Explaining Genesis - Noahs Ark part one

[Paul Hazelwood]

I have to disagree Nathan, the physical is always a step to the spiritual.   If we are wrong about the physical the spiritual is not as clear.   If we are to share with others our walk then it is not about remaining in the physical it is helping define the physical more clearly for others so their steps may be more firm in understanding the spiritual.

To me the physical side of things in this case showed me something.  A localized flood tells me that God is not going to destroy the whole me but only the bad that is within me.

It was through that that I was able to see a clearer spiritual side.   It may be different for you and I will not slight that, but your wrong in my walk concerning what you say.

[WhiteWings]

it takes faith to believe anything that God says or does . . . when we begin trying to prove or disprove what he's said . . . we've left the spirit for our flesh . .there's no end to the opinions of what literally happened and there's also no winning the conversations.  Just something to think about.

And that's just what my posts are about (I can't speak for others)
Figuring out what exactly did God say/do.
What is the use of TentMaker if discussions are seen as proving/disproving Gods word?
I think this site is for finding the word!

2 Timothy 2:15  Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Study, for me personally, goes beyond just reading. As said personally.

[DeeDee]

And that's just what my posts are about (I can't speak for others)
Figuring out what exactly did God say/do.

That is why I am here 2.

[Nathan]

2 Timothy 2:15  Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

I'm not saying don't read the Scriptures, all I'm saying is there is much more benefit to be had when we pursue the spiritual intent rather than the physical.

This passage you quote, the purpose of the study is not to gain more information, for me, this is saying . .when you study God's Word, it will illuminate the Truth that you . . .are . . .approved.

Question . . .
Will God approve of you if you don't know whether or not the flood was everything it appears to say it was?

My only point was, pursuing the natural effects only leads to  . . .oh, it's in the passage you quoted . . .only a verse or two later . . . actually, it's in the verse previous and the verse following the quoted one.

14Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.

15Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness

That's all I was trying to say as well.

[DeeDee]

Nathan, you make some very, very good points hun.

Lotsa luv brother :HeartThrob:   :HeartThrob:   :HeartThrob:   :HeartThrob:

[WhiteWings]

2 Timothy 2:15  Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

I'm not saying don't read the Scriptures, all I'm saying is there is much more benefit to be had when we pursue the spiritual intent rather than the physical.

Let me say that with out this type of hybrid Bible/Science studies I would have been far more atheist as I'm now.
So for me it 100% help.
Perhaps I'm the only one with that experience. But still for me it's the way.

This passage you quote, the purpose of the study is not to gain more information, for me, this is saying . .when you study God's Word, it will illuminate the Truth that you . . .are . . .approved.

Question . . .
Will God approve of you if you don't know whether or not the flood was everything it appears to say it was?

I think it will make 0% difference. I think God looks at the effort. So lets just say the above posts are my effort.
That's why the workman is in the verse. For me that means that the person doesn't have as much time to study the Bible as the Bible scholar doing it by proffesion. Plus it takes into account that not all people are equally smart.

My only point was, pursuing the natural effects only leads to  . . .oh, it's in the passage you quoted . . .only a verse or two later . . . actually, it's in the verse previous and the verse following the quoted one.

And again speaking for myself personnaly that gives me a 100x more understanding than reading the Bible page by page.
If you would secretly mix up teh page in my Bible so that the 3 page in Genesis is a page from Daniel I possibly won't even notice it  :sigh:
Maybe one day it comes but right now I just can't concentrate on just reading. But when doing studies on a topic I feel I'm making good progress. So for now I stick to that.

16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness

That's all I was trying to say as well.

That sound like a direct insult! And something you have absolutely nothing to back it up with.

[Molly]

Let me say that with out this type of hybrid Bible/Science studies I would have been far more atheist as I'm now.

You are an atheist? :mshock:

I agree that studying like this helps me a lot as well.  We are all made differently, and I need to start with the natural before I can progress to the spiritual. As you know, I even pick apart the words.

[Nathan]

No insults . . .I've had enough of those that I wouldn't purposely instigate them.  I just added the verses around the one you quoted.  

I have no arguments . . . just sharing out where I am with things just as you share out where you are.   You see God honoring your efforts, I see God honoring faith instead.  That was the whole point.  

Everyone has their theory of what they believe went down with the flood.  I have my own as well.  And I don't mean to sound judgmental by my postings, but I was just trying to state that there's so much more that brings us further along than just what lays on the surface of what's being read.  

