Split Thread Signs of the End Times

[Crossbow]

Now that is the way you see it, but me I see it as revelation from the proven Word of Yahweh.
Adam was white and Eve who came from Adam would naturally be of the same pigmentation as Adam, would be a beautiful white couple. Now God gave laws that would incur a change if disregarded.

So the injunction not to drink blood would incur this mutation of pigmentation.

So out of Africa, we have the black people who did consume blood in vast quantities, and so the black man originated in Africa—coupled to this the added consumption of the raw meat of primates added to this as a result of violating the Torah.

Man through his disregard for the laws of the Creator is suffering the current problems of sickness and diseases.

This Crossbow is the logical conclusion derived from the infallible word of God that he entrusted to men to record.

What a load of crap.

By your own admission there is no such thing as "the infallible word of God that he entrusted to men to record" since everyone defines his own God.

 

[Craig4]

People die because death is the result of getting old or making the wrong decision. Death is not a problem unless you are going to hell, otherwise death is a reward.

So in preaching we attempt to get people to repent as to avert hell, which Jesus said is a certainty for those who refuse to repent and change their ways.

Can you prove that without the Bible?

 

[abaddon]

Now that is the way you see it, but me I see it as revelation from the proven Word of Yahweh.

Obviously not, because...

Adam was white and Eve who came from Adam would naturally be of the same pigmentation as Adam, would be a beautiful white couple. Now God gave laws that would incur a change if disregarded.

That is not in the bible you simply added it out of your own imagination. What is the punishment for adding to the bible?

So the injunction not to drink blood would incur this mutation of pigmentation.

Nope. You added this too.

So out of Africa, we have the black people who did consume blood in vast quantities, and so the black man originated in Africa—coupled to this the added consumption of the raw meat of primates added to this as a result of violating the Torah.

All humans originate in Africa. All were black.

Man through his disregard for the laws of the Creator is suffering the current problems of sickness and diseases.

What happened to the countless billions of humans who lived before god delivered his word or never heard it? god doesn't care.

This Crossbow is the logical conclusion derived from the infallible word of God that he entrusted to men to record.

Nope. This is just stuff you made up which is not in the bible at all.

 

[abaddon]

Here is a problem for you, Paul Bethke.

I assume you will agree that you, and everyone else had 2 parents. Hence 4 grandparents, 8 grandparents etc, etc.

Roll that back to the time of jesus and you have 2,305,843,009,213,693,950.

There are 7,000,000,000 people in the world today and each of them must have the same number of ancestors. That brings us up to 16,140,901,064,495,857,650,000,000,000.

That's 108,839,521,675,629,518 people in every square meter at the time of jesus.

Where were they?

 

[Border Reiver]

Never the less as I see it there is no inconsistencies with how the Scripture relay knowledge of the Creator to us. A person with a biased mind will always see a thing from a different perspective.
There are no inconsistencies with Genesis 1 and 2, it was the way Moses wrote the account, to show creation and then to show the advent of man.

First - Moses could not have written Genesis, or the rest of the books he is credited with as they were first composed 200 to 600 years after he is supposed to have died. Given that Exodus refers to the death of Moses and indicates that his grave's location has been lost, there is definite evidence in the book to suggest that Moses did not write the book, and indeed was long dead when it was composed.

Second - there ARE inconsistencies between the two creation accounts:

Genesis 1
God hovers over "the waters"
Day 1: Creates light and dark
Day 2: Creates a "vault" to separate the waters above from the waters below
Day 3: Creates dry land and plants
Day 4: Creates the sun and the stars
Day 5: Creates sea creatures and birds
Day 6: Creates land creatures and "male and female" humans.
Day 7: Rests

Genesis 2
In this account what day Yahweh does his works on is not explicitly mentioned, but it does indicate the order and that it apparently took 6 days.
First, he makes the heavens and earth
Second, he brings forth the waters from the earth to create his garden in the east.
Third, he creates Man (not woman)
Fourth, he creates plants
Fifth, he creates animals and birds
Sixth, he makes a female human


The two chapters detail a completely different order of creation and can easily be seen as coming from two different religious traditions. Genesis 1 is very similar to the Sumerian and Mesopotamian creation stories, which were written down many hundreds of years before Genesis was composed, and if we accept that Abram came from Ur of the Chaldees, then a creation myth based on Mesopotamian sources makes sense. The second Genesis story is definitely from a different religious source, as the idea of bringing water forth the land is diametrically opposed to Genesis 1 where the land is raised up from the water, which appears to have been there as long as Yahweh.

I do find some problems with the two genealogies, and from the different explanation still cannot reconcile the two, but I will continue to pursue the matter.

