a collection of sayings that might not be very related to each other.

So, what's your cat experience that you've hinted at?

[joyful1]

Enoch has a recurring theme of "total destruction" for the sinners....this can be reconciled as the type of destruction needed to make something "new" again....
but I find it hard to read Enoch completely through without becoming somewhat discouraged.

And the cat thingy....I don't think I remember anything about that anymore. :mblush:

Joyce :)

[willieH]

willieH: Hi Mary Ellen... :hithere:

Hi, Willie. I read what you had to say and will take it all into consideration before God in prayer.  We definitely differ in our interpretation of scripture, primarily on the nature of man in general and Christians specifically. I can tell you why I disagree with you, but I'm not sure that would serve a purpose in a discussion on aliens, which I entered in speculative mode, rather than a scripturally argumentative one.

First, ...this is not a discussion about "aliens", although they are in part being discussed here...

Second, ...my post to you did NOT mention "aliens"... it stated that FALLEN ANGELS... one of which was supposedly "satan", ...noted by you, I observe as an invalid proposal, Scripturally...

In this proposal... you noted that GOD "made or created" ANGELIC beings, which at some point in the Heavenly realm, ...OPPOSED Him... and subsequently "FELL" from that realm to THIS ONE...

Sorry sis, ...but there is no verse in Scripture which states this... it is a created philosophy originated in RELIGION... and UNFOUNDED in the available WORD of GOD...

My post challenged you to note IN SCRIPTURE where, ANGELS were created, and... where IN SCRIPTURE, it is noted that they FELL...  :dontknow:

If you say angels aren't created, then how do you view them?  As you do men, that they are simply extensions of God's uncreated Being-ness?

ME

I do NOT view MEN as extensions of God's "uncreated Beingness"... MEN are CREATED... SONS are ETERNAL...

SONS which are ETERNAL, are (one by one) born IN TIME, ...MEN in a NATURAL state of FLESH... for the purpose of the REVELATION of the KNOWLEDGE of GOOD and EVIL...

Let me give you an illustrative example:

***************************************************************

(1) Let us say we ALWAYS ARE with GOD, and in this state, we ARE DRY...  ALWAYS dry... and in this state we are COMFORTABLE, and CONTENT.

(2) GOD (because He KNOWS there is an opposite to DRY which WE do NOT KNOW) creates a POOL of water... in which WETNESS can become KNOWN ...BY... EXPERIENCE... 

(3) We each in turn are put into "bathing suits" (flesh) and subsequently "dipped" into the pool and THROUGH the EXPERIENCE of "getting WET", come to KNOW "WETNESS".   

(4)  Upon the completion of this process, we return to the DRY and CONTENT  state in which we ALWAYS ARE with God... but NOW with the KNOWLEDGE of what it is to be WET, which exalts the state of COMFORTABLE and CONTENTED, DRYNESS we ALWAYS ARE...

***************************************************************

Angels ARE of the ETERNAL, not the finite state that MEN are within TIME...

SONS of GOD are also ETERNAL, and which are presently, in a "TEMPORAL classroom" called "time"... to gain the KNOWLEDGE of GOOD and EVIL.

MEN (natural vessels) are created (in TIME)... ANGELS and SONS, are not... they ALWAYS ARE in the ETERNAL, as IS YHVH God...

GOD does NOT CHANGE(Mal 3:6), neither does His WORD (Heb 13:8) Mary Ellen...   :cloud9:

So, if CHRIST -- GOD's WORD, has a "BODY" (which He DOES - 1 Cor 12:27 / Eph 5:30)...

And GOD has a "TEMPLE" in which HE DWELLS (which He DOES - 1 Cor 3:17 / 2 Cor 6:16)... THEN these two elements are ETERNAL in their essence... which in Scripture are noted as SONS...   :dontknow:

SONS of GOD are the TEMPLE of YHVH... as well as HIS "BODY"... in which DWELLS His WORD...

GOD does not "become" anything, for "becoming" presents a condition of CHANGE...

