Many people find it hard to believe in Noah's ark for a few reasons. I want to address a few of them here. One reason is people want to know where all the water went if the whole world was aflood. Another reason is they find it hard to believe that every single animal species would have fit on that boat. I have a simple explanation that would clarify quite a lot. Since its quite often thought that life began in Africa or Asia (Asia I think is more fitting since Jerusalem and Israel are on that continent), that is most probably where life existed for thousands of years. Were'nt the other continents only discovered after Christ's time? Okay I understand that each continent has its native people but that is for another discussion. Lets just say for arguments sake that only one continent was known for thousands of years. then it would all make sense would'nt it. Only the animal species on that continent would have to go on the ark and the flood would have been alot less water. What do you all think?
The land (not earth) flooded was most likely the part where the previous part of Genesis took place.
Likely the Tigris-Euphrates valley east of Israel
The first civilization of the Sumerians was formed here. Writing, math and astronomy. Writings found dating back 3500 BC
Eden in Sumerian means plain. Possibly referring to the large plain in the lower Tigris-Euphrates valley. Very fertile. Paradise like....
Rivers Tigris and Euphrates in Iraq => rising of the waters would cause a flood.
Ancient Sumerian records speak of before and after the flood which took place 2800 BC
In 1929 archeologist Sir Charles Woolley reported that excavations near the Euphrates river revealed water-deposited layers of soil ten feet deep.
17And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
--Gen 6
I don't think it's a bad idea, especially given the word for 'earth'.
"earth"
H776
ארץ
'erets
eh'-rets
From an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land): - X common, country, earth, field, ground, land, X nations, way, + wilderness, world.
In other words, the word could mean the whole world, but it seems it could also mean a part of the world.
In fact, the flood is taking place in the area that Adam was first created, and Noah didn't really travel that far in the ark. Ararat is on the far boundary of Mesopotamia. It's not like the ark settled in the Rocky Mountains or something. The story is still unfolding in the Middle East after the flood, as it was before the flood.
Genesis 7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
15 cubits is about 7 metes. The water did rise 7 meters
*The water did rise 7 meters above the hills?
**No, because peaks have different heights so the water can't be 7 meters above all of them at the same time.
*The water did rise 7 meters from ground/river level and then covered all the hills on that plain. Meaning the max hill hight was less than 7 meters.
Genesis 8:4 And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.
There is a mountain range in East Turkey previously known as Urartu. It would mean the flood extended a few hundred miles from Sumeria.
There is no evidence for that and therefore it's likely that the name similarity is just a coincidence.
It would also mean the Ark was carried upstream because the source of the Tigris lays in the Urartu mountains. in Turkey
Even if the Ark didn't settle on the highest peak of Urartu it would mean it was carried upstream.
Same problems if the other Turkish mountains Ararat was meant.
The Hebrew text writes Ahrurut; meaning hill or something high.
Higest point of the valley.
7 meters above the highest mountain worldwide requires 3.5x the water on all the planet.
Liquid+ice+vapor
There was a scientist a while ago who postulated that a huge amount of water came rushing through the Gibralter staits, flooding the middle east. I can't remember the details of why this would have occurred (melting glaciers? eathquakes?).
However, we do have the strange occurrence of the Dead Sea, a salt water land locked lake below sea level. No matter what the geologists postulate about its formation, it is strange.
If the flood included the salt waters of the ocean covering that area, it would give an explanation for the high salt density of the Dead Sea. It is so salty, nothing can live in it.
It is also the lowest point on the surface of the earth.
There are some problems with a local flood theory.
Why would Noah take 100 years to build an ark the size of a world war II aircraft carrier if the flood was to be a local flood? He could have gathered the animals and walked a couple days out of the mesopotamian valley.
That valley was only about 200 miles wide by arout 500 miles long max. I don't think all the people in the world could have fit in that valley especially when there were at least 1 billion people on the planet back then.
If the flood was local and God told Noah He would set the rainbow in the sky as a reminder to never flood a small area again then He lied.