You keep that up. When you can reconcile them tell us how in your own words and if you're logically consistent, that'll be that.

Granted I will agree that the Apologists do have a difficult task to try and prove events where there is little or no evidence.

Yes, they do.

But my convictions are sufficient for me to continue to believe the account of the events recorded in the Scripture are authentic, and I will be able to prove this in the coming months.

Prove them to your satisfaction, or ours?

These "coming months" now, are we talking before January 2017, or are you using "coming months" in the same way that john the Evangelist used "soon" in Revelations? If the latter, we'll all be dead and buried by the time the evidence shows up.

Well these Apologist do claim that the evidence they have is reliable—the web has numerous articles regarding this. The flood the Exodus and many other events—surely you do not want me to direct you to all this?

I want you to provide us with what you consider to be compelling evidence. Link to an article that you find provides proper evidence to support either Exodus or the Flood.

 

[Slowvehicle]

There is no historical evidence in the Egyptian records that Jews were slaves during the time of Ramses, no mention of plagues either.

No mention of, or evidence for, the Rape of Egypt; no mention of, or evidence for, the destruction of the entire Egyptian army; no evidence for millions of people wandering for 40 years in the Sinai; no evidence for the "Conquest" of Canaan...

 

[Craig B]

Well these Apologist do claim that the evidence they have is reliable—the web has numerous articles regarding this. The flood the Exodus and many other events—surely you do not want me to direct you to all this?

Why not? I quoted some such "evidence". If your have any you think is reliable, pleas refer us to the sources. I do observe, that if the "Apologists" can't account for the past, why should I pay attention to them when they undertake to describe the "End Times" of the future?

I have already shown that at first Paul expected the return of Jesus to happen while Paul was still alive. Oh, how he got that wrong!

 

[turingtest]

Every time I read "that is the way you see it, I see it like this," I grit my teeth a little; the implication is that, gosh, it's all just a matter of opposing opinions, you have yours, I have mine, and one's just as good as the other- like Ken Ham claiming that we all look at the same evidence and reach different conclusions that are, in principle, equally valid. No, no, no- the difference is in the approach to reaching conclusions, the difference between starting with one and ending with one. Paul's is essentially "the proven word of Yahweh proves the word of Yahweh"- a circle. Ham's is a little more sophisticated, but still depends on beginning with what he believes. As mentioned above (by Craig4), there are "multiple lines of evidence and disciplines of study" that independently converge inward to a conclusion- this is consilience. Ham's approach is distinctly anti-consilient- he begins with the conclusion he wants supported, then diverges outward from it to cherry-pick and misrepresent the evidence he can use, and outright ignore what he can't; how he sees the evidence depends on how it affects his desired conclusion. One outcome is properly consequent from the approach; the other is the goal that dictates it.

Believe what you want; don't pretend it has an equal footing in rationality.

 

[Paul Bethke]

Can you prove that without the Bible?

It is from the Bible that I arrive at that deduction.

 

[Paul Bethke]

Obviously not, because...
That is not in the bible you simply added it out of your own imagination. What is the punishment for adding to the bible?
Nope. You added this too.
All humans originate in Africa. All were black.
What happened to the countless billions of humans who lived before god delivered his word or never heard it? god doesn't care.
Nope. This is just stuff you made up which is not in the bible at all.

No, no, no Adam and Eve were residents in the Garden of Eden, do you have difficulty in reading?
Yes I do agree that those people, the offspring of Ham ended up in Africa, consequently from drinking blood and eating primate they became progressively black skinned like the primates they ate.
This is why the Creator gave commands of what to eat and what not to eat. This is a logical conclusion. One cannot ignore the injunctions of God and think there is no consequence!!
A black man once said to me that black is beautiful—I answered and said white is brilliant.

God wanted Israel to evangelise the countless billions of people, and this was partly accomplished, and to a degree carried through by the Church, But in the last days as it is now, the task will revert back to the purged Church.

 

[Paul Bethke]

Here is a problem for you, Paul Bethke.

I assume you will agree that you, and everyone else had 2 parents. Hence 4 grandparents, 8 grandparents etc, etc.

Roll that back to the time of jesus and you have 2,305,843,009,213,693,950.

There are 7,000,000,000 people in the world today and each of them must have the same number of ancestors. That brings us up to 16,140,901,064,495,857,650,000,000,000.

That's 108,839,521,675,629,518 people in every square meter at the time of jesus.

Where were they?

You have got me there!!

 

[GuitKitty]

Now that is the way you see it, but me I see it as revelation from the proven Word of Yahweh.
Adam was white and Eve who came from Adam would naturally be of the same pigmentation as Adam, would be a beautiful white couple. Now God gave laws that would incur a change if disregarded.

<racist gibbersnip>

Called it!

