The great flood.

[L67]

I know many Christians believe that God destroyed the earth with a great flood, except for 8 people. But there is a major problem with taking the Bible literally and I will show why.

Answersingenesis says the world was created in roughly 4004BC. And that the date of the flood was roughly 2348BC. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2012/03/09/feedback-timeline-for-the-flood

One of the big problems is the Egyptian pyramids. Earliest among them is the Pyramid of Djoser.

The Pyramid of Djoser was contructed 2667–2648 BC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_of_Djoser

How is it possible for a family of 8 to grow into an Egyptian population sufficient enough to construct this pyramid in roughly 300 years?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I know many Christians believe that God destroyed the earth with a great flood, except for 8 people. But there is a major problem with taking the Bible literally and I will show why.

Answersingenesis says the world was created in roughly 4004BC. And that the date of the flood was roughly 2348BC. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2012/03/09/feedback-timeline-for-the-flood

One of the big problems is the Egyptian pyramids. Earliest among them is the Pyramid of Djoser.

The Pyramid of Djoser was contructed 2667–2648 BC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_of_Djoser

How is it possible for a family of 8 to grow into an Egyptian population sufficient enough to construct this pyramid in roughly 300 years?
Excellent questions.

There are many proofs that there was no global flood. Genetics is what really destroys that theory. If all but a few pairs of all the animals died sometime in the last 4000 years there would be a GENETIC BOTTLENECK in the DNA. All scientists would know that there was a MASS EXTINCTION EVENT in the last 4000 years. But do we see any such event? Nope. Nothing like it.

And there are many related problems. For example, where did all the millions of species come from? They obviously couldn't fit on the ark so how did they get here? Did they EVOLVE in the last 4000 years from those that survived on the ark?

And another problem: How did the kangaroos get from Australia, to the Middle East to ride the ark, and then back to Australia?

The idea of a literal flood is utterly ridiculous.

[L67]

Excellent questions.

There are many proofs that there was no global flood. Genetics is what really destroys that theory. If all but a few pairs of all the animals died sometime in the last 4000 years there would be a GENETIC BOTTLENECK in the DNA. All scientists would know that there was a MASS EXTINCTION EVENT in the last 4000 years. But do we see any such event? Nope. Nothing like it.

And there are many related problems. For example, where did all the millions of species come from? They obviously couldn't fit on the ark so how did they get here? Did they EVOLVE in the last 4000 years from those that survived on the ark?

And another problem: How did the kangaroos get from Australia, to the Middle East to ride the ark, and then back to Australia?

The idea of a literal flood is utterly ridiculous.

Hey Richard,

Great points.

Lets assume for a sec that inbreeding is ok. We'll even say Noah was able to get millions of species on the ark. After the flood, how did Noah and the animals survive in completely trashed ecosystems?

As for how the animals reached their destination and back again, I present a YEC idiot who says there weren't any different continents.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jz1XFkD3AWM

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hey Richard,

Great points.

Lets assume for a sec that inbreeding is ok. We'll even say Noah was able to get millions of species on the ark. After the flood, how did Noah and the animals survive in completely trashed ecosystems?

That's yet another DEVASTATING absurdity of the fairy tales taught in the Bible. What were the carnivores supposed to eat? It's all nuts. That fact that any modern 21st century adults believe it only shows, yet again, how religion tends to corrupt the minds of believers.



As for how the animals reached their destination and back again, I present a YEC idiot who says there weren't any different continents.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jz1XFkD3AWM
[/quote]
Excellent video. It shows how religion tends to corrupt both the minds and the morals of believers. (Deliberately deceiving people with blatant lies is a deep moral failing.)

[duxrow]

:egad:
What would they eat? Where would they go?

Maybe Manna, or maybe they would migrate or hibernate..

God would provide; including Living Water from the Rock that is/was Christ! 1Cor10:4 :p

[L67]

:egad:

Maybe Manna, or maybe they would migrate or hibernate..

God would provide; including Living Water from the Rock that is/was Christ! 1Cor10:4 :p



Migrate where? Hibernate where? The flood would have destroyed everything on this earth. Do you realize how may decades it would take before earth would be able to sustain life again?

You think God would provide for them? lol. Like how God allowed humans to die of curable diseases, until modern science come up with the cures.

Why don't trying answering the questions rather asserting fantasy?

[duxrow]

Migrate where? Hibernate where? The flood would have destroyed everything on this earth. Do you realize how may decades it would take before earth would be able to sustain life again?
You think God would provide for them? lol. Like how God allowed humans to die of curable diseases, until modern science come up with the cures.
Why don't trying answering the questions rather asserting fantasy?
:stop:
You're the one making fun of the Bible; Word of the Living God!
John20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
Lots of places Still under water! Maybe you weren't given enough imagination? :eek:

[duxrow]

:sos: Who knows what marvelous things may have occurred that were NOT written in the Bible?? Did the mighty wind, Ex10:19, blow-dry the planet after the Flood so that Noah could grow the grapes? :winking0071:

[L67]

:stop:
You're the one making fun of the Bible; Word of the Living God!
John20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
Lots of places Still under water! Maybe you weren't given enough imagination? :eek:

I'm not making fun of the Bible. I have asked legitimate questions about the validity of the story in the Bible. Either you can answer them or you can't.

John 20:30 tells you nothing. Why should I believe that verse when the first book of the Bible is in question?

Proof of such places still under water from the great flood? You're also right that is does take a vivid imagination rooted in fantasy to believe the flood with no evidence.

[L67]

:sos: Who knows what marvelous things may have occurred that were NOT written in the Bible?? Did the mighty wind, Ex10:19, blow-dry the planet after the Flood so that Noah could grow the grapes? :winking0071:


Whether marvelous things happened is irrelevant to the Bible. They couldn't have been too great if God didn't see to it that it was recorded in his word.

Ya that's it the wind dried the planet from water that flooded the earth. How can you be this deluded? How do you explain my original question about the pyramids? And then you can tell me how inbreeding allowed such a population to grow in both humans and animals? Also if it's not too much to ask how did they survive on completely trashed ecosystems?

[duxrow]

The Bible is the most challenging reading you'll ever find, and vastly more profound than what is usually taught in traditional doctrines... The Bible deliberately put our "Confounded Language" in a way that confounds the unbeliever (U2!) but is spiritually clear to those who have sincerely accepted Christ as Saviour.

[L67]

The Bible is the most challenging reading you'll ever find, and vastly more profound than what is usually taught in traditional doctrines... The Bible deliberately put our "Confounded Language" in a way that confounds the unbeliever (U2!) but is spiritually clear to those who have sincerely accepted Christ as Saviour.



Ahh.. the ol' you don't understand it unless you are a believer nonsense. That is completely false because you have thousands of denominations who all have different interpretations. So nothing is clear or all is the holy spirit speaking to everyone in different ways? So who are we to believe?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The Bible is the most challenging reading you'll ever find, and vastly more profound than what is usually taught in traditional doctrines... The Bible deliberately put our "Confounded Language" in a way that confounds the unbeliever (U2!) but is spiritually clear to those who have sincerely accepted Christ as Saviour.
Hey there Dux,

I think you might have over looked one little fact. The Bible confounds the SERIOUS BELIEVER more than anyone. This is because the serious believer can't believe something they don't understand, so they must try their best to understand. But when they keep their INTEGRITY and try to authentically understand the Bible (without making up crap that no sane person would believe) they find always find themselves CONFOUNDED.

That's just how it is. I know. I spent years trying to understand the Bible from a believer's perspective. And I spent years reading the valiant attempts to make sense of the Bible from many other believers. They all failed.

Richard

[duxrow]

:sEm_blush8: ONE LITTLE FACT? You're being overly generous, Ram
'cause nobody on the planet has all the answers, IMO, including myself of course, which may be EXACTLY why we take some things By Faith.

I appreciate that you apparently gave it your best shot (but failed), and have taken a turn for the worse, ugh, and want to explain to the like-minded..
Certainly I've learned things in this forum from various members, and try to pass any useful info along. Shalom.. :yo:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

:sEm_blush8: ONE LITTLE FACT? You're being overly generous, Ram
'cause nobody on the planet has all the answers, IMO, including myself of course, which may be EXACTLY why we take some things By Faith.

I appreciate that you apparently gave it your best shot (but failed), and have taken a turn for the worse, ugh, and want to explain to the like-minded..
Certainly I've learned things in this forum from various members, and try to pass any useful info along. Shalom.. :yo:
Not generous ... I was using the old trick of exaggeration through understatement. :winking0071:

So you think that it is a very good thing that Muslims believe "by faith" that Muhammad flew to the moon on a horse?

Do you also think that it is good that Scientologsits believe "by faith" that Galactic Overlord Xenu flew all the souls to Earth on a spaceship that looked exactly like a DC-8 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenu) (except the fans)?

773

Exactly what are the "standards" you use to determine when it is good to believe something "on faith" and when it is not?

[duxrow]

Roger the 'old tricks', Ram --

Didn't know Mohammed had a horse, hah, and Scientology ranks with the Mormons, IMO -- WHY do our brains store such ridiculous stories??

Before that second Enoch was "taken", the first nine of those patriarchs could have set down for lunch together, or a 9gen photo op. Lamech died 5 years before the Flood, and Methuselah died the very year of the flood, whether by drowning or natural causes; we aren't told. It's interesting to note how the USA has gone from horse and buggy to space travel in just 400 years, and these guys had over a thousand years, and maybe more intelligence than we have now in these 'latter days'.
So has science explained Stonehenge and Easter Island to your satisfaction?

Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. Not by reading commentaries on the Bible.

Just in the natural we recognize people at a distance by their "walk" -- and whether it's naked like Isaiah or on the water like Jesus, the Bible-Walk holds the 66 books together as One.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Roger the 'old tricks', Ram --

Didn't know Mohammed had a horse, hah, and Scientology ranks with the Mormons, IMO -- WHY do our brains store such ridiculous stories??

Before that second Enoch was "taken", the first nine of those patriarchs could have set down for lunch together, or a 9gen photo op. Lamech died 5 years before the Flood, and Methuselah died the very year of the flood, whether by drowning or natural causes; we aren't told. It's interesting to note how the USA has gone from horse and buggy to space travel in just 400 years, and these guys had over a thousand years, and maybe more intelligence than we have now in these 'latter days'.
So has science explained Stonehenge and Easter Island to your satisfaction?

Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. Not by reading commentaries on the Bible.

Just in the natural we recognize people at a distance by their "walk" -- and whether it's naked like Isaiah or on the water like Jesus, the Bible-Walk holds the 66 books together as One.
Would Scientologists, Muslims, and Mormons agree with you assessment of their beliefs as "ridiculous stories"?

Is there any difference, in terms of apparently ridiculousness, between the beliefs of the Mormons and those found in the Bible?

As for the trip from "horse and buggy" to "space travel" - that took about 60 years. Horse and buggy time ended roughly around the end of the 19th century.

What needs to be explained about Stonehenge and Easter Island? Are you suggesting they hold evidence of something supernatural?

When Paul spoke of the "word of God" what was he talking about? His own letters he had yet to write?

I understand that you like to think there is a supernatural unity in the 66 books, but you could just as easily think the same thing about the Catholic Bible with its apocrypha. For example, the Wisdom of Sirach ties in very tightly with the Book of Hebrews. So why do you choose to believe something you know could be false? It makes it seem like you actually don't care about truth, and that seems really weird given that you are supposed to be a Christian.

PS: I note you didn't answer my question. Here it is again: "Exactly what are the "standards" you use to determine when it is good to believe something "on faith" and when it is not?"

[duxrow]

Would Scientologists, Muslims, and Mormons agree with you assessment of their beliefs as "ridiculous stories"?


To the degree they depart from the Bible, which is "The Word", or add to it with follow up to the Alpha & Omega, I think they're wrong. Just my opinion.

Is there any difference, in terms of apparently ridiculousness, between the beliefs of the Mormons and those found in the Bible?
Much as I highly regard 'The Name' of Joseph Smith, he shouldn't have added the biz about the USA -- again, IMO. The Mormons I know are fine people..

As for the trip from "horse and buggy" to "space travel" - that took about 60 years. Horse and buggy time ended roughly around the end of the 19th century.
Ram, I'm surprised at this comment-- chalk the 60 up to a typo, I guess... And you a mathematics major!


What needs to be explained about Stonehenge and Easter Island? Are you suggesting they hold evidence of something supernatural?
I'm suggesting that Enoch-II may have had something to do with them, that the Deluge didn't obliterate.


When Paul spoke of the "word of God" what was he talking about? His own letters he had yet to write?
You're asking ME? YOU who was a 'Christian' yourself for so long, before the darkness got you? hah..


I understand that you like to think there is a supernatural unity in the 66 books, but you could just as easily think the same thing about the Catholic Bible with its apocrypha. For example, the Wisdom of Sirach ties in very tightly with the Book of Hebrews. So why do you choose to believe something you know could be false? It makes it seem like you actually don't care about truth, and that seems really weird given that you are supposed to be a Christian.


Its the Triple Acrostic 3x22, and the 39 + 27 and the (just for grins...) the 5 'T' books of Thes/Tim/Titus which agree w two thieves and two malefactors. :D

PS: I note you didn't answer my question. Here it is again: "Exactly what are the "standards" you use to determine when it is good to believe something "on faith" and when it is not?"

Romans 10 - verses 8-17 says it well. The metaphors and others (10, I think were covered in earlier exchange.) Amen? :thumb:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hey there Bob,

It's very difficult to answer when you post your answers as quotes within quotes. It forces me to edit things a lot to make them clear.




Would Scientologists, Muslims, and Mormons agree with you assessment of their beliefs as "ridiculous stories"?

To the degree they depart from the Bible, which is "The Word", or add to it with follow up to the Alpha & Omega, I think they're wrong. Just my opinion.
You don't feel that a man should have justified opinions? Scientologists and Mormons have opinions that you think are wrong. Do you have a double standard? Obviously, you think you are right and they are wrong. Indeed, you think their beliefs are "ridiculous" even though many of them are identical to yours (or come unjustified from a dogmatic book like yours). So the real question is this: Why do you hold to beliefs that you can't justify?

And why do you think beliefs similar to yours are "ridiculous"?




Is there any difference, in terms of apparently ridiculousness, between the beliefs of the Mormons and those found in the Bible? Much as I highly regard 'The Name' of Joseph Smith, he shouldn't have added the biz about the USA -- again, IMO. The Mormons I know are fine people..
We're not talking about the quality of the people. We are talking about the quality of beliefs. It seems like you have no standard by which to judge if something is true or not, or if something should be believed or not.




As for the trip from "horse and buggy" to "space travel" - that took about 60 years. Horse and buggy time ended roughly around the end of the 19th century.
Ram, I'm surprised at this comment-- chalk the 60 up to a typo, I guess... And you a mathematics major!

Why are you confused? The "horse and buggy" stage lasted for about 300 years. The CHANGE from horse and buggy to space flight took about 60 years. It started with the invention of the automobile around the end of the 19th century.





What needs to be explained about Stonehenge and Easter Island? Are you suggesting they hold evidence of something supernatural?

I'm suggesting that Enoch-II may have had something to do with them, that the Deluge didn't obliterate.

Wow - that seems like quite a speculation.





When Paul spoke of the "word of God" what was he talking about? His own letters he had yet to write?

You're asking ME? YOU who was a 'Christian' yourself for so long, before the darkness got you? hah..

Being a Christian does not justify false beliefs. I know that you like to BELIEVE that Paul was talking about the whole Bible, but is there any good reason to believe that is really true?





I understand that you like to think there is a supernatural unity in the 66 books, but you could just as easily think the same thing about the Catholic Bible with its apocrypha. For example, the Wisdom of Sirach ties in very tightly with the Book of Hebrews. So why do you choose to believe something you know could be false? It makes it seem like you actually don't care about truth, and that seems really weird given that you are supposed to be a Christian.
Its the Triple Acrostic 3x22, and the 39 + 27 and the (just for grins...) the 5 'T' books of Thes/Tim/Titus which agree w two thieves and two malefactors. :D
The argument from the Bible Wheel is good because it is based on evidence. But the idea that there were four people crucified with Christ seems totally nutty to me.





PS: I note you didn't answer my question. Here it is again: "Exactly what are the "standards" you use to determine when it is good to believe something "on faith" and when it is not?"
Romans 10 - verses 8-17 says it well. The metaphors and others (10, I think were covered in earlier exchange.) Amen? :thumb:


OK - let's see what that passage really says:
Romans 10:8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
That obviously is NOT talking about the Bible, right?
Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Again, not talking about the Bible.
Romans 10:11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. 12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. 13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
OK - this is talking about some specific verses in the OT.
Romans 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? 17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Again, we're back to verbal preaching. He's not talking about the Bible, certainly not the NT.

So you still have not answered my question. Exactly what are the "standards" you use to determine when it is good to believe something "on faith" and when it is not? I get the impression your answer is "Whatever you believe the Bible says." But what if your understanding is wrong? And how is that any different than Muslims, Mormons, or Scientologists?

[L67]

:stop:
:
Lots of places Still under water!

Still waiting for this proof.

[David M]

Hello Dux and Richard

Not wishing to interrupt the flow of dialogue, here are some of my thoughts as a result of reading your comments.

Regarding the number of books that make up the Bible (as we have it today), the number 66 could be just an undesigned coincidence. I do not see this as sn important fact and one that can be dismissed. I think numbers in scripture have significance and it is good when we recognize the significance in the lessons being taught.

The apostle Paul received revelations from God as he tells us he did, but that does not mean his letters were inspired. Paul is a great writer and his writings reflect his great intelligence and understanding of the Torah (God's instruction in the ancient Jewis scriptures). Paul would have been able to recite the Torah from memory just as other people have memorised it. Paul refers to the content of the Torah and that is the context we should understand what Paul is writing about in the same way that Jesus fulfilled the law (the Torah) and all that the prophets had spoken concering him.

Above anything else, we should understand the Torah and what God required of his chosen race. The jews exhibit nothing different to what is in human nature and so we have their example of a people who did not heed God's instruction. Had they done so, history would have turned out differently. What God's chosen race did would have been done by any other people descended from another Abraham figure. It was inevitable and that is why God's only begotten Son was promised to come.

Whether we are Christian, Muslim, Mormon whoevever, we must all argue our differences from the Torah. In the end, it is God who judges who right and who is wrong and the intents of each and every heart. Let's discuss the Book of Mormon and the Quran in the light of what the Torah says. God has not given us different sets of instructions. God has only given one set of instructions and they were given to the Children of Israel at Mount Sinai. The Jews who uphold the Torah and believe nothing else are blind to the fact that Jesus is the Son of God and are still waiting for the Messiah to come. The Pharisees added to the Torah and did that which they were not supposed to do and that is why Jesus condemned them. Jesus deliberately broke the Pharisees man-made laws. Jesus upheld the Torah and fulfilled the law. Jesus has not taken away the Torah. The Torah is not to be taken away and ultimately those in the kingdom of God will be walking in the spirit and have these things written in their hearts and will naturally keep to God's instruction. Until that happens, we should do our best in this life to walk in the spirit of God's instruction. Instead of arguing every single jot and tittle we should be agreeing in spirit.

All the best

David

[David M]

Still waiting for this proof.


There is enough water on this planet already to flood the whole planet. All that is required is to level out the topography and make all the land be at the same level. We refer to a land's height above or below sea-level. If all the land was at the same level, then the land would be below sea-level.

The highest mountains on the planet have been found below the sea. Not only does water cover 80% of the planet's surface, the depth of the seas can be deeper than Mount Everest is high.

This is proof that there is enough water on this planet to easily flood it.


David

[L67]

There is enough water on this planet already to flood the whole planet. All that is required is to level out the topography and make all the land be at the same level. We refer to a land's height above or below sea-level. If all the land was at the same level, then the land would be below sea-level.

The highest mountains on the planet have been found below the sea. Not only does water cover 80% of the planet's surface, the depth of the seas can be deeper than Mount Everest is high.

This is proof that there is enough water on this planet to easily flood it.


David

I'm aware of that David. But there is no proof it was actually flooded. Do you have any?

[duxrow]

Hey there Bob,

It's very difficult to answer when you post your answers as quotes within quotes. It forces me to edit things a lot to make them clear.
You don't feel that a man should have justified opinions? Scientologists and Mormons have opinions that you think are wrong. Do you have a double standard? Obviously, you think you are right and they are wrong. Indeed, you think their beliefs are "ridiculous" even though many of them are identical to yours (or come unjustified from a dogmatic book like yours). So the real question is this: Why do you hold to beliefs that you can't justify?

And why do you think beliefs similar to yours are "ridiculous"?
We're not talking about the quality of the people. We are talking about the quality of beliefs. It seems like you have no standard by which to judge if something is true or not, or if something should be believed or not.
Why are you confused? The "horse and buggy" stage lasted for about 300 years. The CHANGE from horse and buggy to space flight took about 60 years. It started with the invention of the automobile around the end of the 19th century. Wow - that seems like quite a speculation.
Being a Christian does not justify false beliefs. I know that you like to BELIEVE that Paul was talking about the whole Bible, but is there any good reason to believe that is really true?
The argument from the Bible Wheel is good because it is based on evidence. But the idea that there were four people crucified with Christ seems totally nutty to me.

OK - let's see what that passage really says:
Romans 10:8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
That obviously is NOT talking about the Bible, right?
Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Again, not talking about the Bible.
Romans 10:11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. 12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. 13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. OK - this is talking about some specific verses in the OT.
Romans 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? 17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Again, we're back to verbal preaching. He's not talking about the Bible, certainly not the NT.
So you still have not answered my question. Exactly what are the "standards" you use to determine when it is good to believe something "on faith" and when it is not? I get the impression your answer is "Whatever you believe the Bible says." But what if your understanding is wrong? And how is that any different than Muslims, Mormons, or Scientologists?

:sEm_oops:
Oops! Sorry, RAM, 'bout the 'quotes within quotes' -- was something new for me, and don't plan on doing again.

heb13 put a link to one of his earlier posts, and I don't know how to do that -- was looking at one of mine from April 2011 (Isaiah 36-39) and know to cut and paste, but not how to link..?
You and gil responded #5 and #6, and helped support the 66 count. Plus you provided a link to your Isaiah-Bible Correlation page.

BTW, the 'ridiculous' word concerned riding a horse to the moon, as I think you well know--sometimes you "play dumb" just for kicks--right?

Quality of belief? The Bible should be 'rightly divided', as Moses illustrated at the Red Sea.. Sometime's there's more than one way to see it: like they really had a famine in Egypt following the 7 years of plenty, but now the '7' of the OT and the '7' of the NT have been divided at Calvary..

W-O-R-D is from John 1, and pertains to Jesus in 1:14, as you well know -- so Yes, Jesus is the Lamb, the Son, the Rock, the Resurrection, the Light, and all the other "I am" statements in John's Gospel -- metaphors helping to define Him as the Foundation of our Faith! :thumb:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

:sEm_oops:
Oops! Sorry, RAM, 'bout the 'quotes within quotes' -- was something new for me, and don't plan on doing again.

heb13 put a link to one of his earlier posts, and I don't know how to do that -- was looking at one of mine from April 2011 (Isaiah 36-39) and know to cut and paste, but not how to link..?
You and gil responded #5 and #6, and helped support the 66 count. Plus you provided a link to your Isaiah-Bible Correlation page.