When something BECOMES something else... it has CHANGED from what it WAS...  If I BECOME WET, ...I am no longer DRY... If I BECOME OLD, ...I am no longer YOUNG...  If I BECOME TALL, ...I am no longer SHORT, etc...

Therefore, His BODY is ETERNALLY unchanged, and His TEMPLE is ETERNALLY unchanged, ...in both of these are the components found to be His SONS...

That GOD has given us the KNOWLEDGE of GOOD and EVIL... WE have BECOME as is HE... and He therefore PERMEATES us TOTALLY... ALL [of Him] in ALL [of us]...

...hope that helps...  :cloud9:

pEACe...
...willieH  :icon_jokercolor:

[joyful1]

Hi Willie!
I'm new here.....your comments are very interesting! I'd like to ask you 2 things:

1) what about the verses that say;

2 Corinthians 5:17
Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

Galatians 6:15-16
15For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.

16And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

John 1:12
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:


Does this figure into the equation that you just laid out? And if so, how?

#2-- Are you saying that the Sons of God have always existed, but that MEN were created? Are you saying that after the Sons of God, for example, "experience being wet" that they return to God in a new more "knowledgable state", but MEN come and are and then perish? I can't quite follow you here....??

Thanks in advance!
Joyce :)
P.S. I apologize for this "welcome" thread becoming an entire book here...I'll start new threads for both of these subjects if anyone would like to continue the subjects at hand....if that is okay.

[martincisneros]

In this proposal... you noted that GOD "made or created" ANGELIC beings, which at some point in the Heavenly realm, ...OPPOSED Him... and subsequently "FELL" from that realm to THIS ONE...

Sorry sis, ...but there is no verse in Scripture which states this... it is a created philosophy originated in RELIGION... and UNFOUNDED in the available WORD of GOD...

My post challenged you to note IN SCRIPTURE where, ANGELS were created, and... where IN SCRIPTURE, it is noted that they FELL...  :dontknow:

There's a lot of stuff like this that's surprisingly missing in Scripture that we've heard for years and just assumed that in the abundance of preachers saying it, that there was Scriptural support for it.  I used to be so sure that I could take someone to the precise Scriptures that mentioned this and a lot of other things, that nowadays "whatever" the classic "proof texts" cited for these things mean, it winds up being a stretch for me to try to take them "there."  There's a lot of stuff in a lot of modern preaching that if it's not coming out of the book of Enoch, then it must be coming from Milton's "Paradise Lost" or other classics of Christian literature that aren't necessarily Biblically based or that minimally weren't meaning to be a theological treatise when they were written, but allegory for other areas of life.  On a lot of stuff like this, I just have to currently say "I don't know" and it's not a disgrace for anybody to have to say that about any subject.  Particularly when the "proof texts" of a lot of these things clarify themselves to us as being problematic, and usually not even talking about what we were trying to turn them into proofs of.

I apologize for this "welcome" thread becoming an entire book here...I'll start new threads for both of these subjects if anyone would like to continue the subjects at hand....if that is okay.

No appologies necessary.  Start all of the threads that you want.  The subjects of Enoch and aliens seem to be coming to a conclusion.  It'll be interesting to see if this goes anywhere on the subject of angels.

[Paul Hazelwood]

There's a lot of things that really don't make the least bit of sense to me about the first 11 chapters of Genesis, if we're to assume that they're in chronological order and if we're to assume that the Flood was global rather than just world-wide.  Some people are sooooo dogmatic about it having been a global flood, based upon what God said to Noah after the flood.  However, allowing that for a minute: what do we do with so and so who is the father of those who work with metal; so and so who is the father of musicians; so and so who is the father of those who live in tents, et. al.?

Actually we have to be careful about where we look at in science in this regaurd.  The lines within the scientific realm can get very muddy.

For instance,  one argument about a global flood will say that there is no way there could be enough water to cover the highest mountains.  Within the same realm someone who shows that there are seashells in mountainous areas will quickly be ridiculed for not understanding upliftment.


The real issue is what exactly did the earth look like before the "fountains of the great deep" became oceans and rivers on the surface of the earth?

There is no conclusive data that says exactly how the earth formed in such a way to susatin life.    There is theories that do not defy the "known" laws of physics, but within those theories are problems of formation that have not been conclusively solved yet.