I appreciate your replies to my questions, PaulBethke, but you still have not explained whether a male victim of rape has to remain chaste. I understand that you believe that the rapist must be executed in all cases, and that, surprisingly, a married woman may continue her relationship with her husband unimpeded by the rapist. Could you please answer that final question for me? Must a male victim of rape remain chaste until his rapist is executed to avoid comitting adultery?

 

[Craig4]

It is from the Bible that I arrive at that deduction.

So your argument is unsupported and therefore has no value.

 

[Craig4]

No, no, no Adam and Eve were residents in the Garden of Eden, do you have difficulty in reading?
Yes I do agree that those people, the offspring of Ham ended up in Africa, consequently from drinking blood and eating primate they became progressively black skinned like the primates they ate.
This is why the Creator gave commands of what to eat and what not to eat. This is a logical conclusion. One cannot ignore the injunctions of God and think there is no consequence!!
A black man once said to me that black is beautiful—I answered and said white is brilliant.

God wanted Israel to evangelise the countless billions of people, and this was partly accomplished, and to a degree carried through by the Church, But in the last days as it is now, the task will revert back to the purged Church.

But we know from paleontology, paleo-archeology, genetics, evolutionary biology... that the Garden of Eden could not have existed. The story simply didn't happen and we are therefore completely safe to ignore any injunctions that might have been directed or implied in it.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Now that is the way you see it, but me I see it as revelation from the proven Word of Yahweh.

You continue to misuse the word, "proven".

Adam was white and Eve who came from Adam would naturally be of the same pigmentation as Adam, would be a beautiful white couple. Now God gave laws that would incur a change if disregarded.

I see. Your version of a legend, custom-crafted to support your prejudice, bigotry, and racism, supports your prejudice, bigotry, and racism.

Surprise

So the injunction not to drink blood would incur this mutation of pigmentation.

First, you have utterly failed to provide the least scintilla of any actual evidence of diet effecting a hereditable mutation. Not one speck. Your fantasy contradicts everything we know about evolution and heredity.

Second, you still have it backwards: pale skin is the mutation.

Third, there is not only no single bit of evidence that "Adam & Eve" existed at all; there is, in fact, an embarrassment of evidence demonstrating they could not have--particularly 6K years ago.

So

(Just as an aside, honest writers use "so" to introduce staements that follow from their arguments. "So" is not correctly used to intorduce non-sequitur.)

out of Africa, we have the black people who did consume blood in vast quantities, and so the black man originated in Africa—coupled to this the added consumption of the raw meat of primates added to this as a result of violating the Torah.

You continue to fail to support your fantasies with evidence.

Man through his disregard for the laws of the Creator is suffering the current problems of sickness and diseases.

This Crossbow is the logical conclusion derived from the infallible word of God that he entrusted to men to record.

You continue to fail to support your fantasies with evidence.

 

[halleyscomet]

Adam was white and Eve who came from Adam would naturally be of the same pigmentation as Adam, would be a beautiful white couple.

And the chapter and verse you have to support this idea is...?

Oh, right, there's NOTHING in the Bible to support that idea, it's just a fantasy that fetishisizes white people.

So the injunction not to drink blood would incur this mutation of pigmentation.

Nonsense. If drinking blood turned your skin dark then every Irishman who ate blood pudding would have skin dark as the pudding itself.

Are you SURE you're not Mormon? Your belief that sin can change skin color is a very Mormon belief, specifically a conservative Mormon belief eschewed by the mainstream Mormon church.

Well as you might know this situation is not dealt with in the Torah.
Also these laws were given to Israel as a nation to implement—so when in Rome do as the Romans do.

Today nations have their own laws, even Israel has abandoned the injunctions of the Laws of the Torah. But what can be considered is how these crimes will be dealt with in the coming Kingdom of God.

This is one reason the pastors you spoke to rejected your ideas. You refuse to think through the consequences of your dictates. You can't even bring yourself to CONSIDER the difficult situations that would arise from trying to implement the kind of theocracy you're advocating. You just washed your hands of a situation that any church or government implementing your ideas would have to deal with.

From all your challenging Slowvehicle, you show that you have no working knowledge of the Scriptures.

Well if THAT isn't the pot calling the kettle black!

 

[Slowvehicle]

How is this possible, when you have already admitted you have no evidence that anything in the Bible is true?



Why does the "infallible word of God" state that insects have 4 legs?

...and that bats are birds? (etc.)

 

[Slowvehicle]

Well as you might know this situation is not dealt with in the Torah.
Also these laws were given to Israel as a nation to implement—so when in Rome do as the Romans do.

Today nations have their own laws, even Israel has abandoned the injunctions of the Laws of the Torah. But what can be considered is how these crimes will be dealt with in the coming Kingdom of God.