Like when the 70 disciples were freaked out that demons responded to their commands and Jesus told them not to rejoice of that so much . .but rejoice in the fact that they are included as God's family.  Where we are is not wrong, it's just that there's so much more than the surface of the truth.  I'm not trying to discourage or bind, just trying to avoid unnecessary arguments about subjects that are based on opinion from Scripture rather than believing in faith of what the Spirit is saying.

Frankly, I personally think that first, there was no rainbow until this time because there was no direct sunlight.  I think there's more to the days of creation where God separated the waters from the waters . . .I think at that point and time the earth was encompassed by a layer of ice that protected it from the suns rays which created a "green house" affect which is how the dew watered the earth instead of rain.

But that's just what I see and it's interesting, but also can be argumentative.  I used to teach on stuff like this all the time and caused me to become judgmental toward others who would not accept my theories.  It's one of those things where we can choose to debate matters that really can't be proven and even if they could be, then what?  But the consequences of this is that we put more emphasis on this than the spiritual message that lies beneath.

I feel kind of like I've dug a hole for myself with this . . . consequences again perhaps.

[WhiteWings]

You are an atheist? :mshock:

Did my posts give you another impression?  :laughing7:
Honestly, I'm not very sure. I just feel 'empty' inside. Never felt some fuzzy feeling inside helping me with something.

I think a hybrid of atheist/Christian if that's possible...
I have to start somewhere I guess. :thumbsup:

[WhiteWings]

Frankly, I personally think that first, there was no rainbow until this time because there was no direct sunlight.  I think there's more to the days of creation where God separated the waters from the waters . . .I think at that point and time the earth was encompassed by a layer of ice that protected it from the suns rays which created a "green house" affect which is how the dew watered the earth instead of rain.

But that's just what I see and it's interesting, but also can be argumentative.  I used to teach on stuff like this all the time and caused me to become judgmental toward others who would not accept my theories.  It's one of those things where we can choose to debate matters that really can't be proven and even if they could be, then what?  But the consequences of this is that we put more emphasis on this than the spiritual message that lies beneath.

I know that theory for some time. From one of Kent Hovinds DVDs.
Very little can be found of that elsewhere. Nothing but some articles that (try to) debunk it.
I would like to read more about it.
Including where the water went after the flood.

[Molly]

You are an atheist? :mshock:

Did my posts give you another impression?  :laughing7:
Honestly, I'm not very sure. I just feel 'empty' inside. Never felt some fuzzy feeling inside helping me with something.

I think a hybrid of atheist/Christian if that's possible...
I have to start somewhere I guess. :thumbsup:

Yes they did give me another impression.  I've been saying to myself, wow he is really doing a work in you.  You have changed so much in such a short time.  You are learning so much about him so quickly...

hybrid is ok--a marriage of two things...eventually the hy will fade away, leaving only the bride.

hybrid

1. botany plant resulting from crossing: a plant produced from a cross between two plants with different genetic constituents. Hybrids from crosses between crop varieties are often stronger and produce better yields than the original stock.

[WhiteWings]

I'm not trying to discourage or bind, just trying to avoid unnecessary arguments about subjects that are based on opinion from Scripture rather than believing in faith of what the Spirit is saying.

Frankly, I personally think that first, there was no rainbow until this time because there was no direct sunlight.  I think there's more to the days of creation where God separated the waters from the waters . . .I think at that point and time the earth was encompassed by a layer of ice that protected it from the suns rays which created a "green house" affect which is how the dew watered the earth instead of rain.

Ok the spiritual thing.
Firstly I think God 'wrote' everything with a purpose. The flood story isn't in the Bible because God just wanted some time on writing
Some verse also states we may not change one letter from the Bible.
My point is; if the translation is wrong can the spiritual part also work?
Maybe the local flood spiritual meaning is that God was preparing Israel and the rest of the world had to wait until Jesus. => just a most likely false assumption to explain.
Likewise your canopy theory might indicate that God protected mankind (from UV radiation) until the sins became to plenty. Perhaps removing that canopy spiritually means He gave Satan free reign.
Again that's just an example.
My point is that understanding the actual events my lead to understanding of the hidden/spriritual meaning.
Therefore the research of the actual events might be needed. :dontknow:

Toughts on that?

[Molly]

Frankly, I personally think that first, there was no rainbow until this time because there was no direct sunlight.  I think there's more to the days of creation where God separated the waters from the waters . . .I think at that point and time the earth was encompassed by a layer of ice that protected it from the suns rays which created a "green house" affect which is how the dew watered the earth instead of rain.