Jesus spoke of the flood as a truth Matt.24.
The writer of Hebrews believe that the flood was real and the world was condemned back then (Heb. 11)
Peter took the flood as a literal event in 1Peter 3.
Where did all the water come from? How could Mt. Everest be covered by water? Who says Mt. Everest was as high back then as it is today?
Could not God multiply the waters as Christ did the fish and loaves of bread? Could not God multiply the waters as Elisha did the oil for the poor woman as in 2 Kings 4? or Elijah did with the corn mean and oil in 1 Kings 17?
Have faith! Our God is increddibly powerful!
Tony
Quote from: Tony N on November 17, 2008, 03:22:13 AM
There are some problems with a local flood theory.
QuoteWhy would Noah take 100 years to build an ark the size of a world war II aircraft carrier if the flood was to be a local flood? He could have gathered the animals and walked a couple days out of the mesopotamian valley.
I see it as more a continental flood then a local one. Could have been Africa or Asia. Those are large continents.
QuoteThat valley was only about 200 miles wide by arout 500 miles long max. I don't think all the people in the world could have fit in that valley especially when there were at least 1 billion people on the planet back then.
I did'nt know the Bible said there were 1billion people back then? Anyhow again I say not necessarily one valley full of people but more a continent.
QuoteIf the flood was local and God told Noah He would set the rainbow in the sky as a reminder to never flood a small area again then He lied.
A whole continent is not a small area hun.
QuoteJesus spoke of the flood as a truth Matt.24.
The writer of Hebrews believe that the flood was real and the world was condemned back then (Heb. 11)
Peter took the flood as a literal event in 1Peter 3.
Where did all the water come from? How could Mt. Everest be covered by water? Who says Mt. Everest was as high back then as it is today?
Could not God multiply the waters as Christ did the fish and loaves of bread? Could not God multiply the waters as Elisha did the oil for the poor woman as in 2 Kings 4? or Elijah did with the corn mean and oil in 1 Kings 17?
there was definately a flood because scripture mentions it and scripture does not lie. My point is just that I don't think all the continents were populated back then. Its just my opinion tho.
God Bless
Dee
Quote from: Tony N on November 17, 2008, 03:22:13 AM
Have faith! Our God is increddibly powerful!
I started with you last sentance.
Yes. Agreed. But God also seems often to use natural ways to punish. Frog, locustus, famine, etc
QuoteWhy would Noah take 100 years to build an ark the size of a world war II aircraft carrier if the flood was to be a local flood? He could have gathered the animals and walked a couple days out of the mesopotamian valley.
It's not so sure it's 100 year. English text writes years. Hebrew seems to write something life 'repeatings'
That indeed can be years. But also seasons for example.
QuoteThat valley was only about 200 miles wide by arout 500 miles long max. I don't think all the people in the world could have fit in that valley especially when there were at least 1 billion people on the planet back then.
Firstly the Hebrew more likely states land not world/earth.
Bible story was always centred around a certain group of people. Did you ever read something about Europe, Amerika, Australia in the Bible? They never got judged for good or bad.
About a billion people. Far less I think.
QuoteIf the flood was local and God told Noah He would set the rainbow in the sky as a reminder to never flood a small area again then He lied.
As far as I understand it the rainbow was always in the sky. It wasn't created for that goal.
God just said just something like: Whenever you see the rainbow remember I won't flood you anymore.
Several floods appeared elsewhere in the world.
QuoteJesus spoke of the flood as a truth Matt.24.
The writer of Hebrews believe that the flood was real and the world was condemned back then (Heb. 11)
Peter took the flood as a literal event in 1Peter 3.
Flood took place. Point is world or land where 'they' lived.
QuoteWhere did all the water come from? How could Mt. Everest be covered by water? Who says Mt. Everest was as high back then as it is today?
To form a mountain range the size of the Everest and other large mountains cause immese stress in the inside of the earth. My bet is Noach would have reported massive earthquarkes.
