It also explains the eternal question as to why a Wonderful, Forgiving, and Merciful Father would DESTROY His Entire creation With a FLOOD and Start Over.
That part of the Story had ALWAYS bothered me, as a child.
Posted on 04/02/2010 2:15:54 PM PDT by Perdogg
• No warfare between Israel and Iran, at least not until November.
• Six very large earthquakes are yet to come during the rest of 2010.
• A major tipping point will occur between November 8th – 11th, 2010, followed by a 2-3 month release period. This tipping point appears to be US-centric, and could be a dramatic world-changing event like 9-11 that will have rippling after-effects. The collapse of the dollar might occur in November.
• From July 8th, 2010 onward, civil unrest will take place, possibly driven by food prices skyrocketing, and the devaluation of the dollar.
• A second depression, triggered by mass layoffs, bankruptcies, and the popping of the "derivatives bubble," will see people moving out of cities.
• After March 2011, the revolution wave will settle down into a period of reformation.
• A "data gap" has been found between early 2012 running through May 2013. One explanation is that "our civilization gets knocked back to a pre-electronic state," such as brought about by devastating solar activity.
• A new benign form of capitalism will emerge during 2017-2020.
(Excerpt) Read more at coasttocoastam.com ...
ou know, your post makes me think of when I read the “Lost Books of the Bible” and they were speaking of Lillith.
Yeah, I understand there is that "thinking" that is out there ... but that one is "made out of whole cloth" -- and doesn't exist, in the very least, in Scripture.
Now, while this particular idea (that I was talking about above) is very, very limited in what it does say, at least it does say it ...
I'm very reluctant to accept something like that, totally without even a single expression of support in the Bible, while this (above) does have several places of support in the Bible.
I hope you see what I mean there. :-)
And... what kind of goes along with this idea that you're talking about -- is the idea that there is something missing from the Bible. Well, of course there is something missing from the Bible... LOL ... Does someone expect that the entire world's history is going to be included in the Bible? :-)
Nothing is missing from the Bible that God intended to tell us and that we should know about and that we can depend upon -- as 100% inerrant and infallible and without error of any kind. What we have in the Bible right now is exactly what God intended for us to have (He's powerful enough to make sure of that, I have no doubt ... :-) ...), and we can depend upon it. We can't depend upon anything else like that.
You didn't ask me but, the ONLY thing that Quix or ST or any else of us have the ability to do is plant the seed. Only the Lord Himself can make it grow. Dontcha see?
‘I’m very reluctant to accept something like that, totally without even a single expression of support in the Bible, while this (above) does have several places of support in the Bible. “
I do understand your implication there, and believe me, I have heard this all my life from my grandfather preachers and others from church. “If it were supposed to be in the Bible, God would have made sure it got there” and yes, I totally understand that. But I also understand that the King James Version is a compilation of books that THEY felt was important. And given that they were released later in history, at a time when they would be more widely accepted... well, who’s to say God didn’t have a hand in that? I have a hard time thinking that the last time God would work on getting His word out there was at King James! If new writings were discovered today, would we say “Nope, not valid, it isn’t in the 17th century version!” I would hope not!
It’s hard to argue with a faith based argument on an issue, and “It’s not true or God would have made sure it was in there” is a complete faith based statement. Not that I am saying you are wrong, or saying that your faith in that statement is incorrect. I just have nothing that can counter a belief. *I* personally believe that while God’s word is most certainly in the Bible, politics has played a role in religion since time began. Right up the day Jesus was sentenced to die. And in studying King James and his religious group responsible for translating, choosing content and printing... politics can most definitely play a part and in my opinion most likely did. The idea that woman was originally created as an equal did not fit in with the idea of women of the day. Heck, it took a fear of a Catholic monarch for them to accept a woman on the throne! That was something that threatened men of that time and I can’t see them risking the idea of equality in that regard. For no other reason than King James wouldn’t want to tick off every other monarch in the region. In that respect, I can totally see God saying “I’ll let this part be left out because to leave it in risks people blocking the entire book!” Catholic priests weren’t happy with it in the first place.
Anyway, I’ll let it go at that. I was just saying that those books do support what you were saying.
Since that was Jesus who said that, He would have made it known if something was missing. He spoke and acted and conducted Himself as if all that God had said (which we know what He had...) -- would be fulfilled in its entirety. He made the point that not one jot of tittle would pass away, until all was fulfilled.
Now, that would be a very misleading thing for Jesus to say, if He knew that He was speaking about a part of the Bible (that He knew about) which was missing and that no one else, at that time, knew anything about it.
I think, just by that alone, we can be assured that we have every bit of what Jesus referred to, as not one jot or tittle passing away until all be fulfilled, in that Old Testament that Jesus used all the time.
AND..., thus, we're down to the New Testament, having "dispensed" with the issue as far as the Old Testament is concerned.
And with the New Testament, an advantage is that it's a whole lot easier to deal with, in that respect, than the Old Testament is. That's because it's so much more recent and we have so much material available to us, from the New Testament (from the Church fathers and their writing about it) -- and it was written so soon after Jesus' resurrection.
I won't go a whole lot into the New Testament, because that doesn't seem to be an issue, as far as I can tell, with the overabundance of material we have and that we can track everything written in the New Testament right back to within a mere years and decades of them happening -- with the very oldest book of the new Testament being written within the very same century of when Jesus was here. The very oldest book (the one furthest away from the death of Christ) in the New Testament was written only a mere 60 years (approximately) after Jesus died on the Cross. That's the very last book written.
James 45-49 AD Galatians 49 1 & 2 Thessalonians 51 Mark 50s or 60s Matthew 50s or 60s 1 Corinthians 55 2 Corinthians 56 Romans 57-58 Luke 60 Acts 61 Colossians 61 Ephesians 61 Philippians 63 Philemon 63 1 Peter 63-64 1 Timothy 63-66 Titus 63-66 Hebrews 64-68 2 Peter 66 2 Timothy 68 Jude 68-80 John 85-90 1, 2, 3 John 85-90 Revelation 90-95
Look at that -- everything except Jude, John, 1, 2, 3 John and Revelation -- all written before the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, in 70 AD.
These were books that were circulating and recognized immediately as inspired and thus accepted automatically into the canon of Scripture -- all while the Jerusalem Church was active and growing in Jerusalem.
In other words, we've got Jesus verifying it for us when He was here -- and then with the New Testament, we've got practically all of it written before the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. And for those remaining few, the rest by (at the "outside") only 25 years after the destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem.
That's pretty amazing -- and you can bet your bottom dollar that nothing is missing there... :-)
You didn't ask me but, the ONLY thing that Quix or ST or any else of us have the ability to do is plant the seed. Only the Lord Himself can make it grow. Dontcha see?
No problem, anyone can comment here... :-)
In case anyone misunderstand, these things are not to do with how one is saved. It's not a salvation issue. I would want to make that real clear -- to anyone else who may not realize that.
We don't have to know a thing about it, and we can ignore it and still be saved. The Gospel of Salvation is fairly simple. It doesn't take very much to be saved. You wonder, at times, with how simple it is -- how come people have so much problem with it... :-)
There's only one seed that we are commanded to plant, as Christians -- to the non-believing world -- and that's the Gospel of Salvation. That's the only one that the Lord is really concerned about us "getting out" to everyone.
Outside of the Gospel of Salvation and whatever else will support that person's understanding of that particular message -- the rest of it (i.e., the rest of what is in the Bible) is for those who are already saved ...
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
- 2 Timothy 3:16,17
I would say that, in this stuff, there's no seed to plant in regards to the Gospel of Salvation, unless that person finds it to support what Salvation is all about, when reading it.
What this is good for, is understanding what we may be in for, in the future, as Jesus compared that time to what is coming, and also, as an explanation of what the evil angels may be currently doing today.
But, that is for those who are already saved...
As best as can be determined, every book in the Bible was immediately accepted as canonical--or genuinely inspired by God--by the contemporaries of the author. That is, no book in the Bible was originally doubted as being inspired by those who knew the author, but later came to be accepted as inspired.
See the complete article below ...
The Development of the Canon. The word "canon" is used to describe the set of books that are considered to be divinely inspired by God and intended by Him to be circulated among, and read by, those interested in knowing what God has to say. It is important to remember that the Bible was not written as one book. It is a collection of 66 separate books: 39 books in the Old Testament, and 27 books in the New Testament. In most cases, these books were originally written, and later copied, on individual scrolls or parchments. Only over time were these books collected and bound together as the "Bible" (the word "Bible" comes from the Greek word biblia, which means "books").
It is important to recognize a distinction between "inspiration" and "canonization." Inspiration is the means by which God revealed His thoughts through the writings of mortal men. Canonization is the process by which mortal men discovered which writings were inspired. In practice, the process of identifying which books were inspired consisted of identifying whether the author of the book was an acknowledged prophet of God. As best as can be determined, every book in the Bible was immediately accepted as canonical--or genuinely inspired by God--by the contemporaries of the author. That is, no book in the Bible was originally doubted as being inspired by those who knew the author, but later came to be accepted as inspired.
The problem lies on the other side. There are a number of books where it is difficult to determine who wrote the book because so much time has passed since the book was originally written. In these cases, there is usually a tradition that attributes authorship of the book to a well known prophet; but there are also grounds for doubting the reliability of the tradition. Then the question of inspiration becomes stickier.
In general, religious books can be categorized into 4 categories. First there are the books that virtually all scholars agree belong in the canon (these are called the "Homologoumena"). Second are the books that most all scholars agree belong in the canon, but over which there is some dispute (these are called the "Antilegomena"). Third are the books that most scholars agree don't belong in the canon, but some believe are canonical (these are called the "Apocrypha"). Lastly are the books that virtually all scholars agree don't belong in the canon (these are called the "Pseudepigrapha"). The big question is how many books fit into the second and third categories--the "Antilegomena" and the "Aprocrypha." If there are a lot of them, and if they touch on important issues crucial to the substance of Christianity, then this would raise serious questions about the trustworthiness of Christianity.
The Old Testament. There are thirty-nine books in the English version of the Protestant Old Testament. Thirty-four of these belong to the Homologoumena--that is, they are considered by virtually all scholars to be canonical. The five over which there was some dispute, the Antilegomena, are (i) the Song of Solomon (or Song of Songs), (ii) Ecclesiastes, (iii) Esther, (iv) Ezekiel, and (v) Proverbs. A more detailed discussion of the specific issues associated with each book is given in Geissler and Nix (1986, pages 258ff.)
It is generally reckoned that there are fifteen books that belong to the category of the "Apocrypha." Here the Roman Catholic Church differs from the Hebrew canon and Protestant Old Testament canon (which are the same) by including eleven (or twelve, if one counts Baruch as being separate from the Letter of Jeremiah) of these fifteen in the Old Testament canon. Most of these books were written in the "intertestamental period," from about 400 B.C. to the opening of the New Testament canon in the first century. It should be noted that none of these books were ever seriously considered by the Jewish community as inspired. Indeed, it was widely held by the Jewish community that the line of prophets had come to an end after Malachi's time (approximately 400 B.C.)
For example, Josephus, the noted Jewish historian, states that the prophets wrote from Moses to Artaxerxes (a contemporary of Malachi), and then he adds, "It is true our history hath been written since Artaxerxes... but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of the prophets since that time (quoted in Geissler and Nix, 1986, p. 271)." Likewise, the Talmud, a Jewish commentary on the Scriptures, writes, "After the latter prophets Haggai, Zechariah,...and Malachi, the Holy Spirit departed Israel (quoted in Geissler and Nix, 1986, p. 27 1)."
The New Testament. The same fourfold categorization of Homologoumena, Antilegomena, Apocrypha, and Pseudepigrapha can be made for the New Testament books. Key to the acceptance of a New Testament book as canonical was the recognition that the book manifested apostolic authority; that is, that it was written or, confirmed by the ministry of the apostles.
Twenty of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament are generally accepted by all to belong to the New Testament canon. These include all the books from Matthew to Philemon, plus I Peter and I John. The set of books over which there was some question of canonicity (the Antilegomena) consist of Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude and Revelation. In most cases, doubts were raised about these books because there was uncertainty about the authorship of the books.
Part of the problem in confirming authorship lay in the fact that--unlike the Old Testament books that were received by a localized community of Jewish believers--the New Testament community of believers was dispersed throughout the Roman Empire. Persecutions, as well as transportation and communication obstacles, impeded the circulation of writings across the far-flung communities of believers. Some books that were considered canonical in the eastern part of the Roman empire were not well known in the western part of the empire, and vice versa. Thus, it took time to sort through the evidences in favor of authenticity. The process culminated in the major councils of Hippo (393 A.D.), Carthage (397 A.D.), and again in Carthage (419 A.D.). All three councils agreed to the same set of books in setting the New Testament canon.
The most seriously considered books among the Aprocrypha are the Epistle of PseudoBarnabas, the Epistle to the Corinthians, the Second Epistle of Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, the Acts of Paul and Thecla, the Gospel According to the Hebrews, the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, and the Seven Epistles of Ignatius. However, in the end, none of these books enjoyed any more than a temporary or local recognition. Most importantly, no church council included them as inspired books of the New Testament because, upon investigation, their prophetic genuineness could not be established.
In summary, the Bible can be viewed as the culmination of a series of divine interventions in human history by which God revealed specific messages to man. Prior to the birth of Christ, these revelations by God provided a continuous record from the time of Moses to the time of Artaxerxes (approximately 400 B.C.). Then for a period of approximately 400 years there were no prophets in the land of Israel, and no direct revelation from God. The Old Testament canon was closed. Then came the promised Messiah, Jesus Christ, who told his disciples that after he left, "the Counselor, the Holy Spirit ... will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you (John 14:26)." And God initiated a new period of revelation by sending forth prophets who would lay the scriptural foundation for the New Testament (or new covenant) He was making with man. Once this foundation was laid, the New Testament canon was closed. It is only through these supernatural revelations that man is able to know what God is really like.
With respect to the trustworthiness of the Bible, it is only fair to say that there has been some dispute about the precise composition of the books which contain the inspired revelation from God. The most general conclusion one can draw from this is that the major doctrines of the Christian faith solidly lie within the set of the Homologoumena--the books virtually all Bible scholars agree represent direct revelation from God. Further, over time, as scholars have focused their efforts on the relatively small set of disputed books, there has been a general concurrence with the early church councils that the 66 books contained in our Bible represent the complete record of inspired writings that God intended for man to read and study.
REFERENCES
Comfort, Philip Wesley, editor. The Origin of the Bible. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. 1992. ISBN: 0-8423-4735-6.
Geisler, Norman and William Nix. A General Introduction to the Bible. Chicago: Moody Press, 1986. ISBN: 0-8024-2916-5.
Any one who reads the bible and does a study of the day of the Lord that great and dreadful day when men’s hearts will fail them because of fear at His coming will see many parallels with the end times 2012 predictions. It is easier to stay ignorant and in denial than to be prepared for what is coming, prepare as if the rapture will not take you out and you will be fine.
INDEED. Though I’m not sure who you were addressing that to.
To you, my dear Brother.
Not so sure that YOU woke up as than Someone woke you up in whatever gentle or fervent way.
AHHH
THX THX.
INDEED.
THX
THX
The following chart represents the comparative sizes of giants throughout history.
A. Present day modern man which averages about 6-feet tall + or - several inches or more.
B. 15-foot human skeleton found in southeast Turkey in late 1950's in the Euphrates valley during road construction. Many tombs containing giants were uncovered here. This pertains to the picture of the giant human femur and myself above.
C. Maximinus Thrax Ceaser of Rome 235-238 A.D. This was an 8' 6" skeleton.
D. Goliath was about 9 feet + or - a few inches. I Samuel 17:4 late 11th century.
E. King Og spoken of in Deuteronomy 3:11 whose iron bedstead was approximately 14-feet by 6-feet wide. King Og was at least 12-feet tall, yet some claim up to 18.
F. A 19'6" human skeleton found in 1577 A.D. under an overturned oak tree in the Canton of Lucerne.
G. 23-foot tall skeleton found in 1456 A.D. beside a river in Valence, France.
H. A 25' 6 " skeleton found in 1613 A.D. near the castle of Chaumont in France. This was claimed to be a nearly complete find.
I. Almost beyond comprehension or believability was the find of the two separate 36-foot human remains uncovered by Carthaginians somewhere between 200-600 B.C.
Thanks for the ping Quix. That link about UFO’s looks interesting. I’ve heard references that the book of Ezekiel involved UFO’s and I think it was referenced in that movie Knowing.
I also keep thinking of the words in Daniel where at the time of the end that men will run to and fro and knowledge will be increased. I’ve often wondered if there weren’t things in Scripture that weren’t meant to be understood except for those whose time it was meant for.
Star Traveler - you’ve been posting some really interesting stuff on recent threads. Unfortunately I haven’t had time to read through all of it. Is there some sort of summary page where all that stuff is posted? If not that’s ok. Thanks!
Star Traveler - you’ve been posting some really interesting stuff on recent threads. Unfortunately I haven’t had time to read through all of it. Is there some sort of summary page where all that stuff is posted? If not that’s ok. Thanks!
Well..., not really... sorry. Perhaps I should organize it... :-)
Thanks. I don’t want to make it a burden. Your stuff looks interesting and I haven’t been home much lately. Plus I’ve been doing so much reading since I’ve started attending a new church that I don’t want to get information overload.
That's an interesting website, giving supporting information to the Genesis account of a world-wide flood. Thanks.
A quote from them ...
Point of View: We have a Biblical viewpoint on the world. Ooparts are evidence, we think, that the Flood actually happened. News items or magazine articles that report them may not have the same perspective that Christians do. When we read for instance, a scientific article that puzzles over our lack of genetic variability, we think of the Flood of Noah. We would include that article here, without editing, because we expect Christians to use their filters on such an article. That does not mean that we agree with the evolutionary timeframe given in said article.
We think it's more interesting when general newspaper articles or science articles observe data that they might see one way, but that Christians might see another way given our own knowledge about God, creation and the flood. It's more interesting to quote Stephen Jay Gould saying that "the lack of transitional fossils is the trade secret of paleontology", than it might be to hear another Christian say it.
So, no we don't believe the universe is millions or billions of years old. We don't know how old it is; we just know who created it and how long it took Him. We do not believe in pre-Adamic races, though we do believe that there were "civilizations" prior to the Flood. We don't believe in space aliens or cooties. We expect you to use your own knowledge filter on this site.
Enjoy - Be certain to pay attention to the bottom of each section page - The "Giants," as an instance, is some thirty pages long - You could literally spend a month there to read it ALL.
Plz ping me to anything of this sort - I have researched this topic for many years, and it remains a tantalizing subject.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.