Evidences Supporting the Biblical Flood

[sooda]

Nope not when man is used in reference to an angel.
Like Daniel used man in reference to Angel Gabriel.
Calling the angel Gabriel a man.

The book of Daniel 9:21--"Yet, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation"

Note above Daniel called the angel Gabriel man.
It seems as though you have a hard time either reading or you can't see whats before your eyes.

Do you know the meaning of oblation?

 

[Shad]

Nope not when man is used in reference to an angel.
Like Daniel used man in reference to Angel Gabriel.
Calling the angel Gabriel a man.

Wrong. Man has a specific etymology. Look it up...

The book of Daniel 9:21--"Yet, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation"

Note above Daniel called the angel Gabriel man.
It seems as though you have a hard time either reading or you can't see whats before your eyes.

Irrelevant. See the above. Try again.

 

[Shad]

LOLOL.. The silly accusation "you lack spiritual discernment" covers a lack of study..

You turn the ring and push not turn and pull. Make sure its on your index finger on your right hand. Otherwise the ring will start broadcasting the Weather channel

 

[Faithofchristian]

Wrong. Man has a specific etymology. Look it up...



Irrelevant. See the above. Try again.

Wrong man it all depends in what way man is being used.
Man can mean as in human beings
Man can mean as in male
Man can also mean as in Gabriel angel.

Well seeing that Gabriel is not a male person human being.
But an angel, therefore Man can also stand to mean for an angel as Gabriel a man, but not man as a human being of flesh and blood man.
What you have is, two complete different man.
One man being of human flesh and blood
And the other man being Gabriel the angel.

 

[Shad]

Wrong man it all depends in what way man is being used.

Your way has been rejected. Next!

Man can also mean as in Gabriel angel.

Nope

Well seeing that Gabriel is not a male person human being.

Correct.

But an angel, therefore Man can also stand to mean for an angel as Gabriel a man, but not man as a human being of flesh and blood man.

Nope.

What you have is, two complete different man.

Nope You have changed the word to mean what you want it to mean because some bronze age fable was translated incorrectly.

One man being of human flesh and blood
And the other man being Gabriel the angel.

Nope.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Do you know the meaning of oblation?

Let's take a look at Daniel 9:27
"And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate"

Now first, Who's the ( he) being spoken of in the first sentence above.

This person will confirm the covenant with many for one week.
Now the question is, what covenant is this?

And in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease.
Now what is the sacrifice and the oblation. That this person will cause to cease?

The Sacrifice and oblation is the Lord's Supper. The breaking of bread and the drinking of the wine.

This person has sat himself to impersonate Christ Jesus, which all people of the world will believe that he is Christ Jesus. What does in the book of Revelation calls this.
So with Christ Jesus believed to be here on earth, The Sacrifice and oblation will no longer be needed, So this person will cause the Sacrifice and oblation ( The Lord's Supper) to cease.

But the question is, Who is this person, what does the Christ Jesus tell us in the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and the book of Revelation as to who this person is?

 

[Faithofchristian]

Your way has been rejected. Next!



Nope



Correct.



Nope.



Nope You have changed the word to mean what you want it to mean because some bronze age fable was translated incorrectly.



Nope.

Well have it your way, even though it's all definitely wrong.

 

[Shad]

Well have it your way, even though it's all definitely wrong.

Nope. All you are doing is flip/flopping between different subjects to make the narrative work only because you have to lest your specific religious interpretation collapses.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Much of it is no more credible than the Harry Potter books, which are a much better read, imo.

That's only because people have no understanding or knowledge of what the bible actually does say and confirms.

I read comments like this one from believers quite frequently, and always in the same context: an effort to impeach the opinion of an unbeliever regarding scripture. That's quite a claim considering that the Bible is not a technical book like a law or physics book, and thus contains no technical jargon, just plainspeak. Yet for some reason, we are told that ordinary people just can't understand it notwithstanding the fact that it cobbled from oral tradition intended for ordinary people to understand, believe, and obey. The punishment for failing to understand the words and therefore failing to obey them was often quite severe.

You didn't make the same comment about Harry Potter, which is similarly written to be understood by everybody, and generally is. Nor do we see this claim made about any other book written in ordinary, conversational language. King James English might be a bit stuffy, but there are more modern translations available in modern English.