Hey there Bob,

I'm glad you asked, since you certainly are not the only one who doesn't know all the tricks of using the forum software.

There are a few ways to put a link in a post. The simplest is simply to copy/paste it like this:

http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2203-Isaiah-36-39

But that's ugly. So a better way is to use the LINK BUTTON in the editor. Here is where you find it:

774

All you need to do is give your link a title (such as the name of the thread like "Isaiah 36 - 39") and then highlight the text and click the link button to get this, for example: Isaiah 36 - 39 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2203-Isaiah-36-39).

Now if you want to link to specific posts, like my Post #5 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2203-Isaiah-36-39&p=30825#post30825), you simply right click on the post number in the upper right corner of the post and select "Copy Link Address" (in Chrome) or "Copy Link Location" (in FireFox). The link will take the use directly to the specified post.



BTW, the 'ridiculous' word concerned riding a horse to the moon, as I think you well know--sometimes you "play dumb" just for kicks--right?

Why is it "ridiculous" to think Muhammad rode a horse to the moon, but it's not ridiculous to think that Jesus walked on water or that Xenu flew all the souls to this planet on a spaceship that looked exactly like a DC-8?

This is the essence of the question I have been asking. Exactly what are the "standards" you use to determine when it is good to believe something "on faith" and when it is not?



Quality of belief? The Bible should be 'rightly divided', as Moses illustrated at the Red Sea.. Sometime's there's more than one way to see it: like they really had a famine in Egypt following the 7 years of plenty, but now the '7' of the OT and the '7' of the NT have been divided at Calvary..

Come on Bob - you must realize that your words are not anything like an answer to the question. What meaningful connection is there between Moses "dividing" the Red Sea and a reader "rightly dividing" the "word"?



W-O-R-D is from John 1, and pertains to Jesus in 1:14, as you well know -- so Yes, Jesus is the Lamb, the Son, the Rock, the Resurrection, the Light, and all the other "I am" statements in John's Gospel -- metaphors helping to define Him as the Foundation of our Faith! :thumb:
I understand all that. But how does it answer my question?

[duxrow]

I'm aware of that David. But there is no proof it was actually flooded. Do you have any?
:Investigate:
Not that I give much credence to 'millions', now that we're in the days of trillions... hah!

A new type of microbe has been found at a lake buried under Antarctica's thick ice, according to news reports. The find may unveil clues of the surrounding environment in the lake, according to scientists. The bacteria, said to be only 86 percent similar to other types known to exist on Earth, was discovered in a water sample taken from Lake Vostok, which sits under more than 2 miles of Antarctic ice. The freshwater lake has likely been buried, unaltered, under the ice for the past million years. :eek:

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/03/08/life-reportedly-found-in-buried-antarctic-lake/?cmpid=NL_SciTech#ixzz2My5gH6BM

[Richard Amiel McGough]

:Investigate:
Not that I give much credence to 'millions', now that we're in the days of trillions... hah!

A new type of microbe has been found at a lake buried under Antarctica's thick ice, according to news reports. The find may unveil clues of the surrounding environment in the lake, according to scientists. The bacteria, said to be only 86 percent similar to other types known to exist on Earth, was discovered in a water sample taken from Lake Vostok, which sits under more than 2 miles of Antarctic ice. The freshwater lake has likely been buried, unaltered, under the ice for the past million years. :eek:

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/03/08/life-reportedly-found-in-buried-antarctic-lake/?cmpid=NL_SciTech#ixzz2My5gH6BM
Ice core samples from the Antarctic icecap give a very simple and direct proof that there was no global flood.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

There is enough water on this planet already to flood the whole planet. All that is required is to level out the topography and make all the land be at the same level. We refer to a land's height above or below sea-level. If all the land was at the same level, then the land would be below sea-level.

The highest mountains on the planet have been found below the sea. Not only does water cover 80% of the planet's surface, the depth of the seas can be deeper than Mount Everest is high.

This is proof that there is enough water on this planet to easily flood it.


David
Yes, God could flood the earth by miraculously smoothing out the surface. But he could just as well miraculously create more water. But we know it didn't happen so what's the point?

Evidence against the flood:

1) Continuous ice core samples from Antarctica show no global flood in the last 100,000 years.

2) No mass extinction of land animals in the last 5000 years.

3) No genetic bottle neck that would have come from a mass extinction

4) No explanation for where the millions of species came from (they obviously were not all on the ark)

Etc. The list is essentially endless. The idea of a global flood like that described in the Bible is demonstrably false.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hello Dux and Richard

Not wishing to interrupt the flow of dialogue, here are some of my thoughts as a result of reading your comments.

Hey there David,

What are you talking about? Your comments are always welcome.


Regarding the number of books that make up the Bible (as we have it today), the number 66 could be just an undesigned coincidence. I do not see this as sn important fact and one that can be dismissed. I think numbers in scripture have significance and it is good when we recognize the significance in the lessons being taught.

That would be far and away the most logical conclusion if not for the evidence of the Bible Wheel and the Isaiah-Bible Correlation.


The apostle Paul received revelations from God as he tells us he did, but that does not mean his letters were inspired. Paul is a great writer and his writings reflect his great intelligence and understanding of the Torah (God's instruction in the ancient Jewis scriptures). Paul would have been able to recite the Torah from memory just as other people have memorised it. Paul refers to the content of the Torah and that is the context we should understand what Paul is writing about in the same way that Jesus fulfilled the law (the Torah) and all that the prophets had spoken concering him.

Where do you get those ideas? They are contrary to the evidence. There is no reason to think that Paul could accurately quote Hebrew Scriptures from memory. He wrote in Greek and usually quoted the Greek LXX translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. And he often misquoted the OT.

I find it very odd that you let such speculations and fantasies invade your understanding of the Bible.



Whether we are Christian, Muslim, Mormon whoevever, we must all argue our differences from the Torah. In the end, it is God who judges who right and who is wrong and the intents of each and every heart. Let's discuss the Book of Mormon and the Quran in the light of what the Torah says. God has not given us different sets of instructions. God has only given one set of instructions and they were given to the Children of Israel at Mount Sinai. The Jews who uphold the Torah and believe nothing else are blind to the fact that Jesus is the Son of God and are still waiting for the Messiah to come. The Pharisees added to the Torah and did that which they were not supposed to do and that is why Jesus condemned them. Jesus deliberately broke the Pharisees man-made laws. Jesus upheld the Torah and fulfilled the law. Jesus has not taken away the Torah. The Torah is not to be taken away and ultimately those in the kingdom of God will be walking in the spirit and have these things written in their hearts and will naturally keep to God's instruction. Until that happens, we should do our best in this life to walk in the spirit of God's instruction. Instead of arguing every single jot and tittle we should be agreeing in spirit.

All the best

David
It seems like you have bought into the Hebrew Roots movement. You seem to be putting the Torah above the Gospel.

Scripture is clear. The Torah represents the OLD covenant that has been replaced by the NEW. That's the whole message of the NT.
Hebrews 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant [GOSPEL] with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: 9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers [NOT TORAH] in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: 11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. 13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first [TORAH] old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
Paul explicitly said the law was abolished:
Ephesians 2:14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; 15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law [ABOLISHED TORAH] of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
Paul directly contradicted the law when he said that believers need not be circumcised.

And on and on it goes. The entire NT is entirely contrary to the teachings of people like Michael Rood and the Hebrew Roots movement.

[David M]

Yes, God could flood the earth by miraculously smoothing out the surface. But he could just as well miraculously create more water. But we know it didn't happen so what's the point?

Evidence against the flood:

1) Continuous ice core samples from Antarctica show no global flood in the last 100,000 years.

2) No mass extinction of land animals in the last 5000 years.

3) No genetic bottle neck that would have come from a mass extinction

4) No explanation for where the millions of species came from (they obviously were not all on the ark)

Etc. The list is essentially endless. The idea of a global flood like that described in the Bible is demonstrably false.

The point is that the evidence of enough water to flood the planet has not gone away and we still have the water to flood the planet. We should not limit the power of God to perform any miracle and if you think God made more water to cover the earth to the height of Mount Everest and then remove that water and make it disappear then we cannot rule that out, but that is not how I see things happening. It is fruitless for me to say anymore.

As regards repopulating the earth, species diversify as rapidly as every new generation born. It seems to me that within kinds we have thousands upon thousands of species which are variants of the same kind. This is obvious when we have new varities of plants found or deliberately grown by artificial cross pollination. We know how quickly numbers increase as the population of the species mulitply. We know of exponential curves that show rapid increase. There are likely to be other factors contributing whereby numbers become restricted and we know that species can also die rapidly. The fact that we have thousands upon thousands of species after the Great Flood is of no surprise at all and is easily explainable by rapid repopulation and diversification of the species.

Again Richard your ideas or those you wish to promote can be said to be demonstratably false by the fact that there is a reasonable explanation for the things we observe. If you wan to introduce ideas like God created extra water to flood the earth five miles high and then destroyed that water by taking it away, then it can be argued that God recreated all the kinds and species after the flood and that the ark and the animals were only a token keeping of the animals for the sake of Noah doing as God had told him. Do you think Noah thought in terms of different species? All Noah had to do was to put into the ark all those animals which God brought to him. I doubt Noah worried about the death of species and repopulation of species and was more concerned with following the commands/instructions of God. This fundamental principle is at the heart of many of the discussions taking place.

We have two sides. Those who oppose God and do not want to follow His instructions and those who do not oppose God and who try to follow His instructions as best they can. I know which side I am on and I know what side you are on and we are not on the same side and I doubt we will ever be since you have rejected most of the teaching that is found throughout God's word. If I am wrong then about you, it is about time you spoke up for God rather than against Him. Its your problem, if you cannot resolve in your own mind the goodness and severity of God and keep bringing up the 32,000 virgins and the killing of children who you think were "innocent". Our friend Timmy gave a good answer to this so called "innocence".

There is no point you keep reeling against me for having resolved this in my mind. There are no words I can find other than the words of the Creator to make you see otherwise, so conversations between us constantly bringing up the same old problems is not going to get either of us anywhere. We have to try hard not to keep raking up the same old disagreements. It is like you have a compulsion to do it to prove your own moral high ground and whereas I would like to let it go and move forward. it is only for the sake of new readers to this forum than when you claim the high moral ground (higher than God) then I have to speak out. Please in future in any post replying to me do not mention the 32,000 "sexy" virgins etc. or I shall have to prepare a standard rebuttal and just post it whenever you bring that subject up. You can say that I brought that into this conversation; just treat this as my repy to that post in which you also slandered Michael Rood, which in my view shows the flaws in your character more than in his.

You constantly accuse me of quitting a conversation when you have not moved the conversation forward when requested to do so. I refuse to go round the same circle more than once, for we both know that it is madness to go round the same circle again. If you want to appear mad, then keep your conversations going round in circles, but I am jumping off any such conversations. Even now I have had to repeat what I said I was going to do and it is non-productive. The only productivity from hereon is not to rake up past disagreements and I have to also avoid bringing personality into any argument. I would like this to be the last time I have to say this, yet I think it will be not so long as I stay on this forum.

All the best

David

[David M]

Hello Richard


Hey there David,

What are you talking about? Your comments are always welcome.
As I suspect, the fact that you make such a lenghty reply to my comments could distract from the conversation that is taking place between you and Dux. It seems impossible to add thoughts to a thread without being taken to task.


Where do you get those ideas? They are contrary to the evidence. There is no reason to think that Paul could accurately quote Hebrew Scriptures from memory. He wrote in Greek and usually quoted the Greek LXX translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. And he often misquoted the OT.
You say Paul misquoted, but I think that it is you, who do not properly understand what Paul is saying. It may be a language thing and we have to get to an understanding of the original words used by Paul. Paul was brought up a Pharisee at the feet of Gamaliel. It is that background for saying that Paul would have learnt the Torah. We are told that he was "more zealous than his peers". Read into that what you may. At minimum, Paul was well versed in the Torah and the ancient Herew writings which are the Jewish scriptures.


I find it very odd that you let such speculations and fantasies invade your understanding of the Bible.
It does not surprise me you find it odd, because what you think are fantasies are my reasonable speculations. I do not find it odd that you do not look for reasonable explanations and conveniently take scripture at face value when it suits the ideas you want to promote.


It seems like you have bought into the Hebrew Roots movement. You seem to be putting the Torah above the Gospel
I have not bought into the Hebrews root movement, though I am interested to see the revival that is going on and the increase in numbers of Messianic Jews. The gospel of Jesus is no different to the gospel revealed to Abraham and Jesus said, Abraham rejoiced to see my day. This has featured in a previous conversation between us so there is no point pursuing that point again in this thread.


Scripture is clear. The Torah represents the OLD covenant that has been replaced by the NEW. That's the whole message of the NT.
Hebrews 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant [GOSPEL] with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: 9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers [NOT TORAH] in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: 11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. 13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first [TORAH] old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
Paul explicitly said the law was abolished:
Ephesians 2:14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; 15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law [ABOLISHED TORAH] of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
Paul directly contradicted the law when he said that believers need not be circumcised.
As with all of God's word, we have to get things into their proper perspective. As I understand these things, the Torah contains many instructions aimed at different groups of people (men, women, and priests). The Torah contains the 10 Commandments. Some things have been superceeded such as animal sacrifice and circumcision and some things have not. Jesus did not come to take away the law, but to fulfill it. Jesus said "all the law and the prophets hang on these two great commandments which he had just told to the man enquiring of him.
Whether we see the covenant in Jesus' blood as totally new, or a renewal of the blood covenant that was broken by God's people we can discuss at another time. The blood covenant remains in tact and Jesus has replaced the need for animal sacrifice. Jesus paid the penalty with his own blood.
By "new" we also can take this to mean "changed" and so to include the verses from Hebrews you quoted, we should examine the differences between the old and the new to see what was retained and what was abolished. The 10 commandments have not gone away and it would be good if everyone showed by their actions that they were walking by the spirit and had these instructions written in their hearts. My observation is that the vast majority in the world are not walking by the spirit and keeping these fundamental principles. How many do you know who are keeping the first three commandments?


And on and on it goes. The entire NT is entirely contrary to the teachings of people like Michael Rood and the Hebrew Roots movement.
Have you bothered to listen to all of Michael Rood's teaching on "The Letter to the Hebrews"? I have listened to what he has to say, and I find little to disagree on. I think he has valuable teaching (especially to anyone who has not done their research) and in the thread I started entitled 'A Rood Awakening' these things are better discussed there and devote a separate discussion to deal with what he has to say. Michael Rood does not expect every word he has to say to be agreed, he is humble enough to admit that he does not know everything. I find little to criticize his teaching, which is based from the scriptures. As regards his credentials, Michael Rood might not have the academic credentials such as PhD's but he has devoted 40 years of his life to putting together the 'Chronological Gospels" and he is a confessed former practicising Baptist minister who after 20 years has come to see the error of the teaching he was taught and is now teaching what I accept is The Truth. This is why I have been interested to find out how alike his teaching is with what I and others have already come to the conclusion. Rood's conclusions fit in with my own. It is on the same basis of understanding the scriptures and overcoming the obstacles of mis-translation and errors that have crept into the word of God as we have it in our Bibles today.

It is interesting that the original Gospel according to Matthew has found hidden away in a museum vault and has now been shown to have been written in Hebrew. Whether you want to believe this or not, Matthew's Gospel in Hebrew helps us to see the error that has crept into his record. Now we have some problems passages correctly understood by reading Matthew's Gospel in Hebrew. I am not a Hebrew scholar and I am reliant on people like Nehemiah Gordon to correctly translate the Hebrew text of Matthew which he has been able to read and study. You might like to look him up and study what he has to say. It is interesting that he is a kerrite Jew who holds to the teaching of the Torah, but not to the Rabbinical teaching that has been added to the Torah. Nehemiah Gordon believes in the Torah and the coming Messiah but is still blind as many Jews are that when Jesus came into the world, they did not recognize him as the Messiah to come. It was this claim that Jesus was the Messiah that he did not want proclaimed until he had been raised from the dead and so he told those he healed and who recognized him as the Messiah not to tell anyone.
.

All the best

David

PS if in my posts you see an increase in spelling errors, it is because Firefox is not doing as it is supposed to do and check my spelling and so more typos than usual might be getting through. I will reinstall Firefox to see of I can get it to work properly.

[David M]

I'm aware of that David. But there is no proof it was actually flooded. Do you have any?

The evidence is all over the place, but wherever and whatever I tell you of, you will not accept, so I am not going to waste time linking to material you have probably already seen. We see things oppositely and that is the way it is. If you do not believe in God the Creator, or do not have it in your heart to really want to know and find out, then nothing anyone can say that is going to make you alter your thinking; otherwise what is it that will make you change your mind?


David

[L67]

The evidence is all over the place, but wherever and whatever I tell you of, you will not accept, so I am not going to waste time linking to material you have probably already seen. We see things oppositely and that is the way it is. If you do not believe in God the Creator, or do not have it in your heart to really want to know and find out, then nothing anyone can say that is going to make you alter your thinking; otherwise what is it that will make you change your mind?


David


If the evidence you speak of is from people like Michael Rood, then no that is not evidence. You say that I will not accept any evidence you provide. That is not true. I'm open to any kind of scientific evidence. The thing is you couldn't provide any scientific evidence. Any evidence you might think you have is from creationist propaganda, or people like Michael Rood. If the evidence is everywhere like you speak of then science would have figured that out by now. But that's not the case. These is ZERO evidence to support such a claim.

David you always assert how great God is and how much he does for people. Is there anything you could show as evidence that God had a hand in anything and that He is more than just a personal experience? That is the sole reason I don't believe anymore. There is nothing you could possibly show that God did anything. Everything you think is evidence is in opposition to logic and facts. The only you have is blind faith. You have already demonstrated that with your support of Michael Rood. I don't get it David. You seem like a smart guy. But you support an obvious phony and completely reject things like evolution that are based on hard data. It's completely irrational.

[L67]

As with all of God's word, we have to get things into their proper perspective. As I understand these things, the Torah contains many instructions aimed at different groups of people (men, women, and priests). The Torah contains the 10 Commandments. Some things have been superceeded such as animal sacrifice and circumcision and some things have not. Jesus did not come to take away the law, but to fulfill it. Jesus said "all the law and the prophets hang on these two great commandments which he had just told to the man enquiring of him.
Whether we see the covenant in Jesus' blood as totally new, or a renewal of the blood covenant that was broken by God's people we can discuss at another time. The blood covenant remains in tact and Jesus has replaced the need for animal sacrifice. Jesus paid the penalty with his own blood.
By "new" we also can take this to mean "changed" and so to include the verses from Hebrews you quoted, we should examine the differences between the old and the new to see what was retained and what was abolished. The 10 commandments have not gone away and it would be good if everyone showed by their actions that they were walking by the spirit and had these instructions written in their hearts. My observation is that the vast majority in the world are not walking by the spirit and keeping these fundamental principles. How many do you know who are keeping the first three commandments?




I would like to point something out to you. The 10 commandments you speak of are not the true commandments. Those were spoken commandments. The ones carved on the stone tablets are the true commandments given to Moses by God.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkCJ8rb8Grw

[Richard Amiel McGough]

You say Paul misquoted, but I think that it is you, who do not properly understand what Paul is saying. It may be a language thing and we have to get to an understanding of the original words used by Paul. Paul was brought up a Pharisee at the feet of Gamaliel. It is that background for saying that Paul would have learnt the Torah. We are told that he was "more zealous than his peers". Read into that what you may. At minimum, Paul was well versed in the Torah and the ancient Herew writings which are the Jewish scriptures.

Good morning David, :tea:

I agree that Paul was probably "well-versed" but that does not justify your claim that he "would have been able to recite the Torah from memory."

Your assertion that I do not "properly understand" is not true. I merely stated the indisputable fact that Paul misquotes the OT. It is not a "language thing." There are cases where the Greek that Paul wrote does not match either the original Hebrew or the Greek LXX. Case in point, in Ephesians 4:8 Paul "quotes" Psalm 68:18 but changes the words around:

Psalm 68:18 Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive: thou hast received gifts for men;

Ephesians 4:8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.

Paul's "quote" says exactly the opposite of the actual verse in the OT.



I have not bought into the Hebrews root movement, though I am interested to see the revival that is going on and the increase in numbers of Messianic Jews. The gospel of Jesus is no different to the gospel revealed to Abraham and Jesus said, Abraham rejoiced to see my day. This has featured in a previous conversation between us so there is no point pursuing that point again in this thread.

That's a fascinating topic. The word "Gospel" is used in very different senses in the NT. For example, what was the "Gospel" that the disciples preached when Christ was alive? They knew nothing about his death and resurrection.
Luke 9:6 And they departed, and went through the towns, preaching the gospel, and healing every where.
And then Paul comes along with what he calls "his gospel".


Have you bothered to listen to all of Michael Rood's teaching on "The Letter to the Hebrews"? I have listened to what he has to say, and I find little to disagree on. I think he has valuable teaching (especially to anyone who has not done their research) and in the thread I started entitled 'A Rood Awakening' these things are better discussed there and devote a separate discussion to deal with what he has to say. Michael Rood does not expect every word he has to say to be agreed, he is humble enough to admit that he does not know everything. I find little to criticize his teaching, which is based from the scriptures. As regards his credentials, Michael Rood might not have the academic credentials such as PhD's but he has devoted 40 years of his life to putting together the 'Chronological Gospels" and he is a confessed former practicising Baptist minister who after 20 years has come to see the error of the teaching he was taught and is now teaching what I accept is The Truth. This is why I have been interested to find out how alike his teaching is with what I and others have already come to the conclusion. Rood's conclusions fit in with my own. It is on the same basis of understanding the scriptures and overcoming the obstacles of mis-translation and errors that have crept into the word of God as we have it in our Bibles today.

My problem with Rood has nothing to do with his lack of academic credentials. My problem with Rood is that he is a blatant LYING freak pretending to be a "Messianic Jewish Rabbi" when in fact he's just another Gentile. My problem with Rood is that he very publicly proclaimed the "end times" was going to happen in the year 2000 and that if he was wrong he would admit to being a false prophet but he's still preaching the same old crap. The problem I have with Rood is that he teaches endless falsehood concerning the actual history of Christianity and he appeals to ignorance and prejudice.

I don't know if he was ever a "practicing Baptist minister" but I do know that he was a member of The Way International cult during his formative years. That's when he picked up the fringe doctrines he shares with the Christadelphians.

Rood is a liar and a false prophet. Why do you believe a word he says? That's a rhetorical question of course. I know why you believe Rood. You stated the reason yourself when you said his "conclusions fit with your own."



It is interesting that the original Gospel according to Matthew has found hidden away in a museum vault and has now been shown to have been written in Hebrew.
Whether you want to believe this or not, Matthew's Gospel in Hebrew helps us to see the error that has crept into his record. Now we have some problems passages correctly understood by reading Matthew's Gospel in Hebrew. I am not a Hebrew scholar and I am reliant on people like Nehemiah Gordon to correctly translate the Hebrew text of Matthew which he has been able to read and study. You might like to look him up and study what he has to say. It is interesting that he is a kerrite Jew who holds to the teaching of the Torah, but not to the Rabbinical teaching that has been added to the Torah. Nehemiah Gordon believes in the Torah and the coming Messiah but is still blind as many Jews are that when Jesus came into the world, they did not recognize him as the Messiah to come. It was this claim that Jesus was the Messiah that he did not want proclaimed until he had been raised from the dead and so he told those he healed and who recognized him as the Messiah not to tell anyone.