QuoteCould not God multiply the waters as Christ did the fish and loaves of bread? Could not God multiply the waters as Elisha did the oil for the poor woman as in 2 Kings 4? or Elijah did with the corn mean and oil in 1 Kings 17?
Yes, he could have done that and a zillion other things.
All that said the above is not just my 'I wish it is that way.'
It's mainly from a book from a Jewish scientist Torah reader that took the KJV and compared it to the Torah.
All what I wrote above is in the Torah. But yes it always boils down to interpretation of things. But his logic (that stats at Gen 1:1) seems honest. Not an attack on Torah and or Bible.
But as I said interpretation. Just like we now have ET and UR. And what causes that difference?
Many things but largely due to translations.
Quote from: DeeDee on November 17, 2008, 08:27:24 AM
I see it as more a continental flood then a local one. Could have been Africa or Asia. Those are large continents.
The problem is that if the water rises it drains into the sea if you flood a whole continent.
Unless you assume God created some barrrier that stopped flowing teh water of the continent.
QuoteFirstly the Hebrew more likely states land not world/earth.
Bible story was always centred around a certain group of people. Did you ever read something about Europe, Amerika, Australia in the Bible? They never got judged for good or bad.
About a billion people. Far less I think.
well I think the reason for the flood was that God was preserving a bloodline that would lead to Jesus, and the bloodline had become 'polluted' (sons of God with daughters of men), leading all men to have evil in their hearts all of the time. Not a good incubator for the Christ--so to speak.
QuoteI see it as more a continental flood then a local one. Could have been Africa or Asia. Those are large continents.
The problem is that if the water rises it drains into the sea if you flood a whole continent.
Unless you assume God created some barrrier that stopped flowing teh water of the continent.
Could very well be, or my theory that continental drifting had not yet taken place can also account.
Continental drift?
You assume at the time of the flood all continents where still one?
The drift that still occurs goes very slowly. Drifting many 1000 miles even in 4000 year is immensly fast for such processes. Unless ofcourse God 'helped'.
But then the same problem occurs. Or even bigger. The water drains of the continent and the continent is much larger (more water needed)
Quote from: WhiteWings on November 17, 2008, 09:34:28 AM
Continental drift?
You assume at the time of the flood all continents where still one?
The drift that still occurs goes very slowly. Drifting many 1000 miles even in 4000 year is immensly fast for such processes. Unless ofcourse God 'helped'.
But then the same problem occurs. Or even bigger. The water drains of the continent and the continent is much larger (more water needed)
Yes I suppose the one continent flooded theory is better then the continental drifting theory. God could have used mountains as a barrier or anything in fact. What you think?
Most shores are low.
No mountainranges there.
I meant as temporary borders. Remember aswell that land is not even i.e it lays at different levels above sea water. The escarpment is at different levels. This could also come into play.
The flood is at best a myth or a folklore story related to a region.
Polar Bears? Penguins? Lions are carnivores, what did they eat for 40 days?
As for taking 100 years to build, that could well be just an add on to make it seem plausible. I do not think we are the first to question this. Back then they may not have understood the food chain as we do today.
If you want t to be true then you have to deny logic and introduce suppositions that are extra biblical.
Fresh water fish? Flies only live 4 days or so, snakes like the anaconda from S. America, the kangaroo from Aus?
The giant asteroid also fails as the impact to generate a huge world wide tsunami would also have released energy multiple times the Hiroshima bomb..
You need to consider fresh water algae too which likely would not survive salty water and visa versa, salty water animals that would not survive fresh water.
Even the USA have unique to region animals.
http://www.westarkchurchofchrist.org/library/noahsark.htm
1stly, If the world-wide flood in Noah's day was just a myth then why did Jesus, the writer of Hebrews and Peter speak of it as fact?
2ndly, if the flood in Noah's day was just localized on that continent, this does not make sense. Think about it. For the flood waters to get above the tallest mountains on that continent the flood waters would have to be above all the lower mountains on the other continents. Unless God built an invisible wall around that continent that was 7 cubits taller than the tallest mountain on that continent and all the other continents remained dry. Highly laughable at best.