Much of it is vague, but it is easy to see that immediately, and vague language has no definite meaning anyway, even if its author intended it to. That which is clear is easily understood, even where it is incorrect or contradicts passages elsewhere.

It's my experience that unbelievers are a far better source of information about what biblical scripture says and means simply because they are free to read it impartially, and feel no need to rectify the apparent deficiencies. Unbelievers are free to comment on problems in the Bible that the believer is quick to sweep away, usually by adding something to scripture, or altering its apparent meaning.

For example, when an unbeliever reads the Book of Job, he comes away from it having read about a god that trifled with the life of a good man as a demonstration to a demon of that man's faith, a demonstration that including killing his children. The unbeliever finds that story problematic. The behavior of the deity is cruel and immoral, and serves no purpose. I expect that if you read that story in a book like Aesop's Fables rather than your Bible, that you would agree that the story is as I described it.

The believer, however, reads that story in his Bible and goes to work to make the story make sense according to his understanding of God. I had a collection of explanations from believers that I can no longer locate. One told me that Job wasn't actually a good man, and that the punishment was deserved. Another told me that God was training him for something greater. These explanations are all just made up by the individual believer to have the story support the idea that God is good. This is why I say that if you want to know about the Book of Job without reading it yourself, and yes, it is very easy for any literate person to read and understand as written, you should go to an unbeliever for the unaltered version of the story.

 

[sooda]

It's not about what they knew. It's about what God knew and what God said.

all flesh - shall die
​

That means the whole world, not their whole world.

God didn't say anything and Moses didn't write Genesis and Exodus. The Hebrews learned those popular creation stories in Babylon and wrote them down AFTER King Cyrus.

 

[sooda]

Well if you had read Genesis chapter 6, it was the sons of God that came down and seduced women. These being the fallen angels of Satan's, unto which produce the Nephilim Giants. Which produce the wickedness of man.

But not the whole earth was destroyed by the flood of Noah's.

Note here in the book of Genesis 10:1-5

1--"Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and unto them were sons born after the flood.

2 The sons of Japheth; Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras.

3 And the sons of Gomer; Ashkenaz, and Riphath, and Togarmah.

4 And the sons of Javan; Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim.

5 By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations"

So if by your standard the whole earth was destroyed by the flood of Noah's.

If this is to be true then how did the
isles of the Gentiles survive the flood of Noah's.
The isles of the Gentiles are living breathing human beings people.

So if the flood of Noah's covered destroyed all life on Earth, then how did the Gentiles survive. In Verse 5 above?

The Isles of the Gentiles is the land above the Mediterranean Sea. It is the land of Japhet.

 

[sooda]

I read comments like this one from believers quite frequently, and always in the same context: an effort to impeach the opinion of an unbeliever regarding scripture. That's quite a claim considering that the Bible is not a technical book like a law or physics book, and thus contains no technical jargon, just plainspeak. Yet for some reason, we are told that ordinary people just can't understand it notwithstanding the fact that it cobbled from oral tradition intended for ordinary people to understand, believe, and obey. The punishment for failing to understand the words and therefore failing to obey them was often quite severe.

You didn't make the same comment about Harry Potter, which is similarly written to be understood by everybody, and generally is. Nor do we see this claim made about any other book written in ordinary, conversational language. King James English might be a bit stuffy, but there are more modern translations available in modern English.

Much of it is vague, but it is easy to see that immediately, and vague language has no definite meaning anyway, even if its author intended it to. That which is clear is easily understood, even where it is incorrect or contradicts passages elsewhere.

It's my experience that unbelievers are a far better source of information about what biblical scripture says and means simply because they are free to read it impartially, and feel no need to rectify the apparent deficiencies. Unbelievers are free to comment on problems in the Bible that the believer is quick to sweep away, usually by adding something to scripture, or altering its apparent meaning.

For example, when an unbeliever reads the Book of Job, he comes away from it having read about a god that trifled with the life of a good man as a demonstration to a demon of that man's faith, a demonstration that including killing his children. The unbeliever finds that story problematic. The behavior of the deity is cruel and immoral, and serves no purpose. I expect that if you read that story in a book like Aesop's Fables rather than your Bible, that you would agree that the story is as I described it.