Those theories mainly show how a ball of iron and rock might be formed in space, but they have not really even touched the surface of how all the details of the planet could sustain life without running head on in to something that defies those same laws.

Here is a very interesting online book, especially the section for Walt Browns Hydroplate theory.

I realize that Walts theories are not at this time accepted within the mainstream (secular) scientific community.   But as I have read this, Walt brown is very detailed with scientific calulations which I believe give it some reasonable credibility in general.

With that said,  the rebuttles to Walt Browns theories are all fallacies and hypocrisy. They make an assumption that current mainstream scientific theories of planet formation are undeniably correct and apply that assumption to  Walt's Theories.


Walt's theories do not have to explain the formation of the planet any more than evolutionary theory has to.  Evolutionists all the time eagerly point out that evolutionary theory does not explain non life to life and does not need to.  They boldly admit that if indeed God did create life, evolution explains what happened from that point forward.

So what is good for the goose.   Walt brown theorizes what happened after the earths formation through predictions and conclusion just like the scientific method demands.

Walt brown does not need to explain how the earth formed for his theory to be plausible.

Here is the link

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/

As I always say when I post a link which I do not do too often,   I do not necessarily agree with everything Walt Brown or creationscience.com stands for or believes, but there are quite a few things that are reasonable in his book.

[joyful1]

IMO, Carl Baugh's creation model answers the most important questions that I've had about the physical earth, but can't quite overcome some of the more recent data about aging that "seems" to be true.

Ray Smith is dedicating a special conference this fall on this very subject.  He says Orthodoxy & Evolutionists are both wrong on Genesis. I like very much, his (Smith's) approach in comparing spiritual with spiritual, verses with verses, to find answers. I'm looking forward to seeing his material in September! http://bible-truths.com/

Sincerely,
Joyce :)

[joyful1]

:icon_flower: oh yes! For those of you that want to continue the whole "Origins, Angels and Aliens" discussion that we've started here....I'll start a thread right now in the Chrisitan Life--general discussion area with that name. Hope that is okay with you Martin. You can move this whole thing or delete my new thread if you feel that some other title or place is more appropriate.

Again...thanks for the warm welcome and thanks for the chance to discuss these things with other believers!
Joyce :)

[martincisneros]

IMO, Carl Baugh's creation model answers the most important questions that I've had about the physical earth, but can't quite overcome some of the more recent data about aging that "seems" to be true.

If he weren't a dogmatist about 6,000 years for the Creation model, I'd be his absolute biggest cheerleader for a halfway decently thought out, plausible Creation model that's got some solid research behind it.  I could even go with his keeping it within the thousands of years if he'd give it say, 600,000 years or so for the "big bang," or "big Word" as he prefers to call it.  6,000 years is just hard when you consider that there's been nearly that much continuous Chinese history.  If he didn't "global flood" to where maybe the Chinese were never effected by the flood, then maybe he could narrowly squeeze everything in to 6,000 years.  I can follow the logic on assigned ages, and the carbon-14 dating has already proven to self parody itself with all of the conflicting data that it was giving the Shroud of Turin with the facts of the garment that relate to it's traceable stitching and other issues that are unquestionably 1st century Palestine.  Fossils that extend through several layers of the billions of years of assigned ages with the different levels of the earth's crust is also not sufficiently accounted for by long age creationists and evolutionists.  And it's not one or two fossils.  A couple of his "dinosaur and man" footprints have been proven to be questionable and problematic to his claims, but his dozens of others haven't been, particularly the sandle print with a trilobyte in the heel is a mess for evolutionists.  And there's not an evolutionary "proof" that doesn't have it's own areas of being questionable and problematic.  Speed of light is easily resolveable -- not through time dilation, but superstring theory and quantum gravity offer more solid "problems" for the age of the universe.  6,000 years would just have to mean that we never lost a single page of recorded history -- which is extremely problematic for many different scholars of many different fields.  6,000 years, as a minimum, is proveable and you do tend to extrapolate to the longer ages for everything based upon our current understanding of the physical laws of the universe.  Light, gravity, particle physics, entropy, molecular biology, geophysics, geochemistry, and various other things point to a bit longer for the big picture.  At least in the way that I understand things.  If Israel got on His last nerves several times, I don't see Him waiting just under 12 billions years before life started appearing on the earth if we're all the product of more love than any of us have ever experienced yet.  He's more patient than some of us will ever be, but on other levels, His patience seems problematic with waiting that long to start creating life after the "big bang" or the "big Word."  But 6,000 years??  Give me some space between events, Dr. Baugh, golly!!