3rdly, just because continental drift is very slow today does not mean it was very slow not long after the flood in the days of Peleg when the nations were parted. There could have been one continent called Pangea back then.
The only survivors to the world-wide flood was Noah and family and animals on their ark sans fish. Well, they might have had a pet guppy. :dontknow:
Read the link I pasted above your post.
Quote from: DeeDee on November 17, 2008, 03:43:23 PM
Read the link I pasted above your post.
Thanks for the link DeeDee! Very good! It is a shame that some believers can't take God at His word.
Quote from: Tony N on November 17, 2008, 03:48:23 PM
It is a shame that some believers can't take God at His word.
The point here is that it very well possible that it is
you that doesn't take God at His word.
Please don't start twisting what I (others) wrote! :sigh:
I'm simply saying that the Hebrew leaves a much higher possibility for a local flood.
And as far as I'm concerned the Hebrew is closer to Gods word than the English translation.
There is much more to it but simply check Strong for the word world was translated from.
Then look at it's various meanings.
My KJV tells me hell is eternal.... get my point?
Quote from: WhiteWings on November 17, 2008, 05:27:04 PM
Quote from: Tony N on November 17, 2008, 03:48:23 PM
It is a shame that some believers can't take God at His word.
The point here is that it very well possible that it is you that doesn't take God at His word.
Please don't start twisting what I (others) wrote! :sigh:
Dear friend, no need to take offense. I don't believe I twisted anything you wrote.
Quote
I'm simply saying that the Hebrew leaves a much higher possibility for a local flood.
Tony's reply:
It actually leaves a lesser possibility of a local flood.
QuoteAnd as far as I'm concerned the Hebrew is closer to Gods word than the English translation.
Tony's reply: Agreed.
QuoteThere is much more to it but simply check Strong for the word world was translated from.
Then look at it's various meanings.
My KJV tells me hell is eternal.... get my point?
The New Testament writers, under inspiration of God says it was the world that perished:
Heb 11:7 By faith Noah, being apprized concerning that which is not as yet being observed, being pious, constructs an ark for the salvation of his house, through which
he condemns the world, and became an enjoyer of the allotment of the righteousness which accords with faith."
We know that by "world" it references all mankind such as when it is stated that "God so loved the world." It is not saying that God loved the land and so gave His Son so that the land could be saved.
Peter states that only eight souls were saved. He doesn't say, nor does Christ or the writer of Hebrews nor the writer of Genesis that many people were not affected by the flood:
1Pe 3:20 He heralds to those once stubborn, when the patience of God awaited in the days of Noah while the ark was being constructed, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were brought safely through water,
God said He would destroy man that He created
from the surface of the ground. (Gen.6:7 Concordant Version). He didn't intimate that some continents would be spared. He didn't say that some of mankind were not doing evil. Just Noah and family found grace. The rest of humanity He created did not.
Please do not take offense where none should be taken. We can keep cool heads here.
One other verse I just remembered:
2Pe 3:6 through which the then world, being deluged by water, perished."2Pe 3:7 Yet the heavens now, and the earth, by the same word, are stored with fire, being kept for the day of the judging and destruction of irreverent men."
The world of Noah's day was deluged by water. We are living on a new earth that came out of that flood. In the future the earth will be destroyed by fire and a new earth will come out of that conflagration. I don't think it leaves any room for a local fire in someone's back yard or a continent getting burned up. Thus also, it leaves no room for a flood in someone's back yard or on their single continent.
Quote from: Tony N on November 17, 2008, 06:35:20 PM
Dear friend, no need to take offense. I don't believe I twisted anything you wrote.
You wrote:
QuoteIt is a shame that some believers can't take God at His word.
With that you claim I'm twisting Gods words. And because I said I've read those word in the Hebrew text you twist my words by saying they find no basis in the word of God. That you don't agree that's no problem with me.