The believer, however, reads that story in his Bible and goes to work to make the story make sense according to his understanding of God. I had a collection of explanations from believers that I can no longer locate. One told me that Job wasn't actually a good man, and that the punishment was deserved. Another told me that God was training him for something greater. These explanations are all just made up by the individual believer to have the story support the idea that God is good. This is why I say that if you want to know about the Book of Job without reading it yourself, and yes, it is very easy for any literate person to read and understand as written, you should go to an unbeliever for the unaltered version of the story.

Most of the Old Testament is made up of myths borrowed from surrounding cultures.The Hebrews had NO such origin myths until after the exile in Babylon.

 

[ecco]

This is why I say that if you want to know about the Book of Job without reading it yourself, and yes, it is very easy for any literate person to read and understand as written, you should go to an unbeliever for the unaltered version of the story.

For an even better understanding, read Robert Heinlein's Job: A Comedy of Justice.

 

[ecco]

ecco said: ↑​

It's not about what they knew. It's about what God knew and what God said.
all flesh - shall die
That means the whole world, not their whole world.

God didn't say anything and Moses didn't write Genesis and Exodus. The Hebrews learned those popular creation stories in Babylon and wrote them down AFTER King Cyrus.

My comments are directed to people who believe the Bible as it was written. So, please do not complicate the issue by posting facts.

 

[sooda]

Let's take a look at Daniel 9:27
"And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate"

Now first, Who's the ( he) being spoken of in the first sentence above.

This person will confirm the covenant with many for one week.
Now the question is, what covenant is this?

And in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease.
Now what is the sacrifice and the oblation. That this person will cause to cease?

The Sacrifice and oblation is the Lord's Supper. The breaking of bread and the drinking of the wine.

This person has sat himself to impersonate Christ Jesus, which all people of the world will believe that he is Christ Jesus. What does in the book of Revelation calls this.
So with Christ Jesus believed to be here on earth, The Sacrifice and oblation will no longer be needed, So this person will cause the Sacrifice and oblation ( The Lord's Supper) to cease.

But the question is, Who is this person, what does the Christ Jesus tell us in the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and the book of Revelation as to who this person is?

An "oblation" is a thing offered to God..

Daniel is talking about Antiochus IV Epiphanes who died in 164 BC. He persecuted the Jews during his lifetime and precipitated the Maccabean revolt.

 

[sooda]

Wrong man it all depends in what way man is being used.
Man can mean as in human beings
Man can mean as in male
Man can also mean as in Gabriel angel.

Well seeing that Gabriel is not a male person human being.
But an angel, therefore Man can also stand to mean for an angel as Gabriel a man, but not man as a human being of flesh and blood man.
What you have is, two complete different man.
One man being of human flesh and blood
And the other man being Gabriel the angel.

There are several place in scripture where angels appear as men. Abraham entertains two strangers (angels) and prepares a calf boiled in milk for them... and 3 angels were in Sodom and Gomorrah

"Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous..." (Gen. 18:20) ... The test was that angels were sent to Sodom in human appearance, to see how they would be treated in the city.

Man and dinosaurs didn't live on earth at the same time no matter how much you quibble about what "man" means.

 

[ecco]

There are several place in scripture where angels appear as men. Abraham entertains two strangers (angels) and prepares a calf boiled in milk for them... and 3 angels were in Sodom and Gomorrah

"Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous..." (Gen. 18:20) ... The test was that angels were sent to Sodom in human appearance, to see how they would be treated in the city.

Man and dinosaurs didn't live on earth at the same time no matter how much you quibble about what "man" means.

"quibble" or "fibble"?

 

[sooda]

"quibble" or "fibble"?

Huh????

 

[ecco]

Huh????

In response to:

Man and dinosaurs didn't live on earth at the same time no matter how much you quibble about what "man" means.​

"quibble" or "fibble"

See, that was a little play on words. Was he quibbling or



Ahh, never mind. If I gotta explain it...

 

[sooda]

In response to:

Man and dinosaurs didn't live on earth at the same time no matter how much you quibble about what "man" means.​

"quibble" or "fibble"

See, that was a little play on words. Was he quibbling or



Ahh, never mind. If I gotta explain it...

OK.. I got it..

Just be careful about Darby and Scofield.. Its really ******* theology and it deceived many good people.