[willieH]

willieH: Hi Joyful1!  :hithere:

These are very good questions Joyful!  I commend you for asking them, and find they have prompted me examine my beliefs... thanks...  :thumbsup:

After that examination, and via prayer, God has given me this to say:

I don't have all the answers, but am like yourself, searching that GOD shall place the pieces of my beliefs, in Holy order...  :cloud9:

Here is my best effort to answer to your questions...  :grin:

Hi Willie!
I'm new here.....your comments are very interesting! I'd like to ask you 2 things:

1) what about the verses that say;

2 Corinthians 5:17
Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

Guess I could ask you of your take of this verse Joyful, ...but here is my observation of it:

The "ALL THINGS" which are become NEW are the "ALL THINGS" which are now affected by the knowledge of Good and Evil... and ARE ETERNAL.

That KNOWLEDGE is an ETERNAL perspective... which was the INTENTION of YHVH...  That His Children gain...

Obviously "ALL THINGS" in the NATURAL are not NEW... My body did not regenerate at the moment I became a believer in JESUS...  My eyesight is still diminishing,  :Mcry: my hearing is not new...  :sigh: ...etc.

Also, I am still in a battle against my flesh (as was PAUL - Rom 7) which is NOT over, and is NOT NEW, and... remains in the realm of the NATURAL...

All the "OLD THINGS" as far as the NATURAL is concerned, are STILL HERE... and are STILL decaying and in their order, failing their way to the GRAVE... which is the rightful destination of the FLESH and the NATURAL.

When one becomes IN CHRIST, ...one is entered into the ETERNAL perspective... which means that IN ETERNITY,  the "old" IS passed away, and IN ETERNITY the NEW IS become ALL THINGS...

The word "creature" in this verse (2 Cor 5:17) primarily means FORMATION... One by one, the SONS of GOD...

(1) RE-enter the SPIRITUAL realm which is IN CHRIST...

(2) Having gained the knowledge of Good and Evil which is the FORMATION of something IN us that was not there before this TIME/finite experience...

ALL which have gained the perspective that the COMPLETE ETERNAL state encases, ...are NOW able to see the "ALL THINGS",  through a NEW and SPIRITUAL lens which GOD has named, "the knowledge of Good and Evil"... That knowledge serves to GLORIFY our Father ETERNALLY...

Until one KNOWS what GOOD ...IS... "GOOD" ...IS... an UNKNOWN...

Prior to this TIME realm... only YHVH and His WORD, had this knowledge... (Gen 3:22)

In other words, the ETERNAL state in the Children of GOD, was lacking ONE THING... and that is the KNOWLEDGE of GOOD and EVIL...and IN that ONE WAY... we were NOT As IS YHVH ...and, His WORD... (hope you're still with me!  :mblush:)

Galatians 6:15-16
15For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.

16And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

The same explanation applies to these verses Joyful... In CHRIST is the COMPLETION of the SONS of GOD...  For IN and VIA His Word is the KNOWLEDGE of GOOD and EVIL gained... a portion of GOD, which was lacking in the Children in ETERNITY, before this TIME experience...

Let me give an example (albeit a bumbling one  :mblush:): 

A child is a human being (man)... but in his/her innocence, the child is UNAWARE of what is GOOD, and what is EVIL... this is a KNOWLEDGE that comes eventually, with EXPERIENCE...  IN TIME...

However, ...even though the child does not yet have this KNOWLEDGE, it is STILL a human being, and it is STILL a child (SON), ...yet it is lacking by comparison to its PARENT, the knowledge of these two things...