First a general remark it might seem off-topic but I think it's a very important framework...
Science finds no support for global floods. Change in the earth layout (mountains and oceans formed after the flood)
Surely God is very capable of hidding things; but for me that doesn't fit with His character.
He also could have done the flood with a miracle. But that also doesn't really look like God's way of doing things.
He seems to prefer things found in nature. For example plague of frogs, the water of the flood, locustus etc.
There is also a verse that states that Gods handiwork can be seen in nature.
QuoteThe New Testament writers, under inspiration of God says it was the world that perished:
The OT wasn't inspired? That's a retorical question....
QuoteHeb 11:7 By faith Noah, being apprized concerning that which is not as yet being observed, being pious, constructs an ark for the salvation of his house, through which he condemns the world, and became an enjoyer of the allotment of the righteousness which accords with faith."
We know that by "world" it references all mankind such as when it is stated that "God so loved the world." It is not saying that God loved the land and so gave His Son so that the land could be saved.
The Bible likes to use strong wording sometimes or translation is wrong. I small example:
Exodus 21:6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him
for ever.
A verse that uses world while in the same verse it clairfies it's Egypt.
Exodus 10:15 For they covered the face of the whole earth, so that the land was darkened; and they did eat every herb of the land, and all the fruit of the trees which the hail had left: and there remained not any green thing in the trees, or in the herbs of the field, through all the land of Egypt.
World:
2889 ko,smoj kosmos {kos'-mos}
Meaning: 1) an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government 2) ornament, decoration, adornment, i.e. the arrangement of the stars, 'the heavenly hosts', as the ornament of the heavens. 1 Pet. 3:3 3) the world, the universe 4) the circle of the earth, the earth 5) the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human race 6) the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ 7) world affairs, the aggregate of things earthly 7a) the whole circle of earthly goods, endowments riches, advantages, pleasures, etc, which although hollow and frail and fleeting, stir desire, seduce from God and are obstacles to the cause of Christ 8) any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort 8a) the Gentiles as contrasted to the Jews (Rom. 11:12 etc) 8a) of believers only, John 1:29; 3:16; 3:17; 6:33; 12:47 1 Cor. 4:9; 2 Cor. 5:19
Strong gives many meanings of the word world. And indeed also the whole world.
The red is clear I guess.
The blue: Who where the men alienated from God. Just everyone on the whole planet except those on the Ark or, by lack of better words, the group that would have become Israel?
The whole OT is focussing on 'the way to become Israel'
It follows certain key persons. Other nations are only mentioned if they cross the path of the key persons.
Understand what I'm trying to say?
QuotePeter states that only eight souls were saved. He doesn't say, nor does Christ or the writer of Hebrews nor the writer of Genesis that many people were not affected by the flood:
1Pe 3:20 He heralds to those once stubborn, when the patience of God awaited in the days of Noah while the ark was being constructed, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were brought safely through water,
It's clearly stated 8 souls are saved. Agreed. But 8 souls of what group?
Indeed the group could be whole mankind. But because the things I've mentioned above I'm just not very sure about that.
QuoteGod said He would destroy man that He created from the surface of the ground. (Gen.6:7 Concordant Version). He didn't intimate that some continents would be spared. He didn't say that some of mankind were not doing evil. Just Noah and family found grace. The rest of humanity He created did not.
Earth 0127 hm'd'a] 'adamah {ad-aw-maw'}
Meaning: 1) ground, land 1a) ground (as general, tilled, yielding sustenance) 1b) piece of ground, a
specific plot of land 1c) earth substance (for building or constructing) 1d) ground as earth's visible surface 1e) land, territory, country 1f) whole inhabited earth 1g) city in Naphtali
Many meaning are local. But there is also a whole earth as a meaning.
QuotePlease do not take offense where none should be taken. We can keep cool heads here.
Using words like: "believe God word", "inspired NT" give me a bad feeling. I won't argue for a second the quotes a true.