Your disregard for truth blows my mind. Your entire religion is nothing if not true, yet you have no standards by which to determine truth. Can you give any reason to believe that the very late (13th century!) Hebrew manuscript represents the original Gospel of Matthew? Of course not. There is no evidence supporting that idea and there is much evidence contradicting it. For example, Christians have struggled with the genealogy in Matthew from the beginning. If the "original" didn't have that problem, why is there NO EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND that anyone knew about that solution?

And more significantly, why do you say that God allowed his word to be RADICALLY CORRUPTED? Doesn't that contradict all your claims that it is trustworthy? This is where you logic leads. You contradict your central claims about the Bible being trustworthy.

I'm familiar with Nehemiah Gordon's strange beliefs. He is not the final authority on anything.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I would like to point something out to you. The 10 commandments you speak of are not the true commandments. Those were spoken commandments. The ones carved on the stone tablets are the true commandments given to Moses by God.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkCJ8rb8Grw
I was going to point that out myself. Very few Bible believers are aware of the strange set of commands, dictated by God himself, that are very different than the "Ten Commandments" they are familiar with. This is a HUGE problem because the text plainly states that the words of the second set are supposed to be the same as the words on the first set. And the second set are just plain weird since they include the command not to seethe a kid in its mother's milk.



Which Ten Commandments?



First Tables of Stone (Exodus 20)
("which Moses didst break")




Second Tables of Stone (Exodus 34)
("the words that were on the first")




1. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me.


1. Thou shalt worship no other god (For the Lord is a jealous god).



2. You shall not make for yourself a graven image. You shall not bow down to them or serve them.


2. Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.



3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.


3. The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep in the month when the ear is on the corn.



4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.


4. All the first-born are mine.



5. Honor your father and your mother.


5. Six days shalt thou work, but on the seventh thou shalt rest.



6. You shall not kill.


6. Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, even of the first fruits of the wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end.



7. You shall not commit adultery.


7. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leavened bread.



8. You shall not steal.


8. The fat of my feast shall not remain all night until the morning.



9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.


9. The first of the first fruits of thy ground thou shalt bring unto the house of the Lord thy God.



10. You shall not covet.


10. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The evidence is all over the place, but wherever and whatever I tell you of, you will not accept, so I am not going to waste time linking to material you have probably already seen. We see things oppositely and that is the way it is. If you do not believe in God the Creator, or do not have it in your heart to really want to know and find out, then nothing anyone can say that is going to make you alter your thinking; otherwise what is it that will make you change your mind?


David
Evidence? What evidence? You have yet to produce any legitimate evidence and you have ignored the mountain of evidence that shows no global flood ever happened.

This is not because of different beliefs about God. We are talking about EVIDENCE. You have none, yet you persist in your beliefs. How does that differ from anyone else who holds to beliefs without evidence (Muslims, Mormons, Scientologists, etc.)?

[duxrow]

The Updated Flood
From: http://geology.about.com/od/flooding/qt/floodcomeback.htm

Now they're giving NEW credence to the Genesis account! :thumb:
Their new picture of the original Flood is this: As the last ice age waned some 10,000 years ago, the Black Sea overflowed with meltwater from the northern Asian ice cap, and it drained downhill into the Mediterranean, which like the rest of the ocean was rising but still well below its present level. Then a global cold snap hit. The glaciers stopped melting and the Black Sea shrank to a large freshwater lake about the size of today's Caspian Sea, a hundred meters or so below sea level. People moved there and set up the earliest significant farming societies on the lake's shores.

When warming resumed after a millennium or so, the north Asian meltwater went elsewhere and the lake stayed low. But the Mediterranean continued to rise until, one fateful day around 5600 BCE, it spilled over the hills where once the Black Sea had spilled the other way.

That first trickle of seawater grew within days to a colossal, roaring torrent as it gouged out a deep notch in the hills. Storms, lightning, earthquakes and other geophysical disturbances surely accompanied this catastrophe. In a matter of months, the great lake was utterly drowned and its shore-dwellers scattered. The Black Sea and its outlet to the Mediterranean, the Bosporus, became as we know them today in a geologic instant. But the survivors of the Flood long remembered what happened in epic songs and myths, one version of which is preserved in the book of Genesis.

[L67]

The Updated Flood
From: http://geology.about.com/od/flooding/qt/floodcomeback.htm

Now they're giving NEW credence to the Genesis account! :thumb:
Their new picture of the original Flood is this: As the last ice age waned some 10,000 years ago, the Black Sea overflowed with meltwater from the northern Asian ice cap, and it drained downhill into the Mediterranean, which like the rest of the ocean was rising but still well below its present level. Then a global cold snap hit. The glaciers stopped melting and the Black Sea shrank to a large freshwater lake about the size of today's Caspian Sea, a hundred meters or so below sea level. People moved there and set up the earliest significant farming societies on the lake's shores.

When warming resumed after a millennium or so, the north Asian meltwater went elsewhere and the lake stayed low. But the Mediterranean continued to rise until, one fateful day around 5600 BCE, it spilled over the hills where once the Black Sea had spilled the other way.

That first trickle of seawater grew within days to a colossal, roaring torrent as it gouged out a deep notch in the hills. Storms, lightning, earthquakes and other geophysical disturbances surely accompanied this catastrophe. In a matter of months, the great lake was utterly drowned and its shore-dwellers scattered. The Black Sea and its outlet to the Mediterranean, the Bosporus, became as we know them today in a geologic instant. But the survivors of the Flood long remembered what happened in epic songs and myths, one version of which is preserved in the book of Genesis.


That gives no credence to the Genesis account. In fact, it completely debunks it. Because if it happened in 5600BCE that means Noah and his family are fictional characters and God had nothing to do with it. That also means the dates in the Bible are wrong. So if we can't trust the Bible to get the dates of the flood right, how can be trust it for anything else? I mean were talking about a perfect God. Don't you think if you He had anything to do with the Bible it would get the dates right?

But you ignored the rest of the article.


The Bible has always been an awkward book. Most of it is historical, of course, and much of that human history can be independently confirmed. But much of the Bible is mythical, a record of fundamental stories that shaped an ancient worldview. Taken literally, Noah's Flood suggests a widespread set of geological consequences that have not been found. The world is true, therefore this part of the Word is not. But Ryan and Pitman's hypothesis that the Flood myth had a historical basis assumes, correctly, that even if Noah's story is not literally true it is not utterly false. More realistic versions of it can be checked out and possibly verified.

It has taken more than a century to bring this great Biblical story back to some sort of plausibility. The next few decades should produce some fascinating discoveries under the Black Sea waves as we check out Ryan and Pitman's hypothesis in detail. Scientists are arguing about the evidence and gathering more.

[duxrow]

:dontknow:The idea of a lake underneath an ice-cap is certainly foreign to my way of thinking, but I'm definitely not qualified to judge, so maybe 'could be'?

The Deluge of Noah's day was 40 days and nights of rainfall, but people today are drowning figuratively in a flood of ungodly counsel about the truth of Scripture. Symbolically they're drowning in this Sea of Humanity. Zealous Christians are sometime's called 'brain-washed' by their worldly or apathetic cousins, and it has a strong element of truth; but the real brain-formatting has been done by the subtle tactics of Satan's ministers who cause many to feel confident and secure because of their denominational affiliation, and imagine that going to church now and then is all that's required. :thumb:

[L67]

:dontknow:The idea of a lake underneath an ice-cap is certainly foreign to my way of thinking, but I'm definitely not qualified to judge, so maybe 'could be'?

The Deluge of Noah's day was 40 days and nights of rainfall, but people today are drowning figuratively in a flood of ungodly counsel about the truth of Scripture. Symbolically they're drowning in this Sea of Humanity. Zealous Christians are sometime's called 'brain-washed' by their worldly or apathetic cousins, and it has a strong element of truth; but the real brain-formatting has been done by the subtle tactics of Satan's ministers who cause many to feel confident and secure because of their denominational affiliation, and imagine that going to church now and then is all that's required. :thumb:

Yes but the flood lasted a lot longer than 40 days and nights.

Here is yet another absurdity with the flood story. The idea that Noah was on the ark for roughly 1 year. Not possible.

[duxrow]

Hey L67, What's so incredible about being afloat for a year? Of course I'm not sure that migration was involved in calling the animals to the Ark, but science doesn't really know that much about migration, does it?

And if hibernation was involved, even if it was only for the bears, that would cut down on the need of food supply...

We can't be sure whether fishing was permitted, because the account doesn't give us the details, anymore than we give details to people when we first meet them, but reserve those 'hidden truth's' for when we know them folks better. True?

[L67]

Hey L67, What's so incredible about being afloat for a year? Of course I'm not sure that migration was involved in calling the animals to the Ark, but science doesn't really know that much about migration, does it?

And if hibernation was involved, even if it was only for the bears, that would cut down on the need of food supply...

We can't be sure whether fishing was permitted, because the account doesn't give us the details, anymore than we give details to people when we first meet them, but reserve those 'hidden truth's' for when we know them folks better. True?

Seriously duxrow? Let's forget that there is no evidence for the flood for a sec. Do you expect me to believe Noah had enough food for two of every animal for a year? That's completely absurd.

What did Noah do with all the human and animal waste?

Migration? That's also absurd. How are animals like kangaroos going to migrate through water?

Hibernation on the ark? That's also absurd.

Fishing is highly unlikely because God told Noah to collect food for his family and the animals. So why would Noah have to fish if he collected enough food for everyone like God told him? Fishing would show that Noah had no faith in God's plan for him.

[Charisma]

Hi you two,

I have some thoughts on this (apart from my belief in the Biblical account, in which only those on the Ark survived).

First of all, we have no idea how big, physically, the animals or the people were. There is plenty of evidence that people used to be physically smaller - a LOT smaller. David calls himself a grasshopper in one place - not that I think he actually hopped from one blade of grass to another!

We know that dating methods are subject to all kinds of difficulties due to the effects of radiation in the past, which no-one can measure restrospectively. And we know that scientists have a vested interest in not being questioned too closely by their peers. In fact, proving anything 'scientifically' is a long and laborious process, which may or may not be worth the time and expense.

Did you know that Rahab's house was found in the ruined walls of Jericho? It was just as the Bible states, completely sound, but the 'scientist' whose team discovered it, was so furious that it really existed that .... I'll leave you to research that for yourself, as I know Richard will want proof, and I can't prove that the house wasn't destroyed when the Israelites blew their trumpets the last time, except for the fact that Rahab was king David's great grandmother, and Jesus Christ was descended from David. That strongly suggests that Rahab's house was not destroyed with the rest of Jericho!

Regarding whether the Flood really happened, there is definitely evidence, but many reasons why it is not all in one convenient place - apart from the remains of the Ark, of course - less than a third of a nautical degree from where the Bible says it is. No doubt L67, you have read all that there is, and watched the youtube presentations about the findings, so why don't you believe the guys who've been on location?

[duxrow]

You're right, L67, the "Children" had NO Faith!

Deut 32:20 "And he said, I will hide my face from them, I will see what their end shall be: for they are a very froward generation, children in whom is no faith". We find the word 'faith' used only twice in the OT (here, and in Habakkuk 2:4)

And it wasn't just two of every kind, but seven: Gen7:2 By Sevens! Some would be sacrificed, reminding me that all the baby turtles don't make it safely to the sea.. hah.

I've spent enough time at sea to know we had no problem dumping the waste. Reminds me of Malta where they collected sea-salt at the beach, but nothing prevented the gulls from flying over to check it out... :lol:

So I don't know, maybe, what I don't know, but I do wonder if Noah's cargo included seed,
and whether some seed may even have been harvested on the Ark. Maybe?

So we don't and won't be seeing eye to eye here -- maybe another subject? :winking0071:

[L67]

Hi you two,

I have some thoughts on this (apart from my belief in the Biblical account, in which only those on the Ark survived).

First of all, we have no idea how big, physically, the animals or the people were. There is plenty of evidence that people used to be physically smaller - a LOT smaller. David calls himself a grasshopper in one place - not that I think he actually hopped from one blade of grass to another!

That is still irrelevant to the task at hand. Were talking millions of species here.


We know that dating methods are subject to all kinds of difficulties due to the effects of radiation in the past, which no-one can measure restrospectively. And we know that scientists have a vested interest in not being questioned too closely by their peers. In fact, proving anything 'scientifically' is a long and laborious process, which may or may not be worth the time and expense.

This is false. This sounds like some conspiracy theory.


Did you know that Rahab's house was found in the ruined walls of Jericho? It was just as the Bible states, completely sound, but the 'scientist' whose team discovered it, was so furious that it really existed that .... I'll leave you to research that for yourself, as I know Richard will want proof, and I can't prove that the house wasn't destroyed when the Israelites blew their trumpets the last time, except for the fact that Rahab was king David's great grandmother, and Jesus Christ was descended from David. That strongly suggests that Rahab's house was not destroyed with the rest of Jericho!

Post the evidence please. I'm open to anything. The evidence needs to be conclusive. Not some half-baked conspiracy theory.


Regarding whether the Flood really happened, there is definitely evidence, but many reasons why it is not all in one convenient place - apart from the remains of the Ark, of course - less than a third of a nautical degree from where the Bible says it is. No doubt L67, you have read all that there is, and watched the youtube presentations about the findings, so why don't you believe the guys who've been on location?

Yes I have heard this countless times. Everyone swears there is evidence. Where is it? I would love to see concrete evidence.

Noah's ark has not been found. That is false information most Christians keep spreading. Answersingenesis even says it's false. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v14/n4/special-report-amazing-ark-expose

If you want to read about the total absurdities of a global flood I suggest you read this. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#georecord

[duxrow]

Hi you two,
I have some thoughts on this (apart from my belief in the Biblical account, in which only those on the Ark survived).
First of all, we have no idea how big, physically, the animals or the people were. There is plenty of evidence that people used to be physically smaller - a LOT smaller. David calls himself a grasshopper in one place - not that I think he actually hopped from one blade of grass to another!

Did you know that Rahab's house was found in the ruined walls of Jericho? It was just as the Bible states, completely sound, but the 'scientist' whose team discovered it, was so furious that it really existed that .... I'll leave you to research that for yourself, as I know Richard will want proof, and I can't prove that the house wasn't destroyed when the Israelites blew their trumpets the last time, except for the fact that Rahab was king David's great grandmother, and Jesus Christ was descended from David. That strongly suggests that Rahab's house was not destroyed with the rest of Jericho!

Regarding whether the Flood really happened, there is definitely evidence, but many reasons why it is not all in one convenient place - apart from the remains of the Ark, of course - less than a third of a nautical degree from where the Bible says it is. No doubt L67, you have read all that there is, and watched the youtube presentations about the findings, so why don't you believe the guys who've been on location?
:typing:
Good to hear from you again, Charisma, and appreciate your input. Joshua "saved" Rahab has been a favorite of mine..

I've sometimes thought the ancients might've been bigger than us -- like on steroids, maybe, because they had to tussle with the stones of the pyramids, etc.

On my website I have a 3Arks page (http://www.cswnet.com/~duxrow/webdoc12.htm)(mostly for kids), that you might like. Shalom! :yo:

[L67]

You're right, L67, the "Children" had NO Faith!

Deut 32:20 "And he said, I will hide my face from them, I will see what their end shall be: for they are a very froward generation, children in whom is no faith". We find the word 'faith' used only twice in the OT (here, and in Habakkuk 2:4)

And it wasn't just two of every kind, but seven: Gen7:2 By Sevens! Some would be sacrificed, reminding me that all the baby turtles don't make it safely to the sea.. hah.

I've spent enough time at sea to know we had no problem dumping the waste. Reminds me of Malta where they collected sea-salt at the beach, but nothing prevented the gulls from flying over to check it out... :lol:

So I don't know, maybe, what I don't know, but I do wonder if Noah's cargo included seed,
and whether some seed may even have been harvested on the Ark. Maybe?

So we don't and won't be seeing eye to eye here -- maybe another subject? :winking0071:


We are not talking about modern ships here. We are talking basically the beginning of civilization here. No technology to speak of.

So if you don't know, how do you reconcile the unbelievable nature of this story?

At least you can admit you don't know. That's more than can I say for a lot of believers. :applause:

[L67]

Hi you two,



Did you know that Rahab's house was found in the ruined walls of Jericho? It was just as the Bible states, completely sound, but the 'scientist' whose team discovered it, was so furious that it really existed that .... I'll leave you to research that for yourself, as I know Richard will want proof, and I can't prove that the house wasn't destroyed when the Israelites blew their trumpets the last time, except for the fact that Rahab was king David's great grandmother, and Jesus Christ was descended from David. That strongly suggests that Rahab's house was not destroyed with the rest of Jericho!


Did some more digging. There is no evidence it was Rahab's house. They said there is a possibility and that no evidence exists to prove it was.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFKlslKwrXY

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi you two,

I have some thoughts on this (apart from my belief in the Biblical account, in which only those on the Ark survived).

First of all, we have no idea how big, physically, the animals or the people were. There is plenty of evidence that people used to be physically smaller - a LOT smaller. David calls himself a grasshopper in one place - not that I think he actually hopped from one blade of grass to another!

We know that dating methods are subject to all kinds of difficulties due to the effects of radiation in the past, which no-one can measure restrospectively. And we know that scientists have a vested interest in not being questioned too closely by their peers. In fact, proving anything 'scientifically' is a long and laborious process, which may or may not be worth the time and expense.

Did you know that Rahab's house was found in the ruined walls of Jericho? It was just as the Bible states, completely sound, but the 'scientist' whose team discovered it, was so furious that it really existed that .... I'll leave you to research that for yourself, as I know Richard will want proof, and I can't prove that the house wasn't destroyed when the Israelites blew their trumpets the last time, except for the fact that Rahab was king David's great grandmother, and Jesus Christ was descended from David. That strongly suggests that Rahab's house was not destroyed with the rest of Jericho!

Regarding whether the Flood really happened, there is definitely evidence, but many reasons why it is not all in one convenient place - apart from the remains of the Ark, of course - less than a third of a nautical degree from where the Bible says it is. No doubt L67, you have read all that there is, and watched the youtube presentations about the findings, so why don't you believe the guys who've been on location?
Hey there Charisma,

I find it very difficult to respond. The things you believe look utterly absurd from a rational, factual, point of view. There is no evidence of any kind that Rahab's house has been found. And neither is there any evidence for Noah's flood, let alone his ark. But even if an old boat were found it wouldn't help because there has not been an mass extinction in the last 4000 years.

The thing that seems so crazy to me is that you believe things that have no supporting evidence and reject things that have much supporting evidence. It is that contrast that makes it all seem double crazy. And worse, the justification you give is based on conspiracy theories about dishonest scientists who get "furious" when they discover the truth of the Bible.

I am mystified by how you could justify your extreme skepticism for established scientific facts even as you show no skepticism towards entirely unfounded beliefs about the Bible. Your world seems upside down and backwards to me.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Did some more digging. There is no evidence it was Rahab's house. They said there is a possibility and that no evidence exists to prove it was.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFKlslKwrXY
The video states the obvious. Thanks.

[Timmy]

That is still irrelevant to the task at hand. Were talking millions of species here...This is false. This sounds like some conspiracy theory...Post the evidence please. I'm open to anything. The evidence needs to be conclusive.

L67,

Quit lying. You say you are open to anything, yet are willing to forego your confidence in evolution to prove your duplicity...and quit acting like an idiot while you are at it. That's my department.


Timmy

[Omphaloskeptic]

Did some more digging. There is no evidence it was Rahab's house. They said there is a possibility and that no evidence exists to prove it was.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFKlslKwrXY

Did not do any digging. There is no evidence it was not Rahab's house. They said there is a possibility and that no evidence exists to prove it was, yet there is no evidence to prove that it is not.


One of Timmy's friends of many,

Manuel Diller

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Did not do any digging. There is no evidence it was not Rahab's house. They said there is a possibility and that no evidence exists to prove it was, yet there is no evidence to prove that it is not.


One of Timmy's friends of many,

Manuel Diller
"There is no evidence it was not Rahab's house." That's correct. And there is no evidence we are not just brains living in vats on Uranus.

But that's totally irrelevant because we are talking about the claim that it WAS Rahab's house. There is absolutely no evidence for that claim. To believe it is delusional.

[Timmy]

Manny's gone awready but he probably looked--or will look--at what happened aft he interjected...
and I have done it enough times to know better (like when Timmy sed to Dreg, sumpin' like "oh don't mind Richard, he's skeptical about everything."):arghh::sFun_banghead2::doh:

Idiocy has it's foot in mouth disease.

Never again....I'm:sCo_hmmthink:i might post a little ditty if I can find where I put it though...


Otherwise this ist Timmy checking in to check out.

G'Nytol,

Timmy

[duxrow]

"There is no evidence it was not Rahab's house." That's correct. And there is no evidence we are not just brains living in vats on Uranus.
But that's totally irrelevant because we are talking about the claim that it WAS Rahab's house. There is absolutely no evidence for that claim. To believe it is delusional.

A spiritual House, rather than physical (literal). We aren't only a Temple, but also a House! :thumb:

King David had wanted to build a HOUSE for God, but wasn't permitted because he had been a warring man. 1Chr22. However, he did make preparations by assembling the materials for use by his son Solomon who would be given rest from fighting his enemies.

And Moses verily was faithful in all his HOUSE, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after; 3:6 But Christ as a son over his own house; whose HOUSE are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end. Heb3:5.

Rahab's house was on the wall, Josh2:15, and Joshua "saved" Rahabm, 6:25, because "she hid the messengers".

Ps119:11 "Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee".

Rom15:4 "Whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope".

[duxrow]

:sBo_reflection2:Jesus is the Cornerstone for our House, as well as the firm foundation, so don't be like those who build their House on the sand. The Temple of Solomon had two(2) pillars (named Boaz and Jachin), and now that we have become 'temples', we W A L K on our two legs! :winking0071:

[David M]

I was going to point that out myself. Very few Bible believers are aware of the strange set of commands, dictated by God himself, that are very different than the "Ten Commandments" they are familiar with. This is a HUGE problem because the text plainly states that the words of the second set are supposed to be the same as the words on the first set. And the second set are just plain weird since they include the command not to seethe a kid in its mother's milk.



Which Ten Commandments?



First Tables of Stone (Exodus 20)
("which Moses didst break")




Second Tables of Stone (Exodus 34)
("the words that were on the first")




1. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me.


1. Thou shalt worship no other god (For the Lord is a jealous god).



2. You shall not make for yourself a graven image. You shall not bow down to them or serve them.


2. Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.



3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.


3. The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep in the month when the ear is on the corn.



4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.


4. All the first-born are mine.



5. Honor your father and your mother.


5. Six days shalt thou work, but on the seventh thou shalt rest.



6. You shall not kill.


6. Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, even of the first fruits of the wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end.



7. You shall not commit adultery.


7. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leavened bread.



8. You shall not steal.


8. The fat of my feast shall not remain all night until the morning.



9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.


9. The first of the first fruits of thy ground thou shalt bring unto the house of the Lord thy God.



10. You shall not covet.


10. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk.




