Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
So who is going to play Luke, Leia and Han?   ::smile::
Luke: CGI, voiced by Mark Hamill
Leia:  Emilia Clarke
Han: Shia LeBeouf
Chewbacca: Carrot Top

::geek::
2
And further science and invention will need to get a good filtering system for all those baptismal tanks and pools.
They said that about letting African Americans swim in public pools back in the 1960s.
3
News from Around the World / Re: OK now this is really sick
« Last post by DaveW on Today at 14:06:57 »
I read an article the other day theorizing that some apes evolved because their community ate psychoactive mushrooms that grew in their habitat for some large number of years.
They must have started that Mind Expansion cult that got popular in 1967.  rofl

The American Mind Expansionist Church was also known as the League for Spiritual Discovery (LSD).
4
News from Around the World / Re: OK now this is really sick
« Last post by DaveW on Today at 14:01:59 »
Is that from the link? It certainly cannot be from your beliefs?

If that is from the link I will jump for joy because it may be a small step for mankind but it is a giant leap toward the final end which cannot come soon enough for me. ::tippinghat::
Yes, it is from the linked article.

And no, it is not my belief. 
5
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/hebrew-bible/the-nephilim-and-the-sons-of-god/?mqsc=E4149502&dk=ZE3410ZF