Or it could be that there is no rain because the garden of Eden is in a desert, which is that area between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers before irrigation.


5And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

--Gen 2

The LORD had not caused it to rain upon the earth--there's that word earth again--erets--but what if it is talking about this particular region of the world, which is now called the birthplace of civilization?

Then we see something different taking place.  God is making the wilderness to bloom for his son, Adam.  And, the description has all the trappings of modern irrigation, which allowed enough farm produce to support the first cities!

6But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

Before Adam there was not a man to till the ground--no modern farmers.  So God, a farmer himself, builds Adam a garden in the middle of the desert, and places his son there to farm it.

15And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.


The sequence of events in Genesis 2 are not the same as the sequence of events in Genesis 1.   Adam might not be the first 'man,'  but, to my mind, with his advanced farming and tool making abilities, with his sophisticated language and religion, with his cities and culture, he is most certainly the first homo sapiens sapiens.

Sometimes the natural can be as exciting as the spiritual.


Isaiah 35:2
Deserts will bloom everywhere and sing joyful songs. They will be as majestic as Mount Lebanon, as glorious as Mount Carmel or Sharon Valley. Everyone will see the wonderful splendor of the LORD our God.

[WhiteWings]

You are an atheist? :mshock:

Did my posts give you another impression?  :laughing7:
Honestly, I'm not very sure. I just feel 'empty' inside. Never felt some fuzzy feeling inside helping me with something.

I think a hybrid of atheist/Christian if that's possible...
I have to start somewhere I guess. :thumbsup:

Yes they did give me another impression.  I've been saying to myself, wow he is really doing a work in you.  You have changed so much in such a short time.  You are learning so much about him so quickly...

hybrid is ok--a marriage of two things...eventually the hy will fade away, leaving only the bride.

hybrid

1. botany plant resulting from crossing: a plant produced from a cross between two plants with different genetic constituents. Hybrids from crosses between crop varieties are often stronger and produce better yields than the original stock.

Molly you are not the only one that said that to me. In fact someone said something similar to me yesterday in.... Bible class.
I give you the same answer as I gave them. I make progress in everything I study. That doesn't for example I get religious feelings for stars after studying astronomy.
But, unbelieveble for some, it brings me closer to accepting the Bible as something real. At first it was a comic book for me. Or just a book at best. But when you for example dig into the Big Bang you will find things happend that just can not happen. But still they did. And when you find a millenia old book writing in fuzzy wuzzy words about what science just discovers 5 days ago I start to see a more and more truth in the Bible. That's just one example.
And now I'm pretty much conviced all words in the Bible are true. Ignoring translation errors etc.
The logical conclusion would be that that make me a believer. Perhaps (hopefully) Father/Son/HS see things that way.
I don't. Odd yes. But that the truth. I really sweared (cursed?) alot in the past. Just hollow words that meant nothing to me bTW. Suddenly that stopped. Very weird. Must have been at least 7 years ago I cursed. More recently something 'bounces' inside of me when I hear a swearing. Then I think why? is there really something inside of me or have I done some self hyphnoses by spending "16 days, 17 hours and 13 minutes." on TentMaker and more on other places?
I'm confused  :boyheart:

[Molly]

Very weird.

Indeed! :laughing7:

I think he is talking to you through your big brain--you are very smart--so that is the best way for him to get through to you.

He knows what he's doing.  lol

As he did with Adam, the first god-Man, bringing this and that most marvelous thing to show you--because he made it for you.


19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

--Gen 2

[Taffy]

yo Nat..

Jhn 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.



Whats some strange story about a Guy with a Boat, given specific dimensions , materials etc.. saving some EIGHT souls, some animals, floating for 40 days and Nites and so On, got to do with Christ..when after all HE states THE scriptures TESTFY to HIM.?

A Lot if we can see it



REST, sounds like the Sabbath, to Cease ,...Ill stop here bud, but you know where Im at. :icon_flower:

Gen 6:15 And this [is the fashion] which thou shalt make it [of]: The length of the ark [shall be] three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.

 

[Nathan]

Taffy!!!  Where have you been???  I've missed you!!

[Taffy]

Taffy!!!  Where have you been???  I've missed you!!

Im always Here Nat.. several times daily ,at times ,Its time to sit back ...but i read never the less.

Hope ya doing well matey.

The rest\The ark are Synomous for mine bro ...pictured again in the NEW  at Christ very first doing, Walking above the WATER,calling Peter who was Under it to do Likewise.....O ,ye of Little Faith.