Hello Richard
I read in another of your posts recently that you said you had spent years trying to get the Bible to fit together and you could not and that was part of the reason you quit. That must say something about the way you were trying to get it to fit. I see you have given up trying again and keep throwing up obstacles like this to stop me in my tracks.
It is obvious to me when reading both accounts of Moses going up into Mount Sinai that Moses did not spend 40 days and nights just being given the 10 commandments. Much more was said to Moses. In both accounts, Moses is told things in addition to the 10 commandments. It might be pure coincidence that you have found 10 things to write in the right-hand column corresponding to chapter 34 but there is nothing to say these are what was written on the two new stone tablets taken up into the mount by Moses. In addition to all the many things spoken to Moses during the 40 days he was in Mount Sinai the text says; (Gen 34:28) And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments. This in no way infers the text as you have listed are supposed to be replacement for the original 10 commandments and it is telling me that he wrote the original 10 commandments.

Whilst this has confirmed for me that the 10 commandments were written on the two stone tablets, I would question something that Michael Rood said. The point in question has nothing to do with doctrine about which I agree with him and the fact that I do not have to agree with his every word is shown here.
The point I would raise is that Rood says that the two stone tablets that were placed in the Ark of the Covenant were the only examples of God's writing which were written by God's own hand. We might wonder what happened to the fragments of the first two broken tablets and if Moses wrote the second two tablets and these were placed in the Ark, they were not written by God's finger. So this is possibly a small point of disagreement. Can this be resolved? Who is correct. I have not accepted every word of Rood and another example is when he said that a fence and been put right around Mount Sinai by the Saudi's to keep people out. That is why I looked at the satellite pictures and could only see a few miles of fence that stopped people taking the easy path to Mount Sinai. As far as I could see from the aerial pictures, the fence does not go all the way round.
We are all open to exaggeration and that I try to avoid. In getting to the truth we have to be careful not to exaggerate whether that be in support or in opposition to what the Bible tells us.

If what you have presented is one of the obstacles you could not get over, it calls into question your approach to wanting to understand the Bible. It goes to show that your high level of intellect is not much help in analyzing the Bible.

All the best

David

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hello Richard
I read in another of your posts recently that you said you had spent years trying to get the Bible to fit together and you could not and that was part of the reason you quit. That must say something about the way you were trying to get it to fit. I see you have given up trying again and keep throwing up obstacles like this to stop me in my tracks.

Hey there David,

Don't blame me, my friend. I'm just the messenger. These are the things you would see for yourself if you opened your eyes. Case in point: When I first told you about the 32,000 virgins, you said you had never heard or seen anything about them. You asked where they were in the Bible and I told you (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2815-GOD-ON-TRIAL&p=40964#post40964) Numbers 31. Then you said that you still could not find them, even after I told you where to look! Here is what you said:



I could not find reference to the 32,000 women but I looked at the story again in Numbers 31. It is clear that Israel were not without blame and they were a nation easily persuaded to follow after other gods. Hence the men of Israel that were joined to Baalpeor were all slain. It also appears that the Midianites were responsible for bringing a plague on Israel of which 24,000 died.

Look at how you responded. You didn't let yourself think about what was really written. You did not even see what was actually written but rather, you immediately attempted to force the text to fit your preconceived ideas. This is why you remain a believer. You have chosen to ignore or justify anything that doesn't fit your beliefs. If Mormons or Muslims did this you would say they were deluding themselves. Why do you hold yourself to a different standard? Is it not a double standard? Is it not an unfair balance? Is it not unrighteous? Does it lead you into truth?


It is obvious to me when reading both accounts of Moses going up into Mount Sinai that Moses did not spend 40 days and nights just being given the 10 commandments. Much more was said to Moses. In both accounts, Moses is told things in addition to the 10 commandments. It might be pure coincidence that you have found 10 things to write in the right-hand column corresponding to chapter 34 but there is nothing to say these are what was written on the two new stone tablets taken up into the mount by Moses. In addition to all the many things spoken to Moses during the 40 days he was in Mount Sinai the text says; (Gen 34:28) And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments. This in no way infers the text as you have listed are supposed to be replacement for the original 10 commandments and it is telling me that he wrote the original 10 commandments.

Well, that's a very curious interpretation. Here's what the text actually says:
Exodus 34:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest. 2 And be ready in the morning, and come up in the morning unto mount Sinai, and present thyself there to me in the top of the mount. 3 And no man shall come up with thee, neither let any man be seen throughout all the mount; neither let the flocks nor herds feed before that mount. 4 And he hewed two tables of stone like unto the first; and Moses rose up early in the morning, and went up unto mount Sinai, as the LORD had commanded him, and took in his hand the two tables of stone. 5 And the LORD descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the LORD.

Exodus 34:6-26 THE TEN COMMANDMENTS ARE LISTED



Exodus 34:27 And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel. 28 And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments. 29 And it came to pass, when Moses came down from mount Sinai with the two tables of testimony in Moses' hand, when he came down from the mount, that Moses wist not that the skin of his face shone while he talked with him.
That's a continuous narrative that plainly states that those ten commandments were written on those stone tablets. But you reject this! Wow. Is there anything in the Bible that you don't reject? :dizzy:



If what you have presented is one of the obstacles you could not get over, it calls into question your approach to wanting to understand the Bible. It goes to show that your high level of intellect is not much help in analyzing the Bible.

No, this was not one of the problems that led me to reject the Bible. But that's because I tended to ignore problematic passages (as do most believers).

Your suggestion that a "high level of intellect" would not find a problem with it only shows that you do not use your intellect when analyzing the Bible (except to make excuses to force it to fit your preconceived doctrines).

How can you feel confident about the Bible when you have to use the same tricks as Muslims, Mormons, and Scientologists to protect your beliefs from reality?

Despite our difference, it's great to be discussing these things with you.

All the best,

Richard

[David M]

Hello Richard

Good morning David, :tea:

I agree that Paul was probably "well-versed" but that does not justify your claim that he "would have been able to recite the Torah from memory."

Your assertion that I do not "properly understand" is not true. I merely stated the indisputable fact that Paul misquotes the OT. It is not a "language thing." There are cases where the Greek that Paul wrote does not match either the original Hebrew or the Greek LXX. Case in point, in Ephesians 4:8 Paul "quotes" Psalm 68:18 but changes the words around:

Psalm 68:18 Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive: thou hast received gifts for men;

Ephesians 4:8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.

Paul's "quote" says exactly the opposite of the actual verse in the OT.
On the question of whether Paul had fully memorized the Torah is something we do not know for sure so I accept that he might not and retract that which I had come to accept, you must likewise retract from saying he did not. Neither of us can be sure. I give him the benefit of my doubt and you will not. Just as there were those who would have memorized the Torah the same as there are those who memorize the Quran, then it was possible for Paul to have memorized it. It is not essential we believe that Paul could recite the Torah when he was a young student at the feet of Gamaliel. I can accept that he did not and would still claim that Paul's understanding was better than your own.
As for the verses you quote, if there is no possible other reference being referred to, we have one word difference and have the word "gave" instead of the word "received". Since all the other words match, then it begs the question have the translators translated the Hebrew and Greek correctly. Is one or the other incorrect or is there a word that can apply to both without losing the sense of what is being said? This is hardly a point to prove you claim that Paul did not understand the Torah. You deny his study under the renowned tutorship of Gamaliel. It would be like me belittling your degrees and academic achievements. How many times have you misquoted or been misquoted? I think Paul can be allowed the same latitude. Anybody who denigrates Paul's writings and understanding is; (to use the words of M.R.) "an idiot". It goes to show that those who criticize are more unlearned that Paul and shows their own ignorance and lack of understanding.


That's a fascinating topic. The word "Gospel" is used in very different senses in the NT. For example, what was the "Gospel" that the disciples preached when Christ was alive? They knew nothing about his death and resurrection.
Luke 9:6 And they departed, and went through the towns, preaching the gospel, and healing every where.
And then Paul comes along with what he calls "his gospel".
Paul's gospel message is not contradicting the gospel preached by the disciples. The death and resurrection of Jesus is fundamental to supporting the gospel message. Without the death and resurrection of Jesus, the gospel message would have been a lie. The gospel message to be preached by the apostles was not to proclaim the death and resurrection of Jesus but the gospel is to do with the kingdom of God to come and the name of Jesus the Christ. All Paul is doing on occasions is giving us
"the meat" of the word.


My problem with Rood has nothing to do with his lack of academic credentials. My problem with Rood is that he is a blatant LYING freak pretending to be a "Messianic Jewish Rabbi" when in fact he's just another Gentile. My problem with Rood is that he very publicly proclaimed the "end times" was going to happen in the year 2000 and that if he was wrong he would admit to being a false prophet but he's still preaching the same old crap. The problem I have with Rood is that he teaches endless falsehood concerning the actual history of Christianity and he appeals to ignorance and prejudice.
I suggest you list the differences between the history of Christianity Rood teaches and the history of Christianity you teach. I might not agree with Rood if he has got the history wrong, but this does not mean that he has the wrong understanding of God's word. Just as you accept anything said by someone you agree with, I am entitled to accept anything said by anyone else I agree with. I expect there are those who agree with some of the things I say, who will also agree with some of the things Rood teaches because this is what the word of God says. If I find another Rood, I will not hesitate to refer to that person.

Maybe, we should start a thread in which we list all the people we agree are spouting rubbish whether Bible or science related who should be consigned to the rubbish bin and never mentioned again.

As for calling Rood a "LYING freak", I do not regard him anymore a liar than I regard you as a liar. Rood does not claim to be a "Messianic Jewish Rabbi" That is your incorrect assertion and proves you have not listened to everything he has to say. I have listened to to all of his teachings expecting to disagree fundamentally, but with tens of hours of trawling through his teaching, I cannot fault anything of fundamental importance.
Again, re the false prophet proclaiming the end times, Rood has explained how he has been misquoted. We have to be careful that we are not basing our opinion of the evidence of false witnesses and in this case I think you are in danger of that.


I don't know if he was ever a "practicing Baptist minister" but I do know that he was a member of The Way International cult during his formative years. That's when he picked up the fringe doctrines he shares with the Christadelphians.
Rood is an American and comes from Michigan. He has been a truck driver as well as being in the marines. He has obviously been indoctrinated in the Baptist church and it is good that he has realized the error of their teaching and has repented from the lies that he was responsible for promulgating. We can study his book when it is published and see how he has been able to reconcile the four gospels and the Book of the Revelation which he refers to as the 5th Gospel and see what and what not we can agree with.


Rood is a liar and a false prophet. Why do you believe a word he says? That's a rhetorical question of course. I know why you believe Rood. You stated the reason yourself when you said his "conclusions fit with your own."
Rood is open to exaggeration but then are not we all? Calling him a liar puts you in jeopardy are slander and libel. Rood is no more a liar than you are. I wish you would stop this personal attack for what I believe and just stick to correctly understand the Bible as we have it and resolve the errors in translation etc and get to the truth of the message the authors are telling us. We do not have to believe the message, but it behoves us to understand the message as the author intends us to understand. When you do this, you might come to understand the fringe view. How many followers do you have Richard, are you not in a cult movement of your own? All Christian religions are cults so to be part of a cult, I accept I ascribe to some cults more than others.



Your disregard for truth blows my mind. Your entire religion is nothing if not true, yet you have no standards by which to determine truth. Can you give any reason to believe that the very late (13th century!) Hebrew manuscript represents the original Gospel of Matthew? Of course not. There is no evidence supporting that idea and there is much evidence contradicting it. For example, Christians have struggled with the genealogy in Matthew from the beginning. If the "original" didn't have that problem, why is there NO EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND that anyone knew about that solution?
If what you say is the truth the truth will win, but how do I know you are telling me the truth. The fact is there have been problem verses in Matthew and now some of these have been explained away. Now it this Hebrew manuscript was written when you say and it has however resolved the errors that have crept into the KJV from the Greek then that has to be a good thing. How is it that the Hebrew text of Matthew would have been translated from the Greek and has resolved some of the problems. We should be grateful for this and this concerns me more than the actual date these things were written or translated.
The fact that I "blow your mind" tells us something about your mind. My entire beliefs would be nothing if not true; that is why they are true and are not nothing. By what standards are you using to determine what is true? I have not heard that much truth coming from you regarding your understanding of God's word. As I say, it is the message as the author intends us to understand that is important. You have agreed with me on this point before now so why not help me and yourself get to the truth of the message instead of criticizing what I believe. I have as much integrity as you reckon you have for getting to the truth so please concentrate on that and stop this character assassination by what a person believes.

And more significantly, why do you say that God allowed his word to be RADICALLY CORRUPTED? Doesn't that contradict all your claims that it is trustworthy? This is where you logic leads. You contradict your central claims about the Bible being trustworthy.[/QUOTE]
A few errors are easily spotted and overcome or can be left in abeyance until properly resolved. There is enough of God's word to prove that it is trustworthy. I said that I was interested to see the growing number of Messianic Jews. It is interesting that Jews who are renown for not recognizing Jesus and yet wait for a Messiah to come, now see Jesus as the Son of God and the Messiah to come. These Jews recognize that it is God's hand that has brought them back into their own land. They say this is a unbelievable in the sense it is a miracle. It is a miracle the Hebrew language has been revived from what had become a dead language. That has never happened before. Please name another dead language that has been revived and spoken nationally.


I'm familiar with Nehemiah Gordon's strange beliefs. He is not the final authority on anything.
Nehemiah Gordon might not be an authority, but neither are you. This should go without saying. Have you seen or read any of the Gospel of Matthew which has been written in Hebrew. If yes, where did you get to see it and read it. If not, Nehemiah Gordon has an advantage over you and if he is the only one I could ask about it, that makes him an authority and you are not.
As regards strange beliefs, believing in the Torah is not believing in strange beliefs, it is the belief in Torah only that is strange, but then not so strange when we know that as God has said there would be a veil over the spiritual eyes of the Jews which is why many Jews today still do not believe Jesus was the Son of God. Alas the difference between us is that you have like the Jews a veil over your spiritual eyes. Maybe you have no spiritual eyes at all now that you have quit. That means you will never see the spiritual significance of much of what the Bible has to say. That is limiting you fact and logic and thereby you are missing much of the teaching that comes from a study of the stories concerning God's people as has been recorded for our learning and understanding.
This means that if it could be shown to you on a spiritual level that the whole of God's word is harmonious and non-contradictory, you would not accept the Bible as true because this is not a factual proof. You do not accept the establishment of the nation of Israel is a fulfillment of prophecy and therefore because you are more convinced that prophecy was fulfilled by the time of the destruction of the temple and thereby are leaving out much prophecy that has not been fulfilled. No-one came back to me and explained why the splitting of the Mount of Olives should be taken figuratively if it is not accepted as literal prophecy to be fulfilled.

All the best

David

[Charisma]

Hi Richard,


we are talking about the claim that it WAS Rahab's house. There is absolutely no evidence for that claim. To believe it is delusional.

I would really appreciate it if you would stop accusing people who have their own reasons for believing what they believe, of being delusional. Unless you are prepared to leave your home and go and search out evidence yourself, you are faced with an entire world of possibilities of which anything you personally choose to disbelieve, you may disbelieve, solely on the basis that you haven't tested it. At least, that would be reasonable logic.

I have no idea why you trust other scientists who make claims. Or maybe you don't? On what basis would you take their word for anything? How do you know they have actually done the tests they claim to, and got the results they claim to? Actually, you have no way of knowing at all. Yet you seem to believe them if they say they have objective evidence, and they lay it out in a paper with results which seem to show their findings.

Are you delusional for trusting something you've never tested, personally?

Well, if you're not delusional for accepting eye-witness accounts..... then I'm not either.

The account of Rahab's house being discovered and destroyed was news in my lifetime, quite a few years ago. I have no reason to disbelieve it.


Thanks for your earlier post, Richard.


Hey there Charisma,

I find it very difficult to respond. The things you believe look utterly absurd from a rational, factual, point of view. There is no evidence of any kind that Rahab's house has been found. And neither is there any evidence for Noah's flood, let alone his ark. But even if an old boat were found it wouldn't help because there has not been an mass extinction in the last 4000 years.

The thing that seems so crazy to me is that you believe things that have no supporting evidence and reject things that have much supporting evidence. It is that contrast that makes it all seem double crazy. And worse, the justification you give is based on conspiracy theories about dishonest scientists who get "furious" when they discover the truth of the Bible.

I am mystified by how you could justify your extreme skepticism for established scientific facts even as you show no skepticism towards entirely unfounded beliefs about the Bible. Your world seems upside down and backwards to me.

Thanks for this. Seriously. You have summed things up perfectly. Everything was turned upside down by sin, so that Adam's descendants were in his own likeness rather than God's, and one of the benefits of being restored to fellowship with God through the process of acknowledgements and adjustments which are made possible by responding to God's word in His desired measure, is that they (and us) are turned back to the right way up. I am quite encouraged that you can see I'm facing in a different direction from yourself, and that the way I perceive reality is different from you. Of course, that's quite a simplistic way of describing the situation, but no more simplistic than assuming you have such a grasp of spiritual reality, that you can bandy the word 'delusional' around, as if it carries great weight and value.

Jesus chooses a strong turn of phrase (or three) to describe that difference:


Luke 16:15
And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men;

but God knoweth your hearts:

for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I agree that Paul was probably "well-versed" but that does not justify your claim that he "would have been able to recite the Torah from memory."

Your assertion that I do not "properly understand" is not true. I merely stated the indisputable fact that Paul misquotes the OT. It is not a "language thing." There are cases where the Greek that Paul wrote does not match either the original Hebrew or the Greek LXX. Case in point, in Ephesians 4:8 Paul "quotes" Psalm 68:18 but changes the words around:

Psalm 68:18 Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive: thou hast received gifts for men;

Ephesians 4:8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.

Paul's "quote" says exactly the opposite of the actual verse in the OT.
On the question of whether Paul had fully memorized the Torah is something we do not know for sure. Just as there were those that did the same as there are those who memorize the Quran, then it was possible for Paul have memorized it. It is not essential we believe that Paul could recite the Torah when he was a young student at the feet of Gamaliel. I can accept that he did not and would still claim that Paul's understanding would have been better than your own.

Since when did this become a competition between Paul's understanding and mine? Who is judge of what Paul understood? He's not here do explain himself.

The issue is between your understanding of Paul and my understanding of Paul. That's what we are discussing. And how do you propose we solve it? If we cannot agree about foundational issues like logic and hermeneutics we'll just be talking past each other and never come to any mutual understanding.

And you did not answer my point about Paul misquoting the OT. It's clear he did. How do you understand that?




That's a fascinating topic. The word "Gospel" is used in very different senses in the NT. For example, what was the "Gospel" that the disciples preached when Christ was alive? They knew nothing about his death and resurrection.Luke 9:6 And they departed, and went through the towns, preaching the gospel, and healing every where.
And then Paul comes along with what he calls "his gospel".
Paul's gospel message is not contradicting the gospel preached by the disciples. The death and resurrection of Jesus is fundamental to supporting the gospel message. Without the death and resurrection of Jesus, the gospel message would have been a lie. The gospel message to be preached by the apostles was not to proclaim the death and resurrection of Jesus but the gospel is to do with the kingdom of God to come and the name of Jesus the Christ. All Paul is doing on occasions is giving us "the meat" of the word.

OK - So you believe that the "Gospel" preached by the disciples was basically the "Good News" that the "Kingdom of God" was coming, but they didn't have anything to say about how that Gospel would be fulfilled or what a person should do such as believing in Jesus for the forgiveness of sin? If that's the case, it sounds like the word "Gospel" has two very distinct meanings. Now that I look at it, the use of "Gospel" in Matthew is very limited. It only occurs five times, and never with the meaning of "believe in Jesus for the forgiveness of your sins":


Matthew 4:23 And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people.
Matthew 9:35 And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people.
Matthew 11:5 The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them.
Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
Matthew 26:13 Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her.

I find an open-eyed reading of the Bible to be very enlightening. Paul shows no awareness of the earthly ministry of Jesus whatsoever. He never quotes from the four Gospels. He never mentions Mary, the empty tomb, or any of the events in the life of Christ other than the mere fact that he was born, crucified, buried, and resurrected. But when I was a Christian, I read Paul's writings in light of the Gospels without realizing that I was creating an image that doesn't actually exist in the Bible at all. All this to say that it seems quite clear that the meaning of "Gospel" to Paul was radically different than the meaning we see in Matthew. In Matthew, it was a declaration of a "soon" coming Kingdom of God. In Paul, it was the declaration that personal salvation from sin could be achieved by believing in Jesus:

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

It looks like two very different Gospels to me.



I suggest you list the differences between the history of Christianity Rood teaches and the history of Christianity you teach. I might not agree with Rood if he has got the history wrong, but this does not mean that he has the wrong understanding of God's word. Just as you accept anything said by someone you agree with, I am entitled to accept anything said by anyone else I agree with. I expect there are those who agree with some of the things I say, who will also agree with some of the things Rood teaches because this is what the word of God says. If I find another Rood, I will not hesitate to refer to that person.

I've posted more than enough information to prove that Rood is radically untrustworthy in general. He LIES about being a Jew. He dresses in funny robes to make himself look like some sort of Rabbi/Priest. He is a monumental FALSE PROPHET who predicted end time prophecies would be fulfilled in the year 2000. Why do you believe a word he utters? The only reason I can see is because he happens to confirm your personal beliefs. I don't think that's a good reasons for believing anyone.



Maybe, we should start a thread in which we list all the people we agree are spouting rubbish whether Bible or science related who should be consigned to the rubbish bin and never mentioned again.

Better it would be to give evidence as I have done with Rood. At some point, believers should begin to seek truth rather than unsupported religious dogmas like their personal beliefs about the Quran, the book of Mormon, or the Bible. This is what seems so strange to me. How can believers have any confidence that they are right if they merely believe without any evidence? Or worse, if they believe contrary to good evidence? This is what we are talking about in the thread How Beliefs Resist Change - Christianity and Cognitive Science (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3616-How-Beliefs-Resist-Change-Christianity-and-Cognitive-Science). The science of delusion should be the MOST IMPORTANT THING for any believer since they can see that all other believers (who disagree with them) are deluded. How then can they be confident that they are not equally deluded?



As for calling Rood a "LYING freak", I do not regard him anymore a liar than I regard you as a liar. Rood does not claim to be a "Messianic Jewish Rabbi" That is your incorrect assertion and proves you have not listened to everything he has to say. I have listened to to all of his teachings expecting to disagree fundamentally, but with tens of hours of trawling through his teaching, I cannot fault anything of fundamental importance.
Again, re the false prophet proclaiming the end times, Rood has explained how he has been misquoted. We have to be careful that we are not basing our opinion of the evidence of false witnesses and in this case I think you are in danger of that.

