Not a condemnation but a short answer would have looked like this. lol
"Or maybe it will be a short talk"
I'm conflicted about the Bible. Will you discuss it with me?
- Thread starter Conflicted
- Start date
"Or maybe it will be a short talk"
Here is an original and interesting take on the Eden story by a biblical scholar:
The Bible's Buried Secrets The Garden of Eden - YouTube
The Bible's Buried Secrets The Garden of Eden - YouTube
I've seen her other shows also. If you are trying to make a point why not give me something to start on such as some point she is making at a specific time-stamp. Or should I just assume you agree with every thing she is saying and you want me to believe you aren't a sheep, you can't have both.
I got as far as 1:15 when the old guy says if sin hadn't happened we wouldn't need a redeemer. That is only true if mankind was never to know about good and evil. As it is we know know and we also need redemption before God can forgive us. Going to the grave is how that is accomplished and to be redeemed from there we need to be taught the Gospel (the ones that died without knowing about God is who that is for) Resurrection in the 4 gospels was done from outside the grave for people that already knew about God and a Messiah. The ones that came out of the grave on the same morning could have all been from pre-flood days and never been preached to until the day Jesus went to the grave. That changed them so they could also be resurrected without knowing about the Messiah.
Now we can jump all the way to to the 4:00 mark and that 'fellow'. Having not heard his version it is hard to point out what parts he as wrong. My counter for proof is that in a period of time where believers are given just a book then you are not going to find physical proof although the Garden is given a 4 sided border. Euphrates is the northern border. Guess where this comes from? How much would that have weathered in 6,000 years? Not much but is it proof of Ge:6 being 'provable'?
Hard to say what his reaction would be to my version of the old earth creation but this rock would have been in the Garden and I bet the program doesn't mention it at all.
Satan may have been subtle with Eve, really it means liar, but Ge:6 certainly shows that evil ones were the ones calling the shots as far as what went on in society. Society that was thriving as far as there being high numbers and getting things accomplished was on a scale we most likely haven't matched today as far as our best advancements being available in the 4 corners of the earth. Today only a small percent have access to the net so we aren't as advanced as we would be if the population of the planet had this access.
I got as far as 1:15 when the old guy says if sin hadn't happened we wouldn't need a redeemer. That is only true if mankind was never to know about good and evil. As it is we know know and we also need redemption before God can forgive us. Going to the grave is how that is accomplished and to be redeemed from there we need to be taught the Gospel (the ones that died without knowing about God is who that is for) Resurrection in the 4 gospels was done from outside the grave for people that already knew about God and a Messiah. The ones that came out of the grave on the same morning could have all been from pre-flood days and never been preached to until the day Jesus went to the grave. That changed them so they could also be resurrected without knowing about the Messiah.
Now we can jump all the way to to the 4:00 mark and that 'fellow'. Having not heard his version it is hard to point out what parts he as wrong. My counter for proof is that in a period of time where believers are given just a book then you are not going to find physical proof although the Garden is given a 4 sided border. Euphrates is the northern border. Guess where this comes from? How much would that have weathered in 6,000 years? Not much but is it proof of Ge:6 being 'provable'?
Hard to say what his reaction would be to my version of the old earth creation but this rock would have been in the Garden and I bet the program doesn't mention it at all.
Satan may have been subtle with Eve, really it means liar, but Ge:6 certainly shows that evil ones were the ones calling the shots as far as what went on in society. Society that was thriving as far as there being high numbers and getting things accomplished was on a scale we most likely haven't matched today as far as our best advancements being available in the 4 corners of the earth. Today only a small percent have access to the net so we aren't as advanced as we would be if the population of the planet had this access.
Last edited:
I don't particularly believe anything she said. I just have never run across a more radical departure from the standard version of what happened. Not only is she a biblical scholar, but she is very pleasing to the eyes and ears. I do think she was right about the story being rearranged and the Eden story being misplaced. In its present arrangement, it really makes no sense.
Baalbek? Garden of Eden? HOLY ****! If that's the case it was no garden. Not at all. It would have been the Butcher Shop of Eden.
The stone would have been cut after the exit, it is still within the border., Flip it over I want to see the side that is buried perhaps Christ was playing while Adam was naming everything. After all the missing mountain top in South America was a 'be gone in one swipe' type of event, we have yet to have a rational explanation for that work either.
Well Cliffy if that is your standards for hearing the truth you certainly are going to be a dizzy little fellow for most of your life. Doesd that also mean non-attractive people are less likely to have the truth, after all the men that appear to the 6 min mark are not attractive and they are under delusions of that there is no doubt.
Lets she how wrong she is right from the start in her presentation that is Jewish exclusively or a radical Christian concept because by 8 min mark she is saying that Genesis has to be a complete story by itself. Events about then are not just contained in those two pages. Information is given all the way to the end of Revelation, the Bible is a single work and every subject it covers is not covered fully in any one place so why should it now be applied to the creation event?