When the child GAINS this knowledge, it is become AS IS the PARENT... and in that experience, ALL THINGS it viewed from INNOCENCE, now gain a NEW PERSPECTIVE...

John 1:12
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Does this figure into the equation that you just laid out? And if so, how?

We become COMPLETE when the SPIRITUAL is found in us WITH the KNOWLEDGE of GOOD and EVIL... for then are we AS IS our Father... the POWER to become SONS of GOD, is that He is NOW COMPLETE in us... which in the ETERNAL, NOW includes ALL facets of Himself...

YHVH IS ALL in ALL... ONLY when we have been permeated to the COMPLETE degree of Himself, which includes the KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil...  (Gen 3:22)

(Rom 9:22-25) YHVH endures with LONGSUFFERING, the process of DISHONOR which is the portion of each LUMP (son), in the FLESHLY realm of TIME... that He permeates us through this process, and REVEALS His SONS in GLORY... which also KNOW as does HE... Good and Evil...  :dontknow:

BY this experience in time, ALL THINGS have been affected, to include WHO YHVH IS, and the degree HE IS in us... HE has not changed... but WE HAVE...

Again from ETERNAL perspective... We are ETERNALLY and completely HIM and HE, us...  No part of us is "NOW", not HIM, and no part of HIM is not US...  Hard to put into words... but HE has, via the use of the TOOL of TIME, made His SONS complete IN HIM... in the ETERNAL.

#2-- Are you saying that the Sons of God have always existed, but that MEN were created? Are you saying that after the Sons of God, for example, "experience being wet" that they return to God in a new more "knowledgable state", but MEN come and are and then perish? I can't quite follow you here....??

MEN are composed of FLESH, and SPIRIT...  SONS of GOD are SPIRIT only...  That is why CHRIST noted that He was not to be "touched" until He had ASCENDED to the Father... THEN, once the RISING was COMPLETE... nothing could offend Him...

MEN are each appointed to DIE... and they ride that FLESH, in TIME, back to the DUST from which it came...

MEN are EARTHY beings (1 Cor 15:47), and must (1) DIE and, (2) be BORN AGAIN, or REBORN, as SPIRIT beings, (1 Cor 15:44) ...into the ETERNAL...

SONS are appointed to LIVE... Returning to where they emerged... ETERNITY

See the parable of the LOST SON (Luke 15)... He was WITH the Father, LEFT... and eventually RETURNED... One cannot "return" to a place or state in which he has never been...  :dontknow:

This is hard stuff to put into words, hope it has not sounded too confusing to you...

Know that it is not my agenda to convince you or anyone else of anything... you are welcome to jettison this information into the garbage if you like, it doesnt matter to me...

I appreciate your questions, hope I have answered them sufficiently.  :cloud9:

pEACe...
...willieH  :icon_jokercolor:

[joyful1]

If he weren't a dogmatist about 6,000 years for the Creation model, I'd be his absolute biggest cheerleader for a halfway decently thought out, plausible Creation model that's got some solid research behind it.

Well....that's what I am looking at myself, Martin, I'm open to correction and eager and hungry for the truth.  However....
I keep thinking this thought:
If God is able to create AT ALL (because this is a magnificent act!) then He should be able to choose the TIME FRAME in which He would want to do it. If God can create at all, He can create instantly or over time. Period.

Why did we have huge landing pads on the first lunar module?
There's your answer. The best scientific team of NASA could not predict the scant (*in most places less than an inch thick) amount of dust on the moon. They thought the moon, like the earth, had been there for billions of years, and without living organisms on its surface, had simply collected tons of galactic dust particles over those billions of years. They fully expected to land on several FEET of moon dust and prepared to deal with that by giving the lunar lander huge landing pads.  These would, supposedly, maintain some stability for the craft atop this huge pile of dust.

My point is this: these were our best and brightest scientists following a flawed theory of evolution. They proved their intelligence with the rockets. These men and women were very intelligent. But they couldn't believe that the moon was anything less than billions of years old.

I'm sure that this is old hat to you, Martin. But, like you, I try to make sense of everything around me.

Joyce :)