Rood most definitely calls himself a "Messianic Jewish Rabbi." He frequently refers to himself as a Jew. Here is what he said on his own website in the year 2001 (from the Wayback Machine source (http://web.archive.org/web/20010602123143/http://6001.com/teaching.htm)):
Messianic rabbi (teacher) Michael Rood will take you on a journey through the Feasts of the LORD. An ancient Hebrew feast, complete with Mediterranean food, candlelight, and Hebrew music await those who participate in this biblical, historic, and culinary adventure.
And on this page (http://web.archive.org/web/20021002045845/http://6001.com/seminar.htm) on his own site, Rood reproduces two newspaper articles about him that explicitly state he is a MESSIANIC JEW:
Michael Rood is a Messianic Jew who has devoted his life to teaching about the fulfilled prophecies of the Messiah from a Jewish perspective. He lives as a true Levite, owning no property and having no inheritance (Numbers 18:23), surviving only on the tapes and videos he sells during his presentations, which he believes is as things should be (Deuteronomy 26:12). He has literally devoted his entire life to his mission. Following impromptu interviews on WMCU and WAFG (his original purpose in coming to South Florida was to work on a movie), his latest presentation was Thursday and Friday, May 10 and 11, at the Holiday Inn in Plantation.
Remember, this is from his own website that was recorded by the Wayback Machine. Liars can run. Liars can change their stories. But they cannot hide the facts from the internet. And here is more text from his own website:
Rood is the author of The Mystery of Iniquity, The Astronomically and Agriculturally Corrected Biblical Hebrew Calendar, and forth-coming, The Feasts of the Lord and their Prophetic Fulfillment and The Great Secret of Solomon's Temple. He describes himself as a Messianic Jew who has devoted his life to teaching about the fulfilled prophecies of the Messiah from a Jewish perspective.
Rood is a professional liar, false prophet, conman, and charlatan. And why is it so easy for him? Because he targets gullible believers who don't bother checking the facts. The man predicted the end times would start in the year 2000! Yet just like Hal Lindsey and Harold Camping, believers continue to believe no matter how much evidence proves them wrong. That's the nature of RELIGIOUS BELIEF and it is why religious belief is fundamentally delusional.

Rood has been making outrageously FALSE and ABSURD claims for decades. He makes money off gullible believers. For example, he claimed all sorts of biblical archaeological artifacts had been found, such as the Ark of the Covenant:
Michael Rood then unmasks the prophetic significance of the most important archaeological find in the history of mankind: The Ark of the Covenant. This presentation will give you an understanding of the Ark's relationship to the confirmation of the Covenant, of which the prophet Daniel spoke, the nature and timing of the Abomination of Desolation, and the revealing of the Antichrist. Learn the details of the witness that God gave of His Son, that will be the irrefutable testimony to the world, that Yahshua (Jesus) is the Messiah. "For if we have received the witness of men, the witness of God is greater." (1 John 5:8)
One final note: Did you know that he believes Satan is a FALLEN ANGEL who rebelled against God? Here is what he says on his site:
The Mystery of Iniquity is a final warning to America and the world as to what is impending and cannot be avoided, regardless of our personal desires or plans for the future. The book documents the legal ramifications of Satan' original rebellion, his authority as god of this age, his rebellious stand on earth with Antichrist, and this final judgment at the throne of Jesus Christ. This is how the long war against God will play out in our lifetime. (This is Michael's classic book - distributed worldwide!) This is a MUST have item!
I thought you said folks who believed things like that didn't have any understanding of Scripture at all? :lmbo:




I don't know if he was ever a "practicing Baptist minister" but I do know that he was a member of The Way International cult during his formative years. That's when he picked up the fringe doctrines he shares with the Christadelphians.
Rood is an American and comes from Michigan. He has been a truck driver as well as being in the marines. He has obviously been indoctrinated in the Baptist church and it is good that he has realized the error of their teaching and has repented from the lies that he was responsible for promulgating. We can study his book when it is published and see how he has been able to reconcile the four gospels and the Book of the Revelation which he refers to as the 5th Gospel and see what and what not we can agree with.

Rood was indoctrinated in THE WAY, INTERNATIONAL cult that "just happens" to share many of the same fringe doctrines as the Christadelphians.




Rood is a liar and a false prophet. Why do you believe a word he says? That's a rhetorical question of course. I know why you believe Rood. You stated the reason yourself when you said his "conclusions fit with your own."
Rood is open to exaggeration but then are not we all? Calling him a liar puts you in jeopardy are slander and libel. Rood is no more a liar than you are. I wish you would stop this personal attack for what I believe and just stick to correctly understand the Bible as we have it and resolve the errors in translation etc and get to the truth of the message the authors are telling us. We do not have to believe the message, but it behoves us to understand the message as the author intends us to understand. When you do this, you might come to understand the fringe view. How many followers do you have Richard, are you not in a cult movement of your own? All Christian religions are cults so to be part of a cult, I accept I ascribe to some cults more than others.

I have proven that Rood is a liar. I have given lots of evidence. Rood himself said that he should be rejected as a false prophet if his predictions about the year 2000 failed. Well, they failed, but he's still selling his crap to gullible people.

I am always amazed that believers tend to protect false teachers and to warn those who expose them that they are in danger of "slander." What do think a shepherd is supposed to do? Let the wolves eat the sheep?

Why do you accept anything Rood says? I just don't understand. I see through his phony baloney in a nanosecond. It slaps me in the face. If you can't see the truth when it is served up on a silver platter, how could you hope to ever discover it yourself?

All the best,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,


we are talking about the claim that it WAS Rahab's house. There is absolutely no evidence for that claim. To believe it is delusional.

I would really appreciate it if you would stop accusing people who have their own reasons for believing what they believe, of being delusional. Unless you are prepared to leave your home and go and search out evidence yourself, you are faced with an entire world of possibilities of which anything you personally choose to disbelieve, you may disbelieve, solely on the basis that you haven't tested it. At least, that would be reasonable logic.

I have no idea why you trust other scientists who make claims. Or maybe you don't? On what basis would you take their word for anything? How do you know they have actually done the tests they claim to, and got the results they claim to? Actually, you have no way of knowing at all. Yet you seem to believe them if they say they have objective evidence, and they lay it out in a paper with results which seem to show their findings.

Are you delusional for trusting something you've never tested, personally?


Hey there Charisma,

I'm really glad you are pursuing the question of science and belief because this is an area in which professional Christian defenders have deceived many people. There is no kind of equivalence between science and putting faith in religious dogmas. I do not trust scientific claims without reason. I have proven many of the results myself. I am educated in Mathematics and Physics. I was a teaching assistant and led experiments where we reproduced standard scientific results such as measuring the speed of light, the speed of sound, the strength of gravity and so forth. By their very nature, scientific claims can be TRUSTED because they have been TESTED by many observers. They are supported by evidence. That's the nature of science. It is the opposite of religion.

I do not have to take any scientists on their "word." First, I have basic scientific knowledge that I have tested and established myself. Second, I can look around at the world of cell phones, medicine, and airplanes and SEE that the technology is based on science that works. It's validity is demonstrated every day all around me. The idea that there is some sort of massive conspiracy of all scientists to disprove the Bible is the PRIMARY DELUSION being pushed by the liars who are defending Christianity. Why do I speak so strongly? For the same reason that Christ called such people SONS OF THE DEVIL. They are evil. They deceive people and cause them to believe a lie. Think about this! Christians are supposed to worship the TRUTH in Jesus Christ. How is it that they are so easily deceived with such blatant lies? They have deceived you with their insane conspiracy theory that scientists have discovered the Bible is true but hate God so much that they hide the evidence. They have deceived you so deeply that you can't even see that the entire modern world of technology PROVES they are lying. If science were untrustworthy, how is it that you computer works sufficiently to post on this forum?


Well, if you're not delusional for accepting eye-witness accounts..... then I'm not either.

There are no "eyewitness accounts." The Gospels are anonymous. You don't know who wrote them, when they were written, or if they were written by eyewitnesses. So obviously, you are not basing your faith on any "eyewitnesses." You simply believe what you want to believe, just like Mormons, Muslims, and Scientologists.



The account of Rahab's house being discovered and destroyed was news in my lifetime, quite a few years ago. I have no reason to disbelieve it.

You have every reason to disbelieve it, and not one reason to believe it. That's why I said it was delusional. How could anyone identify it as belonging to Rahab?




Hey there Charisma,

I find it very difficult to respond. The things you believe look utterly absurd from a rational, factual, point of view. There is no evidence of any kind that Rahab's house has been found. And neither is there any evidence for Noah's flood, let alone his ark. But even if an old boat were found it wouldn't help because there has not been an mass extinction in the last 4000 years.

The thing that seems so crazy to me is that you believe things that have no supporting evidence and reject things that have much supporting evidence. It is that contrast that makes it all seem double crazy. And worse, the justification you give is based on conspiracy theories about dishonest scientists who get "furious" when they discover the truth of the Bible.

I am mystified by how you could justify your extreme skepticism for established scientific facts even as you show no skepticism towards entirely unfounded beliefs about the Bible. Your world seems upside down and backwards to me.
Thanks for this. Seriously. You have summed things up perfectly. Everything was turned upside down by sin, so that Adam's descendants were in his own likeness rather than God's, and one of the benefits of being restored to fellowship with God through the process of acknowledgements and adjustments which are made possible by responding to God's word in His desired measure, is that they (and us) are turned back to the right way up. I am quite encouraged that you can see I'm facing in a different direction from yourself, and that the way I perceive reality is different from you. Of course, that's quite a simplistic way of describing the situation, but no more simplistic than assuming you have such a grasp of spiritual reality, that you can bandy the word 'delusional' around, as if it carries great weight and value.

Jesus chooses a strong turn of phrase (or three) to describe that difference:


Luke 16:15
And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men;

but God knoweth your hearts:

for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.


You didn't get my point. If you are totally skeptical about anything that contradicts ISLAM and you only believe something if it confirms ISLAM, how then could you ever get free from that false religion?

How is it possible that you can't see that people should not be deluded by false beliefs? Or do you think that I should become a Muslim? Or a Scientologist? Is that what you are really trying to tell me? That there is no truth? That I should believe anything I want without any evidence?

How is it possible that you can't see that there are CULTS in the world filled with deluded people?

All the best,

Richard

[David M]

Hello Richard


Hey there David,

Don't blame me, my friend. I'm just the messenger. These are the things you would see for yourself if you opened your eyes. Case in point: When I first told you about the 32,000 virgins, you said you had never heard or seen anything about them. You asked where they were in the Bible and I told you (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2815-GOD-ON-TRIAL&p=40964#post40964) Numbers 31. Then you said that you still could not find them, even after I told you where to look! Here is what you said:



Look at how you responded. You didn't let yourself think about what was really written. You did not even see what was actually written but rather, you immediately attempted to force the text to fit your preconceived ideas. This is why you remain a believer. You have chosen to ignore or justify anything that doesn't fit your beliefs. If Mormons or Muslims did this you would say they were deluding themselves. Why do you hold yourself to a different standard? Is it not a double standard? Is it not an unfair balance? Is it not unrighteous? Does it lead you into truth?

So you wish to keep dragging up this topic in order to do me down. So what if I had not stopped to fully concentrate on the detail in my time of reading the Bible. I have not done as you have done and gone out of my way to find things to object to. You will see from the date of this post it was not long after joining this forum. I have come to realize since that time that our feet are held to the fire and I have not backed away from giving you an explanation. You have the advantage over me of having access to the database which you can easily search for quotes about who said what. As you know I have not copy and pasted set replies and since this topic was first raised it was read a number of time and every time I read it I come to my own conclusion and do not read into what you do. I have not come across a word by word exposition from you on the passages we have been discussing and I challenged you on Jude and you did not take up the challenge to give a word by word account. It might be the only way to do Bible study. I get the impression you are more intent on attacking the person behind the message. I did not want to have to mention this topic again. I am not keeping count of the number of times I disagree with your comments. When you claim that we do not live by rules and then say concerning you logic of love that "this is categorically a rule" and then you say later that you did not mean it was to be taken as a rule, then that to me shows that you are not without flaw. We should both agree that Christianity is a mess and that it should be junked in favour of agreeing what is the truth of the message. You have got all sorts of information from men looking for answers and have failed to reason correctly for yourself. Rood has and I admire him for that.
If I have to deal with Mormons then I will deal with them against what the Bible says and not the Book of Mormon. Unless the Book of Mormon agrees witht the Books of the Bible that we have in the KJV then that is my basis for not agreeing with them. It is that simple and does not have to be taken far before disagreement will be found. I have yet to see the impact Rood makes. I doubt he will convert skeptics who do not want to know God or what God has told us. If Rood has success in waking people up as he hsa done to some and they have since seen the error and lies within their own chucrch and are bringing about change in their church ior else quitting and moving over to a ministry that agrees with Rood, then that has to say something. You have to have to have your own understanding of what God's angels are and whether in light of the evidence they cannot sin. I do not want to be presented with what other "christian" religions teach. I only want you understanding and how you have derived it. I have debunked some of your evidence from the unreliable book that the Book of Enoch has become and althought I said I never wanted to mention this book again, nevertheless it serves as a reminder that we have to use reliable sources and therefore that must be part of our agreement on the reliability of sources before we reach agreement as to what the Bible means if we refer to other sources. I am going to continue the thread re the paradox and take up your offer to start afresh, yet I think it won't be long before we come to an abrupt halt.




Well, that's a very curious interpretation. Here's what the text actually says:
Exodus 34:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest. 2 And be ready in the morning, and come up in the morning unto mount Sinai, and present thyself there to me in the top of the mount. 3 And no man shall come up with thee, neither let any man be seen throughout all the mount; neither let the flocks nor herds feed before that mount. 4 And he hewed two tables of stone like unto the first; and Moses rose up early in the morning, and went up unto mount Sinai, as the LORD had commanded him, and took in his hand the two tables of stone. 5 And the LORD descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the LORD.

Exodus 34:6-26 THE TEN COMMANDMENTS ARE LISTED



Exodus 34:27 And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel. 28 And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments. 29 And it came to pass, when Moses came down from mount Sinai with the two tables of testimony in Moses' hand, when he came down from the mount, that Moses wist not that the skin of his face shone while he talked with him.
That's a continuous narrative that plainly states that those ten commandments were written on those stone tablets. But you reject this! Wow. Is there anything in the Bible that you don't reject? :dizzy:
I looked at those words and a lot was said to Moses which we can assume he wrote down or had to memorize from what God told him. The Ten Commandments were written again, but it does not follow that what God has said before Exodus 34:28 is what Moses written down. Verse 28 clearly says he wrote down the 10 commandments which I take to be the 10 commandments originally given to Moses. Where it says "write these words" you do not know whether Moses wrote those words on papyrus. The two tables of stone were to be placed in the ark. The covenant that was also part of the Torah which is found in Leviticaus for example was not written down on stone tablets. I say again. what do you think Moses was doing for 40 days if not just fasting for 40 days? You want to read into this text what you want to read and dismiss anyother possibility. The text clearly says that Moses wrote down the 10 commandments and we know what the 10 commandments were and they are not what is recorded in Exodus 34:10 - 26. You are reading more than is there to claim this is what Moses wrote on the two tables of stone.



No, this was not one of the problems that led me to reject the Bible. But that's because I tended to ignore problematic passages (as do most believers).

Your suggestion that a "high level of intellect" would not find a problem with it only shows that you do not use your intellect when analyzing the Bible (except to make excuses to force it to fit your preconceived doctrines).
Did all your conclusions start of a preconceived ideas or did you reach a conclusion and then as things came along they either fitted into what you thought was true or else you rejected them. How do you know I started off with preconceived ideas. I have had to come to my own conclusions by accepting or rejecting what I have been told and what I ahve read. I do believe the same as some others and I am not an island in that sense. You have admitted you could not make the Bible fit and therefore you have quit. You criticize me for making enough of it fit to get a coherent and consistent message and that is the basis for the truth by which I have to listen to new ideas. It is exactly as the Bereans did and for which they were commended "they examined the scriptures" and we know what scriptures are referred to. The gospels do not contradict the scriptures just as Jesus did not come to take away from the law, he came to fulfill it and he renewed the covenant which God's people had broken and renewed it in his own blood thereby doing away with the sacrifical law but he did not change the whole law and the 10 commandments are still in force. If you come along to me and do as the Pharisees did an add an eleventh law or do as the Samaritans have done and changed the 10th commandment (so I am told ) to say; "thou shalt worship on Mount Gerrazim" then I would have to reject that as not being in accord with God's word. The moment we start working on resolving our differences on the way we understand passages neither of us is going to get anywhere other than remain to what we already accept.


How can you feel confident about the Bible when you have to use the same tricks as Muslims, Mormons, and Scientologists to protect your beliefs from reality?
I do not use tricks and I do not intentionally do anything to be dishonest. Prove me to be dishonest or else accept that I am searching for truth with integrity. If I promulgate a lie that I have accepted in good faith as truth, I will desist immediately from continuing to promulgate a lie once it has been shown to me and where I can accept my error. In the thread I began 'Jesus is not God' (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2803-Jesus-is-not-God) I have given my understanding based on the word of God. I have responded to all the verses put to me by those who say differently. Taking everything into consideration then on balance I stick with my conclusion which is no mine alone but is the same as others who have come to the same conclusion and done so by examining all of God's word and balanced the book and on balance have also decided that Jesus was born a man and therefore was a man whom God said would bear His title and be given the power and authority that God has in order to do God's will on earth and Jesus will restore the kingdom on earth in readiness to handback to his Heavenly Father. I have explained that the saints (those who are resurrected) to be in the kingdom, we are told will be like Jesus in body (not in status or with his power available to him). The saints will be of the same nature/substance as Jesus which even in the kingdom cannot be the same substance as God who is spirit and who is ONE. I will argue with Muslims and Mormons with the Bible as the basis. If God is ONE then the Quran and the Book of Mormon has to agree with the Bible. If it does not, those books have to be rejected because they are not talking about the same God. The Quran talks about a different Jesus to the Jesus of the Bible. There will never be unity between the different faiths. There is disunity within the Christian church and that is because wolves have entered the church and perverted the word of God which we have been warned. Jude wrote; ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
That is what we have to agree on; what was the faith that was delivered unto the saints? Is what the majority of Christian churches teaching or are they teaching a watered down version where anything goes as long as a person attends church and donates generously. It is eay to spot which churches are complying with what is condisered to be the faith that was delivered unbto the saints. If you could do that, then you would be on the right track.


Despite our difference, it's great to be discussing these things with you.
As much as I feel aggravated for having to keep going over ground we have covered and would prefer to get down to discussing the word and coming to a correct understanding that we can share (if that is possible) I appreciate the platform on which I can state my case and I do derive benefit from these discussions for though I am more open to receiving new explanations, when considering those explanations in light of what I already know, it is having the effect of strengthenin my faith instead of diminishing it. So your continued challenges to me and to make the Bible appear to be erroneous and unreliable is having the reverse effect to that you would expect and therefore you have my thanks for being the reason to strengthen my faith instead of weaken to your way of thinking.

All the best,

David

[David M]

Hey there Charisma,

I'm really glad you are pursuing the question of science and belief because this is an area in which professional Christian defenders have deceived many people. There is no kind of equivalence between science and putting faith in religious dogmas. I do not trust scientific claims without reason. I have proven many of the results myself. I am educated in Mathematics and Physics. I was a teaching assistant and led experiments where we reproduced standard scientific results such as measuring the speed of light, the speed of sound, the strength of gravity and so forth. By their very nature, scientific claims can be TRUSTED because they have been TESTED by many observers. They are supported by evidence. That's the nature of science. It is the opposite of religion.

I do not have to take any scientists on their "word." First, I have basic scientific knowledge that I have tested and established myself. Second, I can look around at the world of cell phones, medicine, and airplanes and SEE that the technology is based on science that works. It's validity is demonstrated every day all around me. The idea that there is some sort of massive conspiracy of all scientists to disprove the Bible is the PRIMARY DELUSION being pushed by the liars who are defending Christianity. Why do I speak so strongly? For the same reason that Christ called such people SONS OF THE DEVIL. They are evil. They deceive people and cause them to believe a lie. Think about this! Christians are supposed to worship the TRUTH in Jesus Christ. How is it that they are so easily deceived with such blatant lies? They have deceived you with their insane conspiracy theory that scientists have discovered the Bible is true but hate God so much that they hide the evidence. They have deceived you so deeply that you can't even see that the entire modern world of technology PROVES they are lying. If science were untrustworthy, how is it that you computer works sufficiently to post on this forum?

Hello Charisma

I do not want to steal your thunder against Richard, but the reading today from Paul's letter to Timothy sums up the scientific oppositon to believers.

The same type of discussion was going on in Paul's day and so from Paul's own experience he could advise young Timothy. It makes no difference that the sum of all scientific knowlege in those days was extremely limited by today's standard, and the arguments against the the gospel and the teaching that comes from God was just the same. Paul closes his first letter to Timothy with this advice;
1 Timothy 6:
20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith.

"Vain babblings and opposition of science" that is what is going on now. But is also warning against false science or bad science. I think much of science is good as we cannot argue with discoveries like electricity and the advancement of technology which we enjoy and we are able to communicate on this forum, but the science of Evolution and the Big Bang is flawed. Richard can argue in opposition as much as he likes, but there are good scientists, who will not agree to the methods used for dating the fossil record and the age of living things. We can accept the earth is old, we do not know the time gap between verses one and two of Genesis 1 and so the earth can be billions of years old and so the dirt by which everything has been made is billions of years old. From there on, the fossil record does not account for the Creation and the different kinds just as there is no explanation for languages that have no common root. The theory of Evolution is attempting to expalin how everything started off and branched out and is all linked so that there are no separate kinds. Despite all the efforts to piece it together, the explanation is not satisfactory to the skeptical enquiring mind.

There is nothing new under the sun, God knows exactly what is going to happen, His wisdom is not recognized for having had these words of wisdom contained in His word written down centuries ago. Despite the advances of science the arguments go on. There is very little left for science to discover, man has found out nearly everything there is to know except that which he will never know and that which remains the province of God. Man has looked as far as he can into outerspace and has looked as far as he can into the makeup of matter; even to the discovery of the building blocks of life and yet such alot remains not understood. Man in my view therefore has neared the limit of his scientific understanding at the same time as man's rule on earth is coming to an end and will be superceded by God's rule. We are about to see great changes coming on the earth which could set the world back centuries in terms of the technology that will be lost.

Science can never find out all there is to know for God has declared that the things man cannot find out belong to God. Man is in a closed system in which he can never get outside the same as God is outside our system. Man is striving to get to the equivalent of God to be able to create atoms and therefore be in control of his environment. Until man can create one atom and become as God then whatever man achieves will fall short of the desired goal. The Preacher writes; "all is vanity and vexation of spirit" (Eccl 1:17) Therefore, as we know, to know God brings us peace and so let the (godless) scientists experience the vexation of their spirit as they strive for the impossible.

All the best

David

[David M]

Hello Richard


Since when did this become a competition between Paul's understanding and mine? Who is judge of what Paul understood? He's not here do explain himself.

The issue is between your understanding of Paul and my understanding of Paul. That's what we are discussing. And how do you propose we solve it? If we cannot agree about foundational issues like logic and hermeneutics we'll just be talking past each other and never come to any mutual understanding.
Logic does not have to come into understanding what we think Paul understood. The only logical conclusion we can come to from Paul's education is; that since Paul was raised as a Pharisee and spent years studying the Torah from his youth. It is expected he would have known the contents of the Hebrew scriptures very well and especially the Torah. He might have even understood it better than his peers for as it he writes (Galatians 1:14); And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.



And you did not answer my point about Paul misquoting the OT. It's clear he did. How do you understand that?
Yes I did, though my answer might not have been to your satisfaction. Here is what I wrote:

As for the verses you quote, if there is no possible other reference being referred to, we have one word difference and have the word "gave" instead of the word "received". Since all the other words match, then it begs the question have the translators translated the Hebrew and Greek correctly. Is one or the other incorrect or is there a word that can apply to both without losing the sense of what is being said? This is hardly a point to prove you claim that Paul did not understand the Torah. You deny his study under the renowned tutorship of Gamaliel. It would be like me belittling your degrees and academic achievements. How many times have you misquoted or been misquoted? I think Paul can be allowed the same latitude. Anybody who denigrates Paul's writings and understanding is; (to use the words of M.R.) "an idiot". It goes to show that those who criticize are more unlearned that Paul and shows their own ignorance and lack of understanding.