It's just that they are present to give extra 'force' to your world and thereby claiming my words come from another source than the Bible. I truely believe the Bible/Torah is inspired. I also truely believe lots of translation error crept in.
Plus I believe
nobody, except Father/Son/HS, understand the Bible 100%
I'm just digging for the truth; meaning getting closer to the origibal word of God.
I've similar 'things' about Genesis. Again based on the OT itself. But I fear several on this board can't handle things that require them to think outside the box they believe in. I find that a shame. But a starting a fight doesn't help my understanding so I won't post until Martin answers my PM regarding thos topics.
QuoteOne other verse I just remembered:
2Pe 3:6 through which the then world, being deluged by water, perished."2Pe 3:7 Yet the heavens now, and the earth, by the same word, are stored with fire, being kept for the day of the judging and destruction of irreverent men."
The world of Noah's day was deluged by water. We are living on a new earth that came out of that flood. In the future the earth will be destroyed by fire and a new earth will come out of that conflagration. I don't think it leaves any room for a local fire in someone's back yard or a continent getting burned up. Thus also, it leaves no room for a flood in someone's back yard or on their single continent.
World. See the other Peter verse above
Quote from: Tony N on November 17, 2008, 03:48:23 PM
Quote from: DeeDee on November 17, 2008, 03:43:23 PM
Read the link I pasted above your post.
Thanks for the link DeeDee! Very good! It is a shame that some believers can't take God at His word.
The problem with statements such as this is there are many ways to point out Gods word. And just in UR Tony, you might possibly say this to a believer in Eternal Hell, then they would show you the verse where Jesus says some will awaken to everlasting punishment.
Of course there are bibles with that written specifically, so "Why do you not just believe Gods word"?
The Hebrew word that is translated to the english word earth is not defined as the whole earth.
H776 'erets eh'-rets
from an unused root probably meaning to be firm;
the earth (at large, or partitively a land):--X common, country, earth, field,
ground, land, X natins, way, + wilderness, world.
The parenthesis after earth qualify the definition to the most likely meaning.
A flood said to have covered a mountain is taking the perspective of how the terrain is now.
It is not allowing for the scientific knowledge (that both creation scientists and mainstream scientists cannot refute) of upliftment that shows that the earths terrain was much flatter long ago than it is now.
Creationism further complicates the matter by an unproven stance that the bible plainly speaks of a 6000 year old earth. It does not, it is an implication through their interpretation only, but they will not admit it. To say "why not just believe Gods word" in this case is in error because Gods word makes no such statement. You must then "believe what they tell you it means".
From a local perspective something called a mountain may have looked entirely different than it does now.
Gn 7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
Only 15 cubits to cover the highest mountain on the whole earth? 15 cubits is in the range of 20 to 30 feet.
The Hebrew for mountain is not a pure suggestion of the huge ranges of what we call mountains in modern day.
H2022 har har
a shortened form of H2042;
a mountain or range of hills (sometimes used figuratively):--hill (country),
mount(-ain), X promotion.
The usage of the word along with the measurement that is cited in the verse implies that Gods word is not talking about the entire globe.
Isn't it interesting how our minds try to put things together that were spiritually built? How did Adam acquire blood for his veins? We get defensive at the idea that either there was a flood or there wasn't . .or .. because our natural reasoning can not see how the events could physically happen, we question the extent in which things happened.
Elijah went 40 days without eating . .Moses did it twice in a row. Elisha oversaw an old lady with an almost empty jar of oil fill her entire house with that almost empty jar.
There are stories upon stories in Scripture that natural reasoning can not explain. Noah's ark is only one of many. Like I shared in another thread, our minds are the masters of distractions. God didn't have this event documented so that 5,000 years later we'd come along and try to physically prove or disprove it happened. He documented it for the same reasons he had men document all of the other indescribable events . . .they paint a picture of his nature . .they form a pattern of his promise, they unveil the character of the Christ. The flesh profits nothing in this.