That has to do with who Satan is, she is promoting that all the various names in the verse below do not reference the same being. It does so rather than their being a handful of evil ones there is one, the same one that is in Re:12 ands he was with Eve in the Garden (1st woman), he was there to try and kill Mary's child as soon as He was born (2nd woman) and Satan is the one chasing and making war against the 'ones sealed by God' in the last kingdom before the return.
Re:12:9:
And the great dragon was cast out,
that old serpent,
called the Devil,
and Satan,
which deceiveth the whole world:
he was cast out into the earth,
and his angels were cast out with him.
The reason that separation is made is now it can be redefined so serpent in the garden is not the same sort of being as he was when he was still in good with God. There was more than 1 fallen angel and they all had a law they were supposed to follow or they could not have been sins that made them fallen, Satan was a liar and a murderer, the other fallen ones were fornicators as they conceived children outside of marriage. All of those things took place as it is the start of events that lead to a literal death on a literal cross.
2Ki:19:35:
And it came to pass that night,
that the angel of the LORD went out,
and smote in the camp of the Assyrians an hundred fourscore and five thousand:
and when they arose early in the morning,
behold,
they were all dead corpses.
Should I watch more cause really I might as well be talking to myself.
The wimpy Christian should be living as the verse below says if the book is not believed.
1Co:15:32:
If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus,
what advantageth it me,
if the dead rise not?
let us eat and drink;
for to morrow we die.
The old Priest probably knew he was lying but fear of being chased away in his old age just means physical comfort is more important cause what he promotes doesn't even have a reference verse it is so stupid.
Using the verse fro Re:12 that means any reference to those names in the Bible has to be considered to be one entity, including what Jude and Peter have to say, that also makes him Lucifer. Ever watched Chucks version of fallen angels?
Ge:2:25:
And they were both naked,
the man and his wife,
and were not ashamed.
It matters onlt that it was something that could be eaten but it was not supposed to be. The 'cure' is in the verse below, it doesn't really work as well if the original fruit was symbolic as this fruit would also then have to be symbolic, ..... and it isn't.
Eze:47:7:
Now when I had returned,
behold,
at the bank of the river were very many trees on the one side and on the other.
Eze:47:7:
Now when I had returned,
behold,
at the bank of the river were very many trees on the one side and on the other.
Re:22:2:
In the midst of the street of it,
and on either side of the river,
was there the tree of life,
which bare twelve manner of fruits,
and yielded her fruit every month:
and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
9:30, ever read all the extra laws that were put in place after the 10 Commandments became Law? (not saying they were all bad but the punishment was more than society allows today, exile would be the accepted punishment, if that)
100 years ago women were just starting to show a bare ankle in public outside the brothel district. If you really want to know that is where the Muslim modesty laws come from, too many men chasing too few women mean many fights, so they adopted a hide it and no temptation popped up. 100 years later a bare ankle doesn't turn any heads. Brothels still exist if Playboy and such are included as 'advertising'.
This is too easy, sure you don't want to try for some of the stuff that comes with the sound turned up
Well Cliffy if that is your standards for hearing the truth you certainly are going to be a dizzy little fellow for most of your life. Doesd that also mean non-attractive people are less likely to have the truth, after all the men that appear to the 6 min mark are not attractive and they are under delusions of that there is no doubt.
Lets she how wrong she is right from the start in her presentation that is Jewish exclusively or a radical Christian concept because by 8 min mark she is saying that Genesis has to be a complete story by itself. Events about then are not just contained in those two pages. Information is given all the way to the end of Revelation, the Bible is a single work and every subject it covers is not covered fully in any one place so why should it now be applied to the creation event?
That has to do with who Satan is, she is promoting that all the various names in the verse below do not reference the same being. It does so rather than their being a handful of evil ones there is one, the same one that is in Re:12 ands he was with Eve in the Garden (1st woman), he was there to try and kill Mary's child as soon as He was born (2nd woman) and Satan is the one chasing and making war against the 'ones sealed by God' in the last kingdom before the return.
Re:12:9:
And the great dragon was cast out,
that old serpent,
called the Devil,
and Satan,
which deceiveth the whole world:
he was cast out into the earth,
and his angels were cast out with him.
The reason that separation is made is now it can be redefined so serpent in the garden is not the same sort of being as he was when he was still in good with God. There was more than 1 fallen angel and they all had a law they were supposed to follow or they could not have been sins that made them fallen, Satan was a liar and a murderer, the other fallen ones were fornicators as they conceived children outside of marriage. All of those things took place as it is the start of events that lead to a literal death on a literal cross.
2Ki:19:35:
And it came to pass that night,
that the angel of the LORD went out,
and smote in the camp of the Assyrians an hundred fourscore and five thousand:
and when they arose early in the morning,
behold,
they were all dead corpses.
Should I watch more cause really I might as well be talking to myself.
The wimpy Christian should be living as the verse below says if the book is not believed.