OK - So you believe that the "Gospel" preached by the disciples was basically the "Good News" that the "Kingdom of God" was coming, but they didn't have anything to say about how that Gospel would be fulfilled or what a person should do such as believing in Jesus for the forgiveness of sin? If that's the case, it sounds like the word "Gospel" has two very distinct meanings. Now that I look at it, the use of "Gospel" in Matthew is very limited. It only occurs five times, and never with the meaning of "believe in Jesus for the forgiveness of your sins":


Matthew 4:23 And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people.
Matthew 9:35 And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people.
Matthew 11:5 The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them.
Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
Matthew 26:13 Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her.

I find an open-eyed reading of the Bible to be very enlightening. Paul shows no awareness of the earthly ministry of Jesus whatsoever. He never quotes from the four Gospels. He never mentions Mary, the empty tomb, or any of the events in the life of Christ other than the mere fact that he was born, crucified, buried, and resurrected. But when I was a Christian, I read Paul's writings in light of the Gospels without realizing that I was creating an image that doesn't actually exist in the Bible at all. All this to say that it seems quite clear that the meaning of "Gospel" to Paul was radically different than the meaning we see in Matthew. In Matthew, it was a declaration of a "soon" coming Kingdom of God. In Paul, it was the declaration that personal salvation from sin could be achieved by believing in Jesus:

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

It looks like two very different Gospels to me.
As we know the Gospel writers wrote to different audiences with different perspectives. This does not mean they preached different gospels. Exactly what was revealed to Abraham to let hi see the day of Jesus. It must have been in connection with the High Priest after the order of Melchizadek, who makes intercession for us. An infant can accept the simple truth of the Gospel on trust without having to go into a detailed analysis of events. The Jews were already accustomed to the need to sacrifice animals for the forgiveness of sins and so presumably many might have thought their sins already forgiven. We have to first believe Jesus died and rose from the dead. After this, if we want to understand why, then that is when we look for the answers in scripture. Saving from our sins and being saved from eternal death to live in a kingdom upon this earth with God accepted as the Creator and ruler is all good news and the Bible is consistent on this message.



I've posted more than enough information to prove that Rood is radically untrustworthy in general. He LIES about being a Jew. He dresses in funny robes to make himself look like some sort of Rabbi/Priest. He is a monumental FALSE PROPHET who predicted end time prophecies would be fulfilled in the year 2000. Why do you believe a word he utters? The only reason I can see is because he happens to confirm your personal beliefs. I don't think that's a good reasons for believing anyone.
I have never come across a post of yours on this forum. Not until a couple of months ago through searching for information did I come across Rood's video on Sodom and Gomorrah.
As I said in my last reply to you (or in another thread where I replied to you) I have listened to almost all of his talks to see on what points of doctrine I might differ with him. He has explained the way that what he said was taken out of context. You are siding with those who misunderstood what he said and are now reporting lies; for you to trust their words makes you a FALSE WITNESS!!




Better it would be to give evidence as I have done with Rood. At some point, believers should begin to seek truth rather than unsupported religious dogmas like their personal beliefs about the Quran, the book of Mormon, or the Bible. This is what seems so strange to me. How can believers have any confidence that they are right if they merely believe without any evidence? Or worse, if they believe contrary to good evidence? This is what we are talking about in the thread How Beliefs Resist Change - Christianity and Cognitive Science (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3616-How-Beliefs-Resist-Change-Christianity-and-Cognitive-Science). The science of delusion should be the MOST IMPORTANT THING for any believer since they can see that all other believers (who disagree with them) are deluded. How then can they be confident that they are not equally deluded?
The only way out of self-delusion is to reason these things out. Maybe at some point the reasoning stops and people will remain delusioned. You might have a general argument/reason for thinking everyone is delusioned, but then that is an assumption. You ought to be finding out the few who are not delusioned. Before you make a judgement as to whether anyone is delusioned about what the Bible says; we must first agree what it says. If you agree with the Bible more than the Quran then maybe we can agree to forget the Quran and let those people alone who are in their delusion it is the word of God.
You do not need to generalize with me about religions; my first and foremost aim is to reason from the Bible and the scriptures (E & OE) and agree what they mean and what they have to teach us. Unless we can do that and we believe in the same God and the same Jesus, then we might never get anywhere.



Rood most definitely calls himself a "Messianic Jewish Rabbi." He frequently refers to himself as a Jew. Here is what he said on his own website in the year 2001 (from the Wayback Machine source (http://web.archive.org/web/20010602123143/http://6001.com/teaching.htm)):
Messianic rabbi (teacher) Michael Rood will take you on a journey through the Feasts of the LORD. An ancient Hebrew feast, complete with Mediterranean food, candlelight, and Hebrew music await those who participate in this biblical, historic, and culinary adventure.
And on this page (http://web.archive.org/web/20021002045845/http://6001.com/seminar.htm) on his own site, Rood reproduces two newspaper articles about him that explicitly state he is a MESSIANIC JEW:
Michael Rood is a Messianic Jew who has devoted his life to teaching about the fulfilled prophecies of the Messiah from a Jewish perspective. He lives as a true Levite, owning no property and having no inheritance (Numbers 18:23), surviving only on the tapes and videos he sells during his presentations, which he believes is as things should be (Deuteronomy 26:12). He has literally devoted his entire life to his mission. Following impromptu interviews on WMCU and WAFG (his original purpose in coming to South Florida was to work on a movie), his latest presentation was Thursday and Friday, May 10 and 11, at the Holiday Inn in Plantation.
All I know so far is that he has moved his residence to Israel and wants to produce his teaching videos in Israel. He travels alot and has studios in Charlotte and so much of his time is still spent in America. It is OK if he does not own property; property can be a tie restricting complete freedom. As for him being a Levite, that is new to me. I have not heard that from his lips. He does not pretend to do as the Levites did. Whilst Rood takes us back to the Hebrew roots of Christianity and like the Hebrews once did; keep the feasts, so Rood by keeping a form of the feasts is showing us the way God intended his chosen people to live and these feasts were to kept as reminders. Not only were the feasts holy day, hence the word; "holiday", they were times of enjoyment and rest. Maybe we ought to be looking for that way of life again.



Remember, this is from his own website that was recorded by the Wayback Machine. Liars can run. Liars can change their stories. But they cannot hide the facts from the internet. And here is more text from his own website:
Rood is the author of The Mystery of Iniquity, The Astronomically and Agriculturally Corrected Biblical Hebrew Calendar, and forth-coming, The Feasts of the Lord and their Prophetic Fulfillment and The Great Secret of Solomon's Temple. He describes himself as a Messianic Jew who has devoted his life to teaching about the fulfilled prophecies of the Messiah from a Jewish perspective.
Rood is a professional liar, false prophet, conman, and charlatan. And why is it so easy for him? Because he targets gullible believers who don't bother checking the facts. The man predicted the end times would start in the year 2000! Yet just like Hal Lindsey and Harold Camping, believers continue to believe no matter how much evidence proves them wrong. That's the nature of RELIGIOUS BELIEF and it is why religious belief is fundamentally delusional.
As I have said; Rood has not said in any of his video teachings or programmes, which I have listened to, that he is a Jew. His wife is a Jew who has Jewish relations living in Israel. Rood does not proclaim to be a Rabbi in the Jewish sense. If "Rabbi" means "teacher"; then he is a teacher and he is teaching us what it meant to be an Hebrew at the time God made His covenant with the Hebrews at Sinai. As for Rood's interpretation of the scriptures and the Bible overall, then I find little to disagree with. I can learn things from him as I do other contributors to this forum. You would do better to listen to him directly and get the words directly from his own mouth before leaping on every possible item you can find in print which is the work of others before you start calling him a liar.



Rood has been making outrageously FALSE and ABSURD claims for decades. He makes money off gullible believers. For example, he claimed all sorts of biblical archaeological artifacts had been found, such as the Ark of the Covenant:
Michael Rood then unmasks the prophetic significance of the most important archaeological find in the history of mankind: The Ark of the Covenant. This presentation will give you an understanding of the Ark's relationship to the confirmation of the Covenant, of which the prophet Daniel spoke, the nature and timing of the Abomination of Desolation, and the revealing of the Antichrist. Learn the details of the witness that God gave of His Son, that will be the irrefutable testimony to the world, that Yahshua (Jesus) is the Messiah. "For if we have received the witness of men, the witness of God is greater." (1 John 5:8)
One final note: Did you know that he believes Satan is a FALLEN ANGEL who rebelled against God? Here is what he says on his site:
The Mystery of Iniquity is a final warning to America and the world as to what is impending and cannot be avoided, regardless of our personal desires or plans for the future. The book documents the legal ramifications of Satan' original rebellion, his authority as god of this age, his rebellious stand on earth with Antichrist, and this final judgment at the throne of Jesus Christ. This is how the long war against God will play out in our lifetime. (This is Michael's classic book - distributed worldwide!) This is a MUST have item!
I thought you said folks who believed things like that didn't have any understanding of Scripture at all? :lmbo:
Rood has been receiving contriubtions to help his ministry and has also been swindled by co-workers from much of the money the ministry received. Where do you get your facts to say that Rood is personally ammassing a private fortune from his ministry? His wife is contributting much time and resources to the 'Lydia Fund' helping disadvantaged Jews in Israel. How can you say that he has been making huge fortunes from the events he has organized? Unless you have direct contact with Rood and can speak from personal experience, I should keep your thoughts private. Your claims, once again, tell more about the person making the claims than the person the claim is about.



Rood was indoctrinated in THE WAY, INTERNATIONAL cult that "just happens" to share many of the same fringe doctrines as the Christadelphians.
Good for Rood. What you call fringe could be the fundamental truths of doctrine that have been perverted by mainstream Christianity of which you might have been a part. It is a pity you have taken the opposite path leading away from God. Whether anything can be said which you accept to make you "repent" once more and do a reversal, only time will see. I can only wonder how much consideration you give to those things which are simple to understand that you could accept for yourself and see that the adopted creeds by the major christian faiths are wrong. You ought to be siding with fringe ideas and agreeing with those who do not follow the masses and are in some ways contratians. Jesus has given you a clue in that the masses are not going to follow the narrow way that leads to the kingdom. Why is it so narrow and why is it that the narrow way is not adhered to? These are the questions you should be answering for yourself.



I have proven that Rood is a liar. I have given lots of evidence. Rood himself said that he should be rejected as a false prophet if his predictions about the year 2000 failed. Well, they failed, but he's still selling his crap to gullible people.
There you go again with your proof; your proof is based on rubbish and lies. You are a false witness and not to be believed. I would tone down you libelous comments or else tar yourself with the same brush.


I am always amazed that believers tend to protect false teachers and to warn those who expose them that they are in danger of "slander." What do think a shepherd is supposed to do? Let the wolves eat the sheep?
I am not a follower of Rood and I would endorse anyone who speaks according to God's word and backs it up from God's word. I will give the same endorsement of anyone who speaks according to what the prophets of Israel were told by God to speak to His people, and we should also listen to the greater prophet; Jesus of whom God told us to listen.


Why do you accept anything Rood says? I just don't understand. I see through his phony baloney in a nanosecond. It slaps me in the face. If you can't see the truth when it is served up on a silver platter, how could you hope to ever discover it yourself?
Perhaps it is because you have only spared a nanosecond of your time to assess what Rood has to say, and is the reason for your own false conclusion. When you have spent at least 40 hours listening to his every word, then you might be better informed as to what he actually teaches. Your resentment of Rood is the same as you have against all Christians and you abonned their ship to drown in your own twisted interpretation of God's word or have hung on to some of their twisted interpretations. If I appear twisted from your perspective, it is because you are already looking from your twisted point of view. It is ironical, I know, that we each see the others position as twisted. By my asserting to be a "brother" of Christ, I do not want to be regarded by you as being a Christian and therefore being labelled along with the masses. I have always been hoping that your free thinking would lead you to finding your own truth of God's word instead of promoting the false ideas that have sprung up in Christianity. Pagan worship is what Rood is against and the pagan ideas that have crept into Christianity. You ought not to be arguing with those who dounce the false teachings. If you do not recognize the false teaching and cannot discern the truth of God's word from fiction of men, then you have a problem

All the best,

David

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I've posted more than enough information to prove that Rood is radically untrustworthy in general. He LIES about being a Jew. He dresses in funny robes to make himself look like some sort of Rabbi/Priest. He is a monumental FALSE PROPHET who predicted end time prophecies would be fulfilled in the year 2000. Why do you believe a word he utters? The only reason I can see is because he happens to confirm your personal beliefs. I don't think that's a good reasons for believing anyone.
I have never come across a post of yours on this forum. Not until a couple of months ago through searching for information did I come across Rood's video on Sodom and Gomorrah.

As I said in my last reply to you (or in another thread where I replied to you) I have listened to almost all of his talks to see on what points of doctrine I might differ with him. He has explained the way that what he said was taken out of context. You are siding with those who misunderstood what he said and are now reporting lies; for you to trust their words makes you a FALSE WITNESS!!

What are you talking about? I posted the proof in post #62 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3631-The-great-flood&p=52952#post52952) of this thread, the post you are answering! See below.

And you can't call me a "false witness" if I accurately quote his words, and provide links to the source so you can confirm the evidence.




Rood most definitely calls himself a "Messianic Jewish Rabbi." He frequently refers to himself as a Jew. Here is what he said on his own website in the year 2001 (from the Wayback Machine source (http://web.archive.org/web/20010602123143/http://6001.com/teaching.htm)):
Messianic rabbi (teacher) Michael Rood will take you on a journey through the Feasts of the LORD. An ancient Hebrew feast, complete with Mediterranean food, candlelight, and Hebrew music await those who participate in this biblical, historic, and culinary adventure.
And on this page (http://web.archive.org/web/20021002045845/http://6001.com/seminar.htm) on his own site, Rood reproduces two newspaper articles about him that explicitly state he is a MESSIANIC JEW:
Michael Rood is a Messianic Jew who has devoted his life to teaching about the fulfilled prophecies of the Messiah from a Jewish perspective. He lives as a true Levite, owning no property and having no inheritance (Numbers 18:23), surviving only on the tapes and videos he sells during his presentations, which he believes is as things should be (Deuteronomy 26:12). He has literally devoted his entire life to his mission. Following impromptu interviews on WMCU and WAFG (his original purpose in coming to South Florida was to work on a movie), his latest presentation was Thursday and Friday, May 10 and 11, at the Holiday Inn in Plantation.

All I know so far is that he has moved his residence to Israel and wants to produce his teaching videos in Israel. He travels alot and has studios in Charlotte and so much of his time is still spent in America. It is OK if he does not own property; property can be a tie restricting complete freedom. As for him being a Levite, that is new to me. I have not heard that from his lips. He does not pretend to do as the Levites did. Whilst Rood takes us back to the Hebrew roots of Christianity and like the Hebrews once did; keep the feasts, so Rood by keeping a form of the feasts is showing us the way God intended his chosen people to live and these feasts were to kept as reminders. Not only were the feasts holy day, hence the word; "holiday", they were times of enjoyment and rest. Maybe we ought to be looking for that way of life again.

It doesn't matter what you hear from his "lips" if he lies about his past! :doh:

Do you believe everything any one says merely because it "comes from his lips"? What kind of insanity is that? Rood left a record on the internet. You can check it for yourself. I quoted Rood's own website where he claimed to be a "messianic rabbi." Now there is one mistake in my statement. I used the wrong tense when I said "Rood most definitely calls himself a "Messianic Jewish Rabbi." I should have used the past tense in reference to the word "rabbi." But the point remains the same. Rood has DELIBERATELY DECEIVED HIS AUDIENCE by pretending to be Jewish when he is not. Whether he still does this or did this in the videos you watched I don't know. But that doesn't matter because I have given proof that he has done it in the past.

Your assertion that he "does not pretend to do as the Levites did" means nothing because I gave evidence from his own website where he claimed exactly that.

You are making yourself look like a gullible cult member when you don't bother to even check any of the reliable evidence that is freely available on the internet. The Wayback machine shows what he said on his own website. The fact that he now covers it up is just more evidence of his deception.




Remember, this is from his own website that was recorded by the Wayback Machine. Liars can run. Liars can change their stories. But they cannot hide the facts from the internet. And here is more text from his own website:
Rood is the author of The Mystery of Iniquity, The Astronomically and Agriculturally Corrected Biblical Hebrew Calendar, and forth-coming, The Feasts of the Lord and their Prophetic Fulfillment and The Great Secret of Solomon's Temple. He describes himself as a Messianic Jew who has devoted his life to teaching about the fulfilled prophecies of the Messiah from a Jewish perspective.
Rood is a professional liar, false prophet, conman, and charlatan. And why is it so easy for him? Because he targets gullible believers who don't bother checking the facts. The man predicted the end times would start in the year 2000! Yet just like Hal Lindsey and Harold Camping, believers continue to believe no matter how much evidence proves them wrong. That's the nature of RELIGIOUS BELIEF and it is why religious belief is fundamentally delusional.
As I have said; Rood has not said in any of his video teachings or programmes, which I have listened to, that he is a Jew. His wife is a Jew who has Jewish relations living in Israel. Rood does not proclaim to be a Rabbi in the Jewish sense. If "Rabbi" means "teacher"; then he is a teacher and he is teaching us what it meant to be an Hebrew at the time God made His covenant with the Hebrews at Sinai. As for Rood's interpretation of the scriptures and the Bible overall, then I find little to disagree with. I can learn things from him as I do other contributors to this forum. You would do better to listen to him directly and get the words directly from his own mouth before leaping on every possible item you can find in print which is the work of others before you start calling him a liar.

I know that Rood does not claim to be a rabbi anymore. And I believe him when he says he was only using that word in its denotative sense of "teacher" since he didn't capitalize it on his webpage, though I think he was banking on most folks not noticing that so they would think of him as a "Jewish rabbi" so he could have a more authoritative air. None of this refutes anything I wrote. My statement that he presented himself as a "Messianic rabbi" stands. I have proven it by quoting his own words from his own website. You need to acknowledge this fact. Second, his whole "shtick" is to present himself as an authority on "Hebrew roots." He's playing you and all the other folks who gullibly fall for his whole charade as he prances around in his pseudo-Levitical robe and beard.




Rood has been making outrageously FALSE and ABSURD claims for decades. He makes money off gullible believers. For example, he claimed all sorts of biblical archaeological artifacts had been found, such as the Ark of the Covenant:
Michael Rood then unmasks the prophetic significance of the most important archaeological find in the history of mankind: The Ark of the Covenant. This presentation will give you an understanding of the Ark's relationship to the confirmation of the Covenant, of which the prophet Daniel spoke, the nature and timing of the Abomination of Desolation, and the revealing of the Antichrist. Learn the details of the witness that God gave of His Son, that will be the irrefutable testimony to the world, that Yahshua (Jesus) is the Messiah. "For if we have received the witness of men, the witness of God is greater." (1 John 5:8)
One final note: Did you know that he believes Satan is a FALLEN ANGEL who rebelled against God? Here is what he says on his site:
The Mystery of Iniquity is a final warning to America and the world as to what is impending and cannot be avoided, regardless of our personal desires or plans for the future. The book documents the legal ramifications of Satan' original rebellion, his authority as god of this age, his rebellious stand on earth with Antichrist, and this final judgment at the throne of Jesus Christ. This is how the long war against God will play out in our lifetime. (This is Michael's classic book - distributed worldwide!) This is a MUST have item!
I thought you said folks who believed things like that didn't have any understanding of Scripture at all? :lmbo:
Rood has been receiving contriubtions to help his ministry and has also been swindled by co-workers from much of the money the ministry received. Where do you get your facts to say that Rood is personally ammassing a private fortune from his ministry? His wife is contributting much time and resources to the 'Lydia Fund' helping disadvantaged Jews in Israel. How can you say that he has been making huge fortunes from the events he has organized? Unless you have direct contact with Rood and can speak from personal experience, I should keep your thoughts private. Your claims, once again, tell more about the person making the claims than the person the claim is about.

I am amazed at how you believe almost anything Rood utters. How long have you been following him? No wonder his coworker (who he took to court) said he was a cult leader!

This is what I have learned about folks with religious delusions. They are RADICALLY SKEPTICAL about plain facts that are well confirmed, and UTTERLY GULLIBLE about blatant falsehoods told by religious "authorities" like Rood who have no evidence supporting their claims.




Rood was indoctrinated in THE WAY, INTERNATIONAL cult that "just happens" to share many of the same fringe doctrines as the Christadelphians.
Good for Rood.

No, it's not so "Good for Rood" because he OMITS this part from his life story and says rather that he was a minister in "mainstream Christianity" for twenty years before starting his own ministry Hebrew roots gig. It's all LIES. He made up a false past, and you gullibly believe anything he says. You have nothing but HIS OWN WORD that directly contradicts known facts. What FOOL would believe him merely on the basis of what he currently says?

HAS ROOD EVER ADMITTED TO HIS FALSE DOOMSDAY PROPHECY???? It's all recorded. But he's LYING to you by withholding the truth, and you don't care enough to even check the facts.

Amazing. :doh:

Your write as if you are a long time member of his cult. I am simply stunned.




I have proven that Rood is a liar. I have given lots of evidence. Rood himself said that he should be rejected as a false prophet if his predictions about the year 2000 failed. Well, they failed, but he's still selling his crap to gullible people.
There you go again with your proof; your proof is based on rubbish and lies. You are a false witness and not to be believed. I would tone down you libelous comments or else tar yourself with the same brush.

That's not true. I PRESENTED THE EVIDENCE from Rood's own site! You have not refuted a word of the evidence presented. You are simply IGNORING the evidence. That is the fast path to delusion.



I am not a follower of Rood and I would endorse anyone who speaks according to God's word and backs it up from God's word. I will give the same endorsement of anyone who speaks according to what the prophets of Israel were told by God to speak to His people, and we should also listen to the greater prophet; Jesus of whom God told us to listen.

Well that's good to hear, but you sure do write like a devoted lifetime follower of Rood as the near infallible guru-prophet of God. And that's just SO WEIRD because you are so radically skeptical about things that can be proven with much evidence. It's like you live in an alternate "mirror" universe where up is down and black is white. We can't agree about the fact the 1 + 2 = 3 or even the law of non-contradiction! It's pure madness trying to discuss things with you. You deny that the sky is blue and insist that the earth is flat.




Why do you accept anything Rood says? I just don't understand. I see through his phony baloney in a nanosecond. It slaps me in the face. If you can't see the truth when it is served up on a silver platter, how could you hope to ever discover it yourself?
Perhaps it is because you have only spared a nanosecond of your time to assess what Rood has to say, and is the reason for your own false conclusion. When you have spent at least 40 hours listening to his every word, then you might be better informed as to what he actually teaches.
I've spent a lot more than a nanosecond looking at his material. It's just that it took only a nanosecond to see through it. That's why I'm so utterly mystified that you, or anyone with a passing familiarity with the Bible, could fall for any of it. He just makes up crap and declares it to be the only possible interpretation. Case in point: He asserts that the scroll sealed with seven seals in Rev 5 is the "title deed" to planet earth. What a LOAD OF MALARKEY! The Bible doesn't say a word about any "title deed." He just made that up. And you believe him?