Whether the flood was local or earth-wide isn't the theme of what's going on here. The purpose of the story is to reveal that Christ is your ark, we are hid in him. Just as the ark was covered with pitch . .which is tar . ..inside and out . .when you look at the original definition of the word, you'll find it's actual meaning is "atonement".
It came to rest on Mt. Ararat . . .meaning? The curse is reversed.
Jesus stated that as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be in the time of the coming of the son of man . . .Know what Noah means? Rest. In the Day of rest . .we just spoke of this on the other thread dealing with the Sabbath . . .Jesus will reveal himself in the Day of Rest.
Proving the phyisical piece of the story get's us no where. Nobody was there, no one can prove anything. If we begin focusing on the physical plain, it will be much more difficult to enter into the spiritual because the physical one births doubt that it ever happened at all. And doubt can not enter into the spirit realm . . .
Say it didn't happen physcially, is that going to change anything? Say just the opposite happened . .say that it all happened exactly as it appears to state it did . . .is that going to change anything? 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.
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.
Quote from: Nathan on November 18, 2008, 06:50:45 PM
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.
QuoteAnd 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.
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.
Nathan, you make some very, very good points hun.
Lotsa luv brother :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
Quote from: Nathan on November 18, 2008, 08:15:56 PM
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.
QuoteThis 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.
QuoteMy 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.
Quote16 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.
QuoteLet 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.
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.
Quote from: Molly on November 18, 2008, 10:37:36 PM
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:
Quote from: Nathan on November 18, 2008, 10:42:28 PM
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.
Quote from: WhiteWings on November 18, 2008, 10:44:37 PM
Quote from: Molly on November 18, 2008, 10:37:36 PM
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.
Quote from: Nathan on November 18, 2008, 10:42:28 PM
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?
QuoteFrankly, 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.
Quote from: Molly on November 18, 2008, 11:00:30 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on November 18, 2008, 10:44:37 PM
Quote from: Molly on November 18, 2008, 10:37:36 PM
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:
QuoteVery 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
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.
Taffy!!! Where have you been??? I've missed you!!
Quote from: Nathan on November 19, 2008, 12:39:19 AM
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:
I agree all the way with ya!
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
QuoteIf 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:
Quote from: SeekerSA on November 19, 2008, 10:43:22 AM
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.
QuoteIf 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.
QuoteI 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.
QuoteI 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:
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?
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.
Quote from: Nathan on November 19, 2008, 09:11:52 PM
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'?
Quote from: WhiteWings on November 19, 2008, 11:23:47 AM
Quote from: SeekerSA on November 19, 2008, 10:43:22 AM
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.
QuoteIf 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.
QuoteI 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.
Good post WW. I agree, it's our own weaknesses, inability and/or unwillingness, and that we're veiled/revealed to varying extents. I like your insight.
P.S. I've followed some of your statements wrt believing or not, or how much, etc. Maybe you're somewhat like me..."I believe, Lord help my unbelief".
God's blessing, James.
Quote from: Molly on November 19, 2008, 09:14:41 PM
Quote from: Nathan on November 19, 2008, 09:11:52 PM
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'?
Sodom and Gomorah . . the first was Genesis 6 . .they were wiped out in the flood, the second was Sodom and Gomorah .. . those that wanted to sleep with these angels were not just lustful men . . .tell me how it is that an entire city "knew" what kind of men these were in only a matter of a couple hours at the most . . .more than likely, within an hour or so . .but there was a spiritual recognition there . . they were not out to just fulfill lusts . .they were out to defile all over again. Only difference was . . .the second time God nipped it in the bud rather than allow it to defile the bloodline of man . . .it's purpose was to keep the prophecy of Christ coming through the seed of the woman from happening.
Like most things physical or literal . . .this is all argumentative . . . and it's just my opinion.
Genesis 4:20-22 And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle. 21 And his brother's name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ. 22 And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah.
I need a little help with this....
IIRC there are 2 bloodlines coming from Adam and Eve.