Later matey :icon_flower:

[Nathan]

I agree all the way with ya!

[SeekerSA]

This Noah's Ark is a pet peeve of mine and here is why.

When folk like me diss stuff like literal creation, the flood, etc. you are automatically deemed an "atheist/non-believer"  Well in that case I wear that badge with pride.

Yet Leviticus with all it's rules that generally would not fly in today's culture is cherry picked in denouncing gays and then ignoring other stuff like disobedient children and and shellfish ( the typical Atheist argument)

Is this not cherry picking?  IT IS.

Thus I too choose to disbelieve things as improbable.  Folk still hold to a YEC when science has clearly showed otherwise like the Hubble Telescope showing systems millions of light years away.

Likely the earth existed and was formed into what it is today and I have a hard time with evolution theories in that we are way too complex to have randomly happened but a godunnit approach does not hold water either.

Everything we know of Jesus is at best 2nd hand accounts and in that we choose to believe them as "factual" while ignoring contradictions albeit minor ones.  Thus the idea of the orated word hand-me-down being infallible is questionable.  That debate is age old and consensus has not nor never will be reached.

Like James says we are to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling, we cannot impose our beliefs on others - all of us make certain suppositions and these are not always the same suppositions hence the debates and discussions.  I am not dogmatic in my approach but when you have dismissed the flood as a myth, there is nothing one can do to convince me by others that is was literal and global.  For that to happen, I have to accept non-biblical suppositions and theories that may or may not be influenced by a particular worldview.

If there bible was the literal truth, there would not be 6000 something different sects(?) and we would likely all still be Catholics.

When you apply Occams Razor, you find the most likely to be the truth.  I say the truth is always found between disparate POV in the center.

I believe that is why Christianity is rejected because of the dogmatic POV that they cannot be wrong.  I am humble enough to state that in certain cases "I don't know" which means stuff I cannot consolidate, I file in pending.

Blessings

[Molly]

If there bible was the literal truth, there would not be 6000 something different sects(?) and we would likely all still be Catholics.

I was thinking about this the other day.  I think one part of it is a way for God to protect us.  It makes it more difficult for satan to take over the whole thing.  God does a lot of hiding of us from the world in little pockets here and there, even within big denominations like Catholicism.

We have the most intensely personal religion (I know you hate that word) on the face of the planet.  A personal God who desires intimate, personal relationship with us, who desires only what is good for us, who is our Saviour.  No other religion offers that.  It is not a cookie cutter religion.

The dangers of collectivism are legion, as we can see with Communism and Fascism--or even other religions such as Islam.   When everyone is made to think and do the same thing, they are in for a world of trouble.

But, still, the Bible is the literal truth, written by one hand.

And shellfish will kill you if you have no way of testing it for pollution.  :laughing7:

[WhiteWings]

Likely the earth existed and was formed into what it is today and I have a hard time with evolution theories in that we are way too complex to have randomly happened but a godunnit approach does not hold water either.

Personally I believe:
The whole Big Bang until mankind as suggested by science is true. But during those billions of years God pushed some buttons. The first button was labeled Big Bang.

If there bible was the literal truth, there would not be 6000 something different sects(?) and we would likely all still be Catholics.

I think those 6000 sects are not about the Bible being true or not but about understanding things differently.

I believe that is why Christianity is rejected because of the dogmatic POV that they cannot be wrong.

I see it more like "the Bible can't be wrong". But they ignore the fact that they perhaps don't understand the truth the Bible states.

I am humble enough to state that in certain cases "I don't know" which means stuff I cannot consolidate, I file in pending.

In this case "file peddeling"  :laughing7:

[WhiteWings]

Genesis 6:4  There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
.
Flood takes place.
.
Numbers 13:33  And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.

Did the giants survive the flood or is this  a new line of giants?

[Nathan]

I'm going to tip toe to the edge and say that what happened in Genesis 6 with the sons of God sleeping with the daughters of men . . .repeated itself after the flood in the cities of Sodom and Gomorah.  The giants mentioned there after are descendants of the second visitation.

[Molly]

I'm going to tip toe to the edge and say that what happened in Genesis 6 with the sons of God sleeping with the daughters of men . . .repeated itself after the flood in the cities of Sodom and Gomorah.  The giants mentioned there after are descendants of the second visitation.

Naw don't tiptoe.  Spit it out. I'm interested in what you have to say.  What is 'the second visitation'?