Your resentment of Rood is the same as you have against all Christians and you abonned their ship to drown in your own twisted interpretation of God's word or have hung on to some of their twisted interpretations. If I appear twisted from your perspective, it is because you are already looking from your twisted point of view. It is ironical, I know, that we each see the others position as twisted. By my asserting to be a "brother" of Christ, I do not want to be regarded by you as being a Christian and therefore being labelled along with the masses. I have always been hoping that your free thinking would lead you to finding your own truth of God's word instead of promoting the false ideas that have sprung up in Christianity. Pagan worship is what Rood is against and the pagan ideas that have crept into Christianity. You ought not to be arguing with those who dounce the false teachings. If you do not recognize the false teaching and cannot discern the truth of God's word from fiction of men, then you have a problem

I don't "resent Rood" I just wretch at the stench of religious charlatans like him. You can't imagine the irony I see in all this. I've been trying to reason with you for a year on this forum and you have resisted every effort at rationality. And now I watch you swallow truckloads of bullshit without any critical thought whatsoever. The contrast is just too stark - it blows my mind.

I see no "irony" in that we see each other's views as "twisted" because there is no symmetry between our two views. I have lucid LOGIC and incontrovertible EVIDENCE on my side, whereas all you have are irrational presuppositions and baseless opinions.

Rood's false teachings about "pagan Christianity" is one of the things that really irritates me. He is radically ignorant of the actual history of Christianity - JUST LIKE YOU ARE. I have exposed your ignorance many times and you just brush it off and say "so what?" because you don't think that the opinions of anyone else matter, even when they are the people who established the religion you follow! This is the essence of most cults - GROSS IGNORANCE passed off as "secret knowledge" (that's what Rood brags about - God revealed to him "secrets" about the "end times." )

What a load of malarkey.

Richard

[David M]

What a load of malarkey.

Richard

I agree. Since you have not repented but have turned your back on God there appears to be no chance you will ever repent from that position. There is no point me raking up your past to find out all you have said and all that you have got wrong when you were a believer. The fact that I came across that old post in which you said the Book of Enoch should not be trusted, it is clear how your views have changed. Should I now only believe what comes out of your mouth now or that of 10 years ago?

I give the same latitude to Rood and I am only saying what I have heard from his own lips in the videos and I have heard the odd slip but that is probably on some of his earlier videos. I have no intention of researching his past to rake up mud like you will use.

The most important thing for me is how people understand God's word. I find the approach Rood takes to understanding God's word is superior to yours. I find Rood's explanations better than yours and I think in understanding God's word, Rood is a better scholar than you are. Rood has spent 40 years of his life working on putting the Chronology of the gospels together. All you can do is use the apparent discrepancies of the gospels reason to reject the whole of the word of God. Rood recognized the error of his Baptist religion and repented. Therefore, Rood once believed what you did, but instead of find the truth and repent, you have not found it and walked away.

Your sense of logic and science does not lead you to find God. I do not ignore science totally, and reserve judgment on scientific results which are not as absolute as you think. If my logic is not equal to yours, my logic leads me to God and if that is not logical to you, so be it.

I won't hold your past blunders against you; only the mistakes I think you are making now.

All the best

David

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I agree. Since you have not repented but have turned your back on God there appears to be no chance you will ever repent from that position. There is no point me raking up your past to find out all you have said and all that you have got wrong when you were a believer. The fact that I came across that old post in which you said the Book of Enoch should not be trusted, it is clear how your views have changed. Should I now only believe what comes out of your mouth now or that of 10 years ago?

The fact that my views changed implies nothing about whether my current view is right or wrong. How is it possible that you could fail to understand something this elementary?

The fact that my views changed implies that I LEARNED SOMETHING that caused my views to change.

Learning is a GOOD thing David. You really should try it sometime. If you do, you will find that MANY of your views will often change. If your views have not changed much in the last ten years, then you are probably lost in some deep delusion. This is because we are all born into this world IGNORANT and it takes a long time to learn things. And during the process of learning, we learn a mixture of truth and falsehood. Some of the falsehood is deliberately taught by deceivers for various reasons (money, power) and much is just because they themselves are ignorant or perhaps deceived by yet others. And so it goes - the greatest challenge in this life is to LEARN and the first sign of LEARNING is that our opinions change.

Which of my opinions should you believe, you ask? You should believe whatever has the best evidence. Case in point: What was the REASON I rejected the idea that the Bible teaches angels had sex with women? I've explained this to you over and over and over again, yet you continue to show no understanding. It seems like you simply cannot LEARN. I gave you this answer last May (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3037-Ensignia-Mark-of-the-Beast&p=43949#post43949) (over ten months ago) and then repeated last December (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3410-Can-God-s-Angels-in-Heaven-be-trusted&p=51191#post51191), and repeated it again just two days ago (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3647-O-A-C-____-A-C-A-C&p=53255#post53255). Please READ and and try to UNDERSTAND my answer this time. Here it is for the FOURTH TIME:

===== FROM MAY 10, 2012================================




Hello Richard

You have changed your opinions about the Bible, I cannot see why you would want to change your opinion of the Book of Enoch unless to support your current ideas. For the reasons you state in your post below, I am not entertaining the idea of quoting from the Book of Enoch. I have conceded the one verse which is obvious but as to uncertain scriptural truths, I am staying well clear. It is sufficient to know the erroneous message it contains.


23rd June 2007
Hey Bob,

I was beginning to follow the same line of thought, but now I see it as backwards. Enoch is obviously not Scripture. As mentioned by Rose, it has a "totally different feel and flavor" about it. It has all the earmarks of an error ridden man-made book. It professes all sorts of "secret knowledge" such as the exact names of the leading angels that fell and"all the secrets of the heavens ... the secrets of the lightning and of the thunder, and the secrets of the winds ... and the secrets of the clouds and dew" etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
So given the fact that we KNOW that 1 Enoch can not be trusted, it would be pure folly for us to infer anything from it that is not explicitly stated in Scripture. This means that we can not conclude that angels and humans produced children, since there is no unambiguous witness to that idea in the Bible.


This is the end of this story as far as the Book of Enoch is concerned. I am sticking with your original conclusion.

All the best,
David
Hey there David, :yo:

I'm really glad you found that quote from my old post. I wrote that five years ago when I was still a fundamentalist Christian. It shows how I reasoned from the Bible much in the same way as you do now. And I must say that my reasoning would be valid if we began with the presupposition that the Bible is true. This is a perfect example of how our presuppositions affect our reasoning. I was willing to reject evidence for no reason other than the fact that it contradicted my presupposition! If I were a proud man, I guess this might make me feel embarrassed. But as a man humbled by the fact that he knows he's been wrong about many things, this example encourages me because I see that I am making progress and though I was ignorant because of false presuppositions I was ultimately able to free my mind and accept the evidence.

So now I understand why you simply cannot, under any circumstances, accept the evidence in this case. I once was where you are now. Acceptance of the evidence would mean that Jude agreed with an erroneous book and is therefore in error. This would imply that the Bible contains error, and that contradicts your presupposition.

But this brings up a really thorny question. How do you know your presupposition about the Bible is true? How could you tell if you were wrong? What if you were a Muslim and presumed the Koran is the Word of God and rejected any evidence that contradicted that fact? How would you free yourself from your false beliefs?

So now the question is this: Why do you presume that the Bible has no error? You can't say it is a conclusion based on evidence if you reject all evidence that contradicts your presupposition! That would be a textbook case of circular reasoning. So I presume you will say you believe it through "faith" but that's just saying you believe it because you believe it, and that doesn't help ensure you are not trapped in a false religion. It's exactly what Muslims and Mormons would say.

I think this question hits at the heart of it all: Do you have an intellectual foundation for your faith, or is objectively indistinguishable from all the false religions?

Great chatting my friend. You've really gone the distance and have proven yourself a "worthy opponent." :thumb:

All the best,

Richard


DO YOU UNDERSTAND the answer? It was not my opinion about the book of Enoch that changed. It was my PRESUPPOSITION about the BIBLE. I still reject the book of Enoch as false. That has not changed. Why don't you understand such simple logic? I've explained it to you over an over and over again.

And now we can see why you cannot understand. You are holding to the presupposition that the Bible is true. But that presupposition is absolutely unjustified. It wouldn't even help if the Bible has some fulfilled prophecies, because that wouldn't prove that all the books in the canon were true. And we know that there are false canons because the Catholic canon is different. So we know that there is no reason to just believe the canon is correct. But even if the canon were correct, that would not justify the presupposition that every word in every book is correct. And there are many other problems with your presupposition. For example, the Bible contains DEMONSTRABLE errors, and contradictions. Therefore, your presupposition is demonstrably false.

Now think about this. You have a double whammy here. First, you have not justified your presupposition and second, I have shown it is false. Yet you will hold to your presupposition. I can't see how this could be called anything but a strong delusion. It's also known as "invincible ignorance." No reason, no matter how strong, could penetrate your delusion. It is invincible.

I truly want all the best for you David. But come on man, you've got to start trying ... I can't do your learning for you.


Richard

[David M]

DO YOU UNDERSTAND the answer? It was not my opinion about the book of Enoch that changed. It was my PRESUPPOSITION about the BIBLE. I still reject the book of Enoch as false. That has not changed. Why don't you understand such simple logic? I've explained it to you over an over and over again.
You brought in the Book of Enoch as evidence to support your view (or the view you think the authors had). If you are now telling me you believe the Book of Enoch as it now is, is false, then you should not have introduced it in support of the claim you were making. What you are doing is confusing people. I have demostrated your own inconsistency in my replies to you and it is evident for all to see. I am letting others be the judge and if all want to keep silent, so be it.


And now we can see why you cannot understand. You are holding to the presupposition that the Bible is true. But that presupposition is absolutely unjustified. It wouldn't even help if the Bible has some fulfilled prophecies, because that wouldn't prove that all the books in the canon were true. And we know that there are false canons because the Catholic canon is different. So we know that there is no reason to just believe the canon is correct. But even if the canon were correct, that would not justify the presupposition that every word in every book is correct. And there are many other problems with your presupposition. For example, the Bible contains DEMONSTRABLE errors, and contradictions. Therefore, your presupposition is demonstrably false.
And I have said you are holding the presupposition that the Bible is false. That is your opinion now, whether you think that is justified or not. You will argue with that presupposition in mind. Your stance is no different to mine except you are on the opposite side of the fence.


Now think about this. You have a double whammy here. First, you have not justified your presupposition and second, I have shown it is false. Yet you will hold to your presupposition. I can't see how this could be called anything but a strong delusion. It's also known as "invincible ignorance." No reason, no matter how strong, could penetrate your delusion. It is invincible.
No, you have not shown it to be false, just just keep claiming it to be false. I have found you contradicting yourself on more than one occassion and you will deny it. I shall leave all these things for others to judge.


I truly want all the best for you David. But come on man, you've got to start trying ... I can't do your learning for you.
and neither can I do your learning. You are as obstinate in your views as I am in mine. That is what our learning has brought us to. I see you having exactly the same arguments with others and that is why I keep reading the same replies from you. If I fail to read your posts from now on, it is because I have heard it all from you before. When I reply to someone else's post, I do not expect to have it hijacked by you to keep making your own assertions which you must have repeated hundreds of times on this forum. We do not learn anything by treading over the same ground and repeating the same words. I will see you in a new thread discussing new ideas.

All the best

David

[L67]

I give the same latitude to Rood and I am only saying what I have heard from his own lips in the videos and I have heard the odd slip but that is probably on some of his earlier videos. I have no intention of researching his past to rake up mud like you will use.

The most important thing for me is how people understand God's word. I find the approach Rood takes to understanding God's word is superior to yours. I find Rood's explanations better than yours and I think in understanding God's word, Rood is a better scholar than you are. Rood has spent 40 years of his life working on putting the Chronology of the gospels together. All you can do is use the apparent discrepancies of the gospels reason to reject the whole of the word of God. Rood recognized the error of his Baptist religion and repented. Therefore, Rood once believed what you did, but instead of find the truth and repent, you have not found it and walked away.



David how can you have such disregard for the truth? This proves you don't care one bit about the truth you claim to seek. You are only interested in confirming your bias. If you would take the time to research you would see that Michael Rood is only out to make a buck and will say anything to accompish that.


Someone else summed it up nicely. It's all been documented. Trimm is self destructing as well. The plagiarism issues, along with his scam [stealing money from people who never received their ordered and paid for HRVs]; and his split with his "right hand men", not to mention his adultery issues, and other lies and deceptions have hit the fan, so to speak. Trimm also openly teaches kabbalah [Jewish mysticism] and claims inspiration of non-canonical books which he is "translating" [his great contribution, he thinks :hammer: ]. His begging for money "to save my home" through it all, hits the web almost daily. Pretty sad mess

http://www.seekgod.ca/roodbreakup.htm

http://areallyrudeawakening.com/

[Richard Amiel McGough]

David how can you have such disregard for the truth? This proves you don't care one bit about the truth you claim to seek. You are only interested in confirming your bias. If you would take the time to research you would see that Michael Rood is only out to make a buck and will say anything to accompish that.


Someone else summed it up nicely. It's all been documented. Trimm is self destructing as well. The plagiarism issues, along with his scam [stealing money from people who never received their ordered and paid for HRVs]; and his split with his "right hand men", not to mention his adultery issues, and other lies and deceptions have hit the fan, so to speak. Trimm also openly teaches kabbalah [Jewish mysticism] and claims inspiration of non-canonical books which he is "translating" [his great contribution, he thinks :hammer: ]. His begging for money "to save my home" through it all, hits the web almost daily. Pretty sad mess

http://www.seekgod.ca/roodbreakup.htm

http://areallyrudeawakening.com/
Thanks for the confirmation and the links L67. There's more than enough info out there to prove that Rood is a charlatan. But I can't tell if he's only into this to make money - he may be truly deluded. He made all sorts of claims about God revealing secret knowledge to him which was the basis of his failed prediction of the end times starting in Sept 1999 (if I recall correctly). He also invented his own "corrected astronomical Biblical calendar" that he uses as the basis of his predictions. So he could be more like Harold Camping who also invented his own "Biblical calender" to predict the end times and sincerely believed he was led by God to understand that the rapture would happen on May 21, 2011 ... and made over a HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS in the process. But he didn't spend it on "himself" by living luxuriously. No, he lived a "humble" life even as he used all the money to declare himself (implicitly) to be the only person on the planet speaking directly for God Almighty. He said that he could be wrong only if the Bible was wrong. I smell the same stench of arrogance and deception coming from Michael Rood.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

You brought in the Book of Enoch as evidence to support your view (or the view you think the authors had). If you are now telling me you believe the Book of Enoch as it now is, is false, then you should not have introduced it in support of the claim you were making. What you are doing is confusing people. I have demostrated your own inconsistency in my replies to you and it is evident for all to see. I am letting others be the judge and if all want to keep silent, so be it.

My opinion about the book of Enoch has not changed. You have not demonstrated any inconsistency. You are simply confused by what I meant when I said the book of Enoch was "false." I was talking about it's content - the mythology it contains is not true. I was not saying it is false "as it is now" whereas it was "true" in the past. I was not talking about the book being different now than it used to be. I never said anything like that. That was YOUR IDEA! You are confusing yourself over your own words. You are the one who introduced the idea that the book of Enoch we now have may be different than the one that Jude quoting. You made up that idea in your effort to protect your presupposition that the Bible is true.

Now get this clear. You have not demonstrated any inconsistency in anything I've written. When I say the book of Enoch is "false" I'm talking about its content, just like when I say things in the Bible are false (e.g. there was no Adam and Eve). I am not saying that the book of Enoch "as it is now" is different than it was when Jude quoted it.

Man! Your confusion runs deep.




And now we can see why you cannot understand. You are holding to the presupposition that the Bible is true. But that presupposition is absolutely unjustified. It wouldn't even help if the Bible has some fulfilled prophecies, because that wouldn't prove that all the books in the canon were true. And we know that there are false canons because the Catholic canon is different. So we know that there is no reason to just believe the canon is correct. But even if the canon were correct, that would not justify the presupposition that every word in every book is correct. And there are many other problems with your presupposition. For example, the Bible contains DEMONSTRABLE errors, and contradictions. Therefore, your presupposition is demonstrably false.
And I have said you are holding the presupposition that the Bible is false. That is your opinion now, whether you think that is justified or not. You will argue with that presupposition in mind. Your stance is no different to mine except you are on the opposite side of the fence.

I do not presume anything about the truth or falsehood of the Bible. I have explained this to you many times. You just don't learn. Some things in the Bible are true, some are false, some are confused. I make no presuppositions about this matter.

My stance is radically different than yours. It is absurd to PRESUME that everything in the Bible is true. You have no justification for a wild presupposition like that. There is no evidence supporting it and much evidence contradicting it.

From whom did you first learn this dogma? And why do you believe it? I have explained that your reasons are fallacious. Why didn't you answer my proof? Here it is again:
You are holding to the presupposition that the Bible is true. But that presupposition is absolutely unjustified. It wouldn't even help if the Bible has some fulfilled prophecies, because that wouldn't prove that all the books in the canon were true. And we know that there are false canons because the Catholic canon is different. So we know that there is no reason to just believe the canon is correct. But even if the canon were correct, that would not justify the presupposition that every word in every book is correct. And there are many other problems with your presupposition. For example, the Bible contains DEMONSTRABLE errors, and contradictions. Therefore, your presupposition is demonstrably false.
It would be good if you answered this. It explains why your presupposition is irrational.



No, you have not shown it to be false, just just keep claiming it to be false. I have found you contradicting yourself on more than one occassion and you will deny it. I shall leave all these things for others to judge.

Now you are babbling like a madman. You have NEVER found me contradicting myself! Not once! Yet I have PROVEN over and over and over again that you directly contradict your own words.

But I understand why you might think I contradicted myself because your logic is RADICALLY CONFUSED as I've show dozens of times, and again above where you said that I was "inconsistent" concerning the book of Enoch.



and neither can I do your learning. You are as obstinate in your views as I am in mine. That is what our learning has brought us to. I see you having exactly the same arguments with others and that is why I keep reading the same replies from you. If I fail to read your posts from now on, it is because I have heard it all from you before. When I reply to someone else's post, I do not expect to have it hijacked by you to keep making your own assertions which you must have repeated hundreds of times on this forum. We do not learn anything by treading over the same ground and repeating the same words. I will see you in a new thread discussing new ideas.

Again, you are making a false equivalence. I am "obstinate" about nothing but the facts that can be easily proven as I have done over and over and over again. You and I have nothing in common in this matter. You hold to DOGMAS. I have no dogmas.

I have proven that you IGNORED the evidence I presented. Yet you said you answered, but you did not. So if you want to delude yourself - go ahead. I can't stop you.

Your posts are filled with gross confusion about elementary things. You have REFUSED to answer simple questions. For example, I quoted your own words and showed how you directly contradict yourself, and you IGNORED MY POST. That's why I've been repeating it. But you continue to ignore it. If you think that's a valid reason to continue ignoring YOUR OWN WORDS then you are utterly lost.

Here is the proof. It's just one of the many attempts where I've tried to reason with you. But you have REFUSED to answer this. It contains a quote of YOUR OWN WORDS. You need to answer it:



So Richard, you are going to give up and not continue with the fresh start that you offered in the thread; Can God's Angels be trusted? (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3410-Can-God-s-Angels-in-Heaven-be-trusted/page8)

I have felt like quitting having seen us to go round in circles. I have explained that I am not accepting your wording. It is not the basic equations of logic I do not understand. Unless we can agree the wording of the paradox then it is clear we shall not find agreement on anything else we said about the matter. As I have explained, the paradox is based on Jesus saying; "Thy will be done as it is (done) in Heaven". Then we have the verse of Peter which say; "the angels that sinned", and concerning the same angels, Jude wrote; "the angels which kept not their first estate". A correct understanding of "angels" which in this case are humans removes any apparent contradiction about understanding the workings of God's Angels and they do His will and are "ministering spirits". They always obey the instructions of God and and do not sin and it is wrong for humans to place the human condition on to the Angels of God which are not human, but can take on the appearance of humans.

I have not accepted your words; "yet Angels could sin" If you are referring to "angels", which are human, then I can accept those words about humans, but when you are applying those words to God's Angels, then I do not accept your form of words. This is the crux of this matter.


Good morning David,

You are repeating EXACTLY the same error that I have exposed many times.

You say that you reject my statement of the paradox because it contains the words "and yet angels could sin" but then YOU use the words "God's Angels in heaven sinned" in your formulation of the paradox!

Richard: There would be a paradox if God's will is done in heaven and yet angels could sin.

David: There would be a paradox if God's Angels in Heaven sinned and Jesus said God's will is done in Heaven.

Your formulation of the paradox is logically identical to mine. It is therefore completely irrational for you to object to my formulation. Your comments have been PURE GIBBERISH!

If you can't understand logic as plain and obvious as this, then it would be impossible to have any meaningful conversation with you.

Please answer the words I wrote! You have ignored ALL the explanations I have given.


I have been bringing this to your attention for MONTHS David. You need to answer it.

All the best,

Richard

[L67]

Thanks for the confirmation and the links L67. There's more than enough info out there to prove that Rood is a charlatan. But I can't tell if he's only into this to make money - he may be truly deluded. He made all sorts of claims about God revealing secret knowledge to him which was the basis of his failed prediction of the end times starting in Sept 1999 (if I recall correctly). He also invented his own "corrected astronomical Biblical calendar" that he uses as the basis of his predictions. So he could be more like Harold Camping who also invented his own "Biblical calender" to predict the end times and sincerely believed he was led by God to understand that the rapture would happen on May 21, 2011 ... and made over a HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS in the process. But he didn't spend it on "himself" by living luxuriously. No, he lived a "humble" life even as he used all the money to declare himself (implicitly) to be the only person on the planet speaking directly for God Almighty. He said that he could be wrong only if the Bible was wrong. I smell the same stench of arrogance and deception coming from Michael Rood.

You are welcome Richard.

I think you are correct that he probably is deluded. But.... his ex partner had this to say about Rood in the first link.

.If I would have allowed this, Michael Roods new organization would not be responsible for the cost of daily operations, contract costs for television, production of video programs, closed captioning costs, seminar costs, the motor home that Jamie had purchased in his name at Michael’s request, the corporate vehicles, the company that produced all of the DVD’s, etc. since he never was involved in the business aspect of the ministry (listen to Debby Coopers audio statement) This was his way to becoming the millionaire that he spoke of becoming; he would not take any debt and would be able to take over an organization that was creating $2 million per year in revenues debt free, and eliminate the entire staff that had taken his ministry from nothing to a national and international presence, and I was not going to allow this to happen to our valuable business partners.

Michael is attempting to do exactly the same thing that he had done to his son-in-law Eric Fransen and his daughter Leigh who initially managed his ministry from Minnesota early on, which is to accuse someone of miss-management and then secretly and covertly take over."