The line of Noach. The one on the boat :winkgrin:
The other line is that of Cain.
If so; are the people called Canaanites from the line of Cain?
If so that bloodline wasn't (completely) destroyed during the flood.
:dontknow:
That theory derives from those that don't believe angels . . fallen angels came from heaven and slept with natural women. They believe that it was the Sons of Seth slept with the daughters of Cain . . .which, if you're looking at this literally, which in this setting we are . . .having cousins sleep together does not produce giants . .men of super-human charactistics. There was a mixture of spirit and flesh and it perverted that which God called good.
I say all of this tongue and cheek because like I said, it's focussing on the literal and when I do that, a lot is left up to interpretation.
A lot of what we do spiritually is likened to one who wears colored glasses. When you cover your eyes with one specific color, then everything you see from that point on is heavily influenced by that one color. Our spiritual vision is the same way. If we veil our eyes with one major slant or another .. .say life or law . . . then literally, everything we read and see is going to be heavily influenced by what shade of doctrine we have over our eyes.
If you choose life, you become an optimist . .if you choose law, you become a pessimist . .spiritually speaking.
Without concidering things like angels, giants, etc are the Canaanites in the bloodline of Cain, if you check the genealogy presented in the Bible?
Hi WW according to strongs , Cannanites are from the son of Ham
one of the 3 sons of Noah ....
cursed to serve all his brothers for his fathers error ...
Hebrew for H3667 כנען Transliteration
Kĕna`an
Pronunciation
ken·ah'·an (Key)
Part of Speech
masculine noun
Root Word (Etymology)
from H3665
TWOT Reference
1002,1002b
Outline of Biblical Usage Canaan = "lowland"
n pr m
1) the 4th son of Ham and the progenitor of the Phoenicians and of the various nations who peopled the seacoast of Palestine
n pr loc
2) the land west of the Jordan peopled by the descendants of Canaan and subsequently conquered by the Israelites under Joshua
n m
3) merchant, trader
Lexicon Results for kana` (Strong's H3665) Hebrew for H3665 כנע Transliteration
kana`
Pronunciation
kä·nah' (Key)
Part of Speech
verb
Root Word (Etymology)
a primitive root
TWOT Reference
1001
Outline of Biblical Usage 1) to be humble, be humbled, be subdued, be brought down, be low, be under, be brought into subjection
a) (Niphal)
1) to humble oneself
2) to be humbled, be subdued
b) (Hiphil)
1) to humble
2) to subdue
Rose I've seen similar things.
But there are also several articles that state that certain post flood people are in the blood line of Cain.
But nothing to support that claim.
Most the timeline I found never are complete. They just focus on one branch that's needed for the article.
The wife of Noah seems to come from the Cain blood line.
IF the Bible shows the Cain, or any other none Noah, blood line survived the flood then it's clear the flood can't have been global.
Hi WW,
you think like I have over this same issue bro .
I saw the same things when looking deeper on the net into it
even Giving Noahs wifes name and the blood line of Cains desendants , but it is not written in the mainstream Bible ? she is barely mentioned
I only come to this conclusion that the earth was not heavily populated just in certain areas and that effected the mass of peoples
living in the time of records , or being recorded making it "global" in that respect
I just forgot about it and went into other mysteries searching for Truth
In this quest for truth , I find it to feel satisfied with some answers , they never seem to quite settle it for me
I see you have the same insatiable appetite hee hee desiring to be filled with His Truth bro
Yeah Rose I keep digging. Just trying to give the shovel to someone else once in a while.
My vision is that during the flood the whole earth was populated.
But that's a whole different story.
Ask me in PM if you want to know.
Quote from: WhiteWings on November 20, 2008, 03:31:26 PM
Yeah Rose I keep digging. Just trying to give the shovel to someone else once in a while.
My vision is that during the flood the whole earth was populated.
But that's a whole different story.
Ask me in PM if you want to know.
Got me 18 pages to read when I can bro lol .... :winkgrin:
hope to get back to ya soon on this ....