1Co:15:32:
If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus,
what advantageth it me,
if the dead rise not?
let us eat and drink;
for to morrow we die.
The old Priest probably knew he was lying but fear of being chased away in his old age just means physical comfort is more important cause what he promotes doesn't even have a reference verse it is so stupid.
Using the verse fro Re:12 that means any reference to those names in the Bible has to be considered to be one entity, including what Jude and Peter have to say, that also makes him Lucifer. Ever watched Chucks version of fallen angels?
Ge:2:25:
And they were both naked,
the man and his wife,
and were not ashamed.
It matters onlt that it was something that could be eaten but it was not supposed to be. The 'cure' is in the verse below, it doesn't really work as well if the original fruit was symbolic as this fruit would also then have to be symbolic, ..... and it isn't.
Eze:47:7:
Now when I had returned,
behold,
at the bank of the river were very many trees on the one side and on the other.
Eze:47:7:
Now when I had returned,
behold,
at the bank of the river were very many trees on the one side and on the other.
Re:22:2:
In the midst of the street of it,
and on either side of the river,
was there the tree of life,
which bare twelve manner of fruits,
and yielded her fruit every month:
and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
9:30, ever read all the extra laws that were put in place after the 10 Commandments became Law? (not saying they were all bad but the punishment was more than society allows today, exile would be the accepted punishment, if that)
100 years ago women were just starting to show a bare ankle in public outside the brothel district. If you really want to know that is where the Muslim modesty laws come from, too many men chasing too few women mean many fights, so they adopted a hide it and no temptation popped up. 100 years later a bare ankle doesn't turn any heads. Brothels still exist if Playboy and such are included as 'advertising'.
This is too easy, sure you don't want to try for some of the stuff that comes with the sound turned up
Last edited:
Lift it up and find the remains of some organic substance and date it. Maybe it fell on 'behemoth' or the tree of life and some seed can be grown.
Job:40:17:
He moveth his tail like a cedar:
the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
Job:40:23:
Behold,
he drinketh up a river,
and hasteth not:
he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
What if the stonework from all those ancient places ended up in Jerusalem for the 1,000 year reign if Christ was the original builder?
Zec:6:12:
And speak unto him,
saying,
Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts,
saying,
Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH;
and he shall grow up out of his place,
and he shall build the temple of the LORD:
Zec:6:13:
Even he shall build the temple of the LORD;
and he shall bear the glory,
and shall sit and rule upon his throne;
and he shall be a priest upon his throne:
and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.
4,000BC -2500BC
Fallen angels do stuff like that also, that is why they have the title, 'brute beasts' strong but lacking compassion which is what Adam has and that is why he could have dominion over something and it would work just fine.
Satan knew about good and evil and he wasn't dead so he was missing some info and he thought he knew it all, whatever happened I doubt he was trying to get into the fiery lake on purpose, although he did want a place where he was the top so he does sort of get his wish, just no dominion even there.
Job:40:17:
He moveth his tail like a cedar:
the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
Job:40:23:
Behold,
he drinketh up a river,
and hasteth not:
he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
What if the stonework from all those ancient places ended up in Jerusalem for the 1,000 year reign if Christ was the original builder?
Zec:6:12:
And speak unto him,
saying,
Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts,
saying,
Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH;
and he shall grow up out of his place,
and he shall build the temple of the LORD:
Zec:6:13:
Even he shall build the temple of the LORD;
and he shall bear the glory,
and shall sit and rule upon his throne;
and he shall be a priest upon his throne:
and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.
4,000BC -2500BC
Fallen angels do stuff like that also, that is why they have the title, 'brute beasts' strong but lacking compassion which is what Adam has and that is why he could have dominion over something and it would work just fine.
Satan knew about good and evil and he wasn't dead so he was missing some info and he thought he knew it all, whatever happened I doubt he was trying to get into the fiery lake on purpose, although he did want a place where he was the top so he does sort of get his wish, just no dominion even there.
If you can move it, I already know nobody can or they would have already. The original candid camera prank will be the next theory.
I like being able to find out who is behind things, why not 'under'? It should be in prime condition as air would not be a factor, perhaps it will be the red weed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLhoXJWE4ps
I like being able to find out who is behind things, why not 'under'? It should be in prime condition as air would not be a factor, perhaps it will be the red weed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLhoXJWE4ps
That's way too much information. for that the red weed is changed for something sorrowful.
Jeff WayneThe War of the Worlds - Forever Autumn - YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HczkDnQz82Q&feature=related
Jeff WayneThe War of the Worlds - Forever Autumn - YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HczkDnQz82Q&feature=related
Actually, if you had watched it to the end, she thinks her evidence points to Salomon's temple in Jerusalem.
We can't even date when those blocks were quarried let alone tell what sort of customs there were at the time. perhaps they dropped it during an almost unrelenting rain. A few measurements and you can recreate the physical dynamics that gets a block that size buried that deep in that type of soil, bet that hasn't bee done yet either.