[David M]

Richard


My opinion about the book of Enoch has not changed. You have not demonstrated any inconsistency. You are simply confused by what I meant when I said the book of Enoch was "false." I was talking about it's content - the mythology it contains is not true. I was not saying it is false "as it is now" whereas it was "true" in the past. I was not talking about the book being different now than it used to be. I never said anything like that. That was YOUR IDEA! You are confusing yourself over your own words. You are the one who introduced the idea that the book of Enoch we now have may be different than the one that Jude quoting. You made up that idea in your effort to protect your presupposition that the Bible is true.
If the Book of Enoch is not to be relied on, you should never have introduced it into the conversation. You are confusing the conversation making it difficult when you deny this is what you believe and say, that is what the Bible or the authors of the Bible says. Maybe we should start again and you must clearly state your case. I think we are dealing with too many subjects in one post to give each subject the attention to solving our differences.[/QUOTE]


Now get this clear. You have not demonstrated any inconsistency in anything I've written. When I say the book of Enoch is "false" I'm talking about its content, just like when I say things in the Bible are false (e.g. there was no Adam and Eve). I am not saying that the book of Enoch "as it is now" is different than it was when Jude quoted it.
You say Jude is referring to the Book of Enoch in Jude's letter and that might be the case, but if the Book of Enoch is false, it is most likley false because of later additons by rogue authors. You shold simply have not referred to it in your conversations with me, if you say it cannot be trusted. I do not believe Jude would have referred to a book he did not trust. That suggests the Book has been changed. You should not refer to the Book in any context outside the letter of Jude in that case.


Man! Your confusion runs deep. Only because you have the ability to confuse people by your inflated ego and intellect.



I do not presume anything about the truth or falsehood of the Bible. I have explained this to you many times. You just don't learn. Some things in the Bible are true, some are false, some are confused. I make no presuppositions about this matter.
Please let me have a list of all the things you say are true in the Bible so I can refer to that list. This will help me resolve any confusion. I have come to the conclusion that since you believe the Bible to have been written by men who were not inspired, none of the Bible can be true. I need a definite list from you, it I am to proceed to discuss anything with you from the Bible.


My stance is radically different than yours. It is absurd to PRESUME that everything in the Bible is true. You have no justification for a wild presupposition like that. There is no evidence supporting it and much evidence contradicting it.
It is absurd of you to keep saying this about me when I have said to you that I accept there are errors in the Bible. I am of the opinion God does not make a mistake in what He says. Is it logical for the Creator who has the power to do anything, that whatever He says, He can make come true? I accept man-made errors in the Bible and these eventually come to light. I can live with those sort of errors. This does not affect the truth of God that has come from His own voice. It would be a sad day for the Creator who in the beginning; "said...." and it was done, that you reckon that which He said later to the prophets is not done. God's word os true and you make him a liar to say His words are not true. I have no proof any of the words of God (E&OE) are untrue.




From whom did you first learn this dogma? And why do you believe it? I have explained that your reasons are fallacious. Why didn't you answer my proof? Here it is again:
You are holding to the presupposition that the Bible is true. But that presupposition is absolutely unjustified. It wouldn't even help if the Bible has some fulfilled prophecies, because that wouldn't prove that all the books in the canon were true. And we know that there are false canons because the Catholic canon is different. So we know that there is no reason to just believe the canon is correct. But even if the canon were correct, that would not justify the presupposition that every word in every book is correct. And there are many other problems with your presupposition. For example, the Bible contains DEMONSTRABLE errors, and contradictions. Therefore, your presupposition is demonstrably false.
It would be good if you answered this. It explains why your presupposition is irrational.
I learn the same as you. I read, I listen, I watch and then I make up my mind. That has not changed. You might change my mind, but have failed to do so far.



Now you are babbling like a madman. You have NEVER found me contradicting myself! Not once! Yet I have PROVEN over and over and over again that you directly contradict your own words.
You are gurgling like a drowning man. I have replied to posts (which I am not going to trawl through to find where I have said these things) where I have said you have contradicted yourself. It is obvious for others to read. Defending yourself witha plausible reason only you accept does not take the contradiction away. It is in print and others can read, so that is the end fo this discussion.


But I understand why you might think I contradicted myself because your logic is RADICALLY CONFUSED as I've show dozens of times, and again above where you said that I was "inconsistent" concerning the book of Enoch.
It is not just the Book of Enoch, I am not going to list the times I have replied to point out your contradiction. I do not have access to the database and I have not kept copies so what has been written by me, has to stand. Others can make up their mind as to who they want to believe.



Again, you are making a false equivalence. I am "obstinate" about nothing but the facts that can be easily proven as I have done over and over and over again. You and I have nothing in common in this matter. You hold to DOGMAS. I have no dogmas.
You have a dogma; it is the dogma of Richard. Whatever you say, you have a dogma, just as you belong to your own cult. We all have our dogmas and we all belong to cults, so why keep saying I belong to a cult. It is complete waste of verbeage.


I have proven that you IGNORED the evidence I presented. Yet you said you answered, but you did not. So if you want to delude yourself - go ahead. I can't stop you.
Until someone is prepared to show me how you are correct and I am wrong, then I stick with my replies to you . I have explained this in the post you are avoiding and have not responded to and insist ad nauseum to continue the discussion here. Your refusal to shift the conversation forward is showing me the ravings of an utter madman. There is a fine line between genius and insanity. I applaud your genius and say no more..


Your posts are filled with gross confusion about elementary things. You have REFUSED to answer simple questions. For example, I quoted your own words and showed how you directly contradict yourself, and you IGNORED MY POST. That's why I've been repeating it. But you continue to ignore it. If you think that's a valid reason to continue ignoring YOUR OWN WORDS then you are utterly lost.
saying the same old thing and I keep telling you I have started afresh and given my explanation again in the thread you will not revert to. I am through on this thread as I keep having to say. You are good at driving people mad with your insane insistent on having the last word in which you reckon you are correct and have not been refuted. It is ridiculous in the extreme.


Here is the proof. It's just one of the many attempts where I've tried to reason with you. But you have REFUSED to answer this. It contains a quote of YOUR OWN WORDS. You need to answer it:

I have been bringing this to your attention for MONTHS David. You need to answer it.
I have answered it and if the answer is not to your satisfaction, so be it. I accept I cannot find the words to satisfy you and therefore we have a communication gap, which you must try to fill, if I cannot. I have stated my case in the "fresh start" you do not revert to. I expect to read your reply there, if you have not already done so, I shall watch out for your reply in the thread; Can God's Angels be trusted?

All the best,

David

[Richard Amiel McGough]

My opinion about the book of Enoch has not changed. You have not demonstrated any inconsistency. You are simply confused by what I meant when I said the book of Enoch was "false." I was talking about it's content - the mythology it contains is not true. I was not saying it is false "as it is now" whereas it was "true" in the past. I was not talking about the book being different now than it used to be. I never said anything like that. That was YOUR IDEA! You are confusing yourself over your own words. You are the one who introduced the idea that the book of Enoch we now have may be different than the one that Jude quoting. You made up that idea in your effort to protect your presupposition that the Bible is true.
If the Book of Enoch is not to be relied on, you should never have introduced it into the conversation. You are confusing the conversation making it difficult when you deny this is what you believe and say, that is what the Bible or the authors of the Bible says. Maybe we should start again and you must clearly state your case. I think we are dealing with too many subjects in one post to give each subject the attention to solving our differences.
David,

When I said that Enoch was not reliable I was speaking specifically about it not being reliable as a source of Christian doctrine because it contained a lot of crazy mythology and was "obviously not Scripture." I NEVER said it was not "reliable" as an accurate copy of an ancient text that revealed what people believed in the first century. I explained all this in the post the YOU went and dug up from June 2007 which I wrote when I was a fundamentalist Christian operating under the PRESUPPOSITION that the Bible was God's Word. I was very specific. I explained my position with great clarity. There is no excuse for your continued confusion. Here are the words I wrote (from which you quoted):




I agree with what you both are saying about the angels ability to produce hybrid beings. I have always doubted and opposed the idea......until I see that Peter and Jude referring to 1Enoch. When I get the time I'll post the 1Enoch passages. Jude 14 clearly quotes 1Enoch. I'll do some further searching and see what others have to say about this.
Hey Bob,

I was beginning to follow the same line of thought, but now I see it as backwards. Enoch is obviously not Scripture. As mentioned by Rose, it has a "totally different feel and flavor" about it. It has all the earmarks of an error ridden man-made book. It professes all sorts of "secret knowledge" such as the exact names of the leading angels that fell and"all the secrets of the heavens ... the secrets of the lightning and of the thunder, and the secrets of the winds ... and the secrets of the clouds and dew" etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

So given the fact that we KNOW that 1 Enoch can not be trusted, it would be pure folly for us to infer anything from it that is not explicitly stated in Scripture. This means that we can not conclude that angels and humans produced children, since there is no unambiguous witness to that idea in the Bible.

But what about Jude's beliefs? If he believed in angel/human procreation, shouldn't we?

NOT IF GOD DID NOT PUT IT IN THE BIBLE!

You see, all the writers that God used to produce Scripture were humans like you and me, and their minds were filled with errors to a greater or lesser degree. So we must distinguish between what God explicitly revealed in Scripture from what we can infer that the human writer may or may not have believed.

This then leads to the big question: Why did God allow Jude to quote from a faulty human book?

I don't have a good answer to that yet, but I do know that God did not intend for us to import doctrines from the Book of Enoch into the Bible.

There's lots more to say on this, but the essential point is that I am not even slightly bothered by the teachings in the Book of Enoch. The idea of angel/human procreation is not explicitly taught, nor even strongly implied, in the Bible. Granted, it is a possible interpretation of Gen 6/2Pet/Jude, but without importing very questionable ideas from extra-biblical books, it will remain ambiguous.

That's where I currently stand, anyway. Of course, you will probably point out some essential point I've missed and I'll be tossed right back in the center of the maelstrom of ambiguity and unanswered questions.

But you wouldn't do that to me, would you, Bob? :lol:

Richard
As you can see, I was very honest and open about the FACTS of the case. I admitted then, as I do now, that Jude quoted a book that contained blatant error. I have not changed this opinion. The only opinion I have changed is my PRESUPPOSITION that the Bible is God's Word that couldn't contain the kind of error we see in Enoch. I have been perfectly clear about this in all my posts, and it should be totally obvious to anyone who has been reading what I wrote. It is a deep mystery how you could be confused on something so simple and obvious as this.

Please write something that indicates you now understand your error.




Now get this clear. You have not demonstrated any inconsistency in anything I've written. When I say the book of Enoch is "false" I'm talking about its content, just like when I say things in the Bible are false (e.g. there was no Adam and Eve). I am not saying that the book of Enoch "as it is now" is different than it was when Jude quoted it.
You say Jude is referring to the Book of Enoch in Jude's letter and that might be the case, but if the Book of Enoch is false, it is most likley false because of later additons by rogue authors. You shold simply have not referred to it in your conversations with me, if you say it cannot be trusted. I do not believe Jude would have referred to a book he did not trust. That suggests the Book has been changed. You should not refer to the Book in any context outside the letter of Jude in that case.

Your assertion that Enoch is "most likley false because of later additons by rogue authors" has no scholastic support and contradicts all evidence. For example, we have fragments of the book of Enoch in the Dead Sea scrolls dating to the first century BC that are the same as the modern copy. And we have lots of quotes from early Christian leaders that agree with the modern copy. And the parts that Jude quoted agree with the modern copy. And the theme of the whole Book of Enoch matches the theme in Jude. There is absolutely no evidence supporting your claim. You just made up an excuse with NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE because the actual evidence contradicts your presupposition. No rational person would have any reason to believe you. Do you understand why? Let me tell you. A rational person believes things because of EVIDENCE rather than mere PRESUPPOSITION. You have no evidence supporting your position and you reject the evidence that proves you wrong merely because it proves you wrong! Let me repeat:

You reject the evidence that proves you wrong merely because it proves you wrong! Is that rational?

I agree with your assertion that "Jude would have referred to a book he did not trust." I think it is clear that Jude trusted Enoch, as did MANY first century Christians whom seemed to take it as having the same status as the canonical books, which would explain why Jude quoted it.




Man! Your confusion runs deep.
Only because you have the ability to confuse people by your inflated ego and intellect.

Not true. You have been confused about things I've stated with perfect precision and complete clarity. And you continue to be confused about the simplest things no matter how many times I explain them to you. Case in point: you asserted that I have been "inconsistent" concerning my opinion about the book of Enoch. I have repeatedly explained that there was no inconsistency at all and have proven that by quoting the words I wrote six years ago. Yet you persist in insisting I have been "inconsistent." You are very confused on this point. You need to admit that you were wrong and that there was absolutely no inconsistency on my part.

This is why you are so confused - you refuse to admit error no matter how plainly it is stated. That's what causes your confusion. You cannot deny reality with becoming radically confused.




I do not presume anything about the truth or falsehood of the Bible. I have explained this to you many times. You just don't learn. Some things in the Bible are true, some are false, some are confused. I make no presuppositions about this matter.
Please let me have a list of all the things you say are true in the Bible so I can refer to that list. This will help me resolve any confusion. I have come to the conclusion that since you believe the Bible to have been written by men who were not inspired, none of the Bible can be true. I need a definite list from you, it I am to proceed to discuss anything with you from the Bible.

Your assertion that "none of the Bible can be true" if it was "written by men who were not inspired" is utterly absurd. How could you write such words? The fact that my quantum physics textbook "written by men who were not inspired" does not imply that "none of it is true"!

David, you really need to LEARN BASIC LOGIC! Your posts overflow with fallacies.

Furthermore, you do not "need to know" which parts of the Bible I personally happen to believe are "true" and which are "false" in order to rationally discuss these things. We can talk about the Quran or the Book of Mormon without making any PRESUPPOSITIONS about which parts are true or false. The truth or falsehood is supposed to be determined by the EVIDENCE, not by OPINION or PRESUPPOSITION.




My stance is radically different than yours. It is absurd to PRESUME that everything in the Bible is true. You have no justification for a wild presupposition like that. There is no evidence supporting it and much evidence contradicting it.
It is absurd of you to keep saying this about me when I have said to you that I accept there are errors in the Bible. I am of the opinion God does not make a mistake in what He says. Is it logical for the Creator who has the power to do anything, that whatever He says, He can make come true? I accept man-made errors in the Bible and these eventually come to light. I can live with those sort of errors. This does not affect the truth of God that has come from His own voice. It would be a sad day for the Creator who in the beginning; "said...." and it was done, that you reckon that which He said later to the prophets is not done. God's word os true and you make him a liar to say His words are not true. I have no proof any of the words of God (E&OE) are untrue.

Now you are really confusing the issue. I didn't say that you don't accept that there are man-made errors in the Bible such as errors in translation and copying. You've been perfectly clear about that. But my statement stands and you just confirmed it. You begin with the PRESUPPOSITION that the Bible is the essentially trustworthy inspired Word of God and that it is TRUE. That's what you've said many times and you just said it again in your reply to me! For example, here is your answer from a couple of weeks ago on this question:




Hey there David, :yo:

You position makes no sense to me at all. We can discuss the Bible without making any unfounded and ill-defined assumptions like "it is the inspired word of God." What does that even mean? Is it true for the Catholic Bible? Is it true for the Greek Orthodox Bible? If not, why not? And what about the demonstrable errors in transmission? We don't even know what the original documents said in some cases. And besides all that, folks who totally agree that the Bible is the "inspired Word of God" often fail to come to any kind of agreement of what it really means.
I am not going to believe some parts of the Bible and not other parts once I have come to trust it and believe the message to be true.
2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: I accept this as true statement, not that this is proof by itself.


See that? When I told you about the "demonstrable errors in transmission" of the Bible, which you agree exist, you answered by saying that you believe the Bible is inspired. You totally IGNORED the point I made! And now you are telling my that I am the one confusing this issue? Your comments are totally confused. Let's compare what I said and what you said in response:

Richard: It is absurd to PRESUME that everything in the Bible is true

David: I accept there are errors in the Bible. God's word is true and you make him a liar to say His words are not true.

My point was perfect, precise, and to the point. We both agree that there are errors in the Bible. But your answer is insane. You agree that there are errors in the Bible and then immediately assert that the Bible is "true." What's that supposed to mean?

Your answer is totally confused. First you say that you "accept there are errors in the Bible" and then you say that "God's word is true." This implies that truth is falsehood! :doh:

And as for your assertion that "have no proof any of the words of God (E&OE) are untrue" directly contradicts your assertion that there are errors in the Bible. Your comments are nothing but confusion.




Now you are babbling like a madman. You have NEVER found me contradicting myself! Not once! Yet I have PROVEN over and over and over again that you directly contradict your own words.
You are gurgling like a drowning man. I have replied to posts (which I am not going to trawl through to find where I have said these things) where I have said you have contradicted yourself. It is obvious for others to read. Defending yourself witha plausible reason only you accept does not take the contradiction away. It is in print and others can read, so that is the end fo this discussion.

You have NEVER shown any contradiction. You are just making that up which is typical of your posts. You consistently make empty assertions with NO EVIDENCE.

If you cannot provide proof then you have NO RIGHT making assertions against me. That is fundamentally unrighteous. That's why I always provide EVIDENCE for my assertions.

At the very least, you must state what you THINK the evidence is even if you cannot find the old posts. Then at least I will have HALF A CLUE about what you think you are talking about. As it is, your words are empty, vacuous, vain ...




But I understand why you might think I contradicted myself because your logic is RADICALLY CONFUSED as I've show dozens of times, and again above where you said that I was "inconsistent" concerning the book of Enoch.
It is not just the Book of Enoch, I am not going to list the times I have replied to point out your contradiction. I do not have access to the database and I have not kept copies so what has been written by me, has to stand. Others can make up their mind as to who they want to believe.

It's not the "book of Enoch" in any way at all David! I have shown that your assertion that I was inconsistent on the book of Enoch is FALSE!!! What is wrong with your brain???

You have never shown ANY CONTRADICTION in anything I have written. How is it possible that you let yourself repeat BLATANT FALSEHOODS over and over and over again?

Reality is not a matter of what folks "want" to believe. That's the language used by the DELUDED. I have given a massive amount of incontrovertible EVIDENCE that you have NOT ANSWERED that proves you have contradicted yourself on many occasions. Indeed, you reject your OWN WORDS as I have proven and you know it.

And yes, you do have access to the database. Just click that search function. That's how I almost always find the posts I quote. I very rarely access the database directly. I only needed to do that once for a specialized search months ago.




Again, you are making a false equivalence. I am "obstinate" about nothing but the facts that can be easily proven as I have done over and over and over again. You and I have nothing in common in this matter. You hold to DOGMAS. I have no dogmas.
You have a dogma; it is the dogma of Richard. Whatever you say, you have a dogma, just as you belong to your own cult. We all have our dogmas and we all belong to cults, so why keep saying I belong to a cult. It is complete waste of verbeage.

We do not all have dogmas. We do not all belong to cults. Your comment is ridiculous.




I have proven that you IGNORED the evidence I presented. Yet you said you answered, but you did not. So if you want to delude yourself - go ahead. I can't stop you.
Until someone is prepared to show me how you are correct and I am wrong, then I stick with my replies to you . I have explained this in the post you are avoiding and have not responded to and insist ad nauseum to continue the discussion here. Your refusal to shift the conversation forward is showing me the ravings of an utter madman. There is a fine line between genius and insanity. I applaud your genius and say no more..

You have NOT shown anything. You have DENIED YOUR OWN WORDS for months.

You don't strengthen your case by calling me a "raving madman" when everyone can see I have done NOTHING but hold you to your own words.




Your posts are filled with gross confusion about elementary things. You have REFUSED to answer simple questions. For example, I quoted your own words and showed how you directly contradict yourself, and you IGNORED MY POST. That's why I've been repeating it. But you continue to ignore it. If you think that's a valid reason to continue ignoring YOUR OWN WORDS then you are utterly lost.
saying the same old thing and I keep telling you I have started afresh and given my explanation again in the thread you will not revert to. I am through on this thread as I keep having to say. You are good at driving people mad with your insane insistent on having the last word in which you reckon you are correct and have not been refuted. It is ridiculous in the extreme.

I do not want the "last word." I want you to ANSWER MY PROOF that you CONTRADICTED YOUR OWN WORDS and don't understand the basic logic of implications of the form IF P THEN Q. I have proven these things and you have NEVER responded with any understanding. That's the problem.

I don't want the last word. I want you to stand by your own word!





Here is the proof. It's just one of the many attempts where I've tried to reason with you. But you have REFUSED to answer this. It contains a quote of YOUR OWN WORDS. You need to answer it:



So Richard, you are going to give up and not continue with the fresh start that you offered in the thread; Can God's Angels be trusted? (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3410-Can-God-s-Angels-in-Heaven-be-trusted/page8)

I have felt like quitting having seen us to go round in circles. I have explained that I am not accepting your wording. It is not the basic equations of logic I do not understand. Unless we can agree the wording of the paradox then it is clear we shall not find agreement on anything else we said about the matter. As I have explained, the paradox is based on Jesus saying; "Thy will be done as it is (done) in Heaven". Then we have the verse of Peter which say; "the angels that sinned", and concerning the same angels, Jude wrote; "the angels which kept not their first estate". A correct understanding of "angels" which in this case are humans removes any apparent contradiction about understanding the workings of God's Angels and they do His will and are "ministering spirits". They always obey the instructions of God and and do not sin and it is wrong for humans to place the human condition on to the Angels of God which are not human, but can take on the appearance of humans.

I have not accepted your words; "yet Angels could sin" If you are referring to "angels", which are human, then I can accept those words about humans, but when you are applying those words to God's Angels, then I do not accept your form of words. This is the crux of this matter.


Good morning David,

You are repeating EXACTLY the same error that I have exposed many times.

You say that you reject my statement of the paradox because it contains the words "and yet angels could sin" but then YOU use the words "God's Angels in heaven sinned" in your formulation of the paradox!

Richard: There would be a paradox if God's will is done in heaven and yet angels could sin.

David: There would be a paradox if God's Angels in Heaven sinned and Jesus said God's will is done in Heaven.

Your formulation of the paradox is logically identical to mine. It is therefore completely irrational for you to object to my formulation. Your comments have been PURE GIBBERISH!

If you can't understand logic as plain and obvious as this, then it would be impossible to have any meaningful conversation with you.

Please answer the words I wrote! You have ignored ALL the explanations I have given.


I have been bringing this to your attention for MONTHS David. You need to answer it.

I have answered it and if the answer is not to your satisfaction, so be it. I accept I cannot find the words to satisfy you and therefore we have a communication gap, which you must try to fill, if I cannot. I have stated my case in the "fresh start" you do not revert to. I expect to read your reply there, if you have not already done so, I shall watch out for your reply in the thread; Can God's Angels be trusted?

You have NEVER answered that post with any understanding! You merely REPEATED EXACTLY THE SAME ERROR that I exposed! That's all you've done. You've never shown any understanding of why your rejection of your own paradox is absurd. You've never shown any understanding that the formulation of the paradox, as stated both by yourself and me, is correct! You are massively confused on this most elementary point.

It's fine if you are confused - we can discuss it. But you have refused to actually discuss it. You have NEVER said anything about the fact that your statement of the paradox is identical to mine. You have never shown any understanding that your comments have been total gibberish.

You need to quit running and hiding and dodging and deal with these basic facts.

All the best,

Richard

[David M]

You need to quit running and hiding and dodging and deal with these basic facts.

All the best,

Richard

David

Just go and continue in the "fresh start". You have destroyed this thread in which we should not be having this discussion. I have stopped repeating myself by way of n ot responding. I have read your reply which is nothing new and so you can stop repeating yourself. I have left you to have the last word; now go and make a fresh start.

David