As usual, you did not bother to answer, or even address, the actual question.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Never the less as I see it there is no inconsistencies with how the Scripture relay knowledge of the Creator to us. A person with a biased mind will always see a thing from a different perspective.

...this....

There are no inconsistencies with Genesis 1 and 2, it was the way Moses wrote the account, to show creation and then to show the advent of man.

...and this...

I do find some problems with the two genealogies, and from the different explanation still cannot reconcile the two, but I will continue to pursue the matter.

...and this are hilarious, in juxtaposition.

The two "creation stories" cannot be harmonized--if nothing else, look at when and how human males and human females are said to have been created in each of the legends. They do not agree with each other, not can they be made to.

The genealogies of Jesus are inherently contradictory. Neither was conceived with the idea of allowing the other to be considered remotely accurate.

Granted I will agree that the Apologists do have a difficult task to try and prove events where there is little or no evidence.
But my convictions are sufficient for me to continue to believe the account of the events recorded in the Scripture are authentic, and I will be able to prove this in the coming months.


Well these Apologist do claim that the evidence they have is reliable—the web has numerous articles regarding this. The flood the Exodus and many other events—surely you do not want me to direct you to all this?

When, in your opinion, did "ƴ ͤ fludde" take place? Commit to a date, and we can talk.

 

[Paul Bethke]

First - Moses could not have written Genesis, or the rest of the books he is credited with as they were first composed 200 to 600 years after he is supposed to have died. Given that Exodus refers to the death of Moses and indicates that his grave's location has been lost, there is definite evidence in the book to suggest that Moses did not write the book, and indeed was long dead when it was composed.

Well it is recorded that Moses either wrote the Pentateuch, or he had a scribe write what he dictated.
1) Exo_24:4 Moses then wrote down everything the LORD had said. He got up early the next morning and built an altar at the foot of the mountain and set up twelve stone pillars representing the twelve tribes of Israel.
2) Deu_31:9 So Moses wrote down this law and gave it to the priests, the sons of Levi, who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and to all the elders of Israel.
3) Deu_31:22 So Moses wrote down this song that day and taught it to the Israelites.
4) Mar_10:5 "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied.
5) Luk_20:28 "Teacher," they said, "Moses wrote for us that if a man's brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and have children for his brother.

So now whatever is said it is stated that Moses wrote the Pentateuch.

Second - there ARE inconsistencies between the two creation accounts:

Genesis 1
God hovers over "the waters"
Day 1: Creates light and dark
Day 2: Creates a "vault" to separate the waters above from the waters below
Day 3: Creates dry land and plants
Day 4: Creates the sun and the stars
Day 5: Creates sea creatures and birds
Day 6: Creates land creatures and "male and female" humans.
Day 7: Rests

Genesis 2
In this account what day Yahweh does his works on is not explicitly mentioned, but it does indicate the order and that it apparently took 6 days.
First, he makes the heavens and earth
Second, he brings forth the waters from the earth to create his garden in the east.
Third, he creates Man (not woman)
Fourth, he creates plants
Fifth, he creates animals and birds
Sixth, he makes a female human


The two chapters detail a completely different order of creation and can easily be seen as coming from two different religious traditions. Genesis 1 is very similar to the Sumerian and Mesopotamian creation stories, which were written down many hundreds of years before Genesis was composed, and if we accept that Abram came from Ur of the Chaldees, then a creation myth based on Mesopotamian sources makes sense. The second Genesis story is definitely from a different religious source, as the idea of bringing water forth the land is diametrically opposed to Genesis 1 where the land is raised up from the water, which appears to have been there as long as Yahweh.

These people can give an explanation that I am not able to give---- http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=1131

You keep that up. When you can reconcile them tell us how in your own words and if you're logically consistent, that'll be that.

I am not able to do it as I am not familiar with how the Jews construct their genealogies.

These "coming months" now, are we talking before January 2017, or are you using "coming months" in the same way that john the Evangelist used "soon" in Revelations? If the latter, we'll all be dead and buried by the time the evidence shows up.

Put it this way the End times which we should be discussing, are to my understanding of the Scriptures close—right by the door.

I want you to provide us with what you consider to be compelling evidence. Link to an article that you find provides proper evidence to support either Exodus or the Flood.

There are a few out there, perhaps you can take a pick.
Now the inconsistencies do not affect me as the revelation is still very clear—perhaps many of these inconsistencies are no inconsistent.

But I do not want to sound disrespectful for all the reading you have done to establish what you so confidently believe. But what sort of evidence could there be for the Flood the Exodus and the Red sea crossing as well as the people wandering in the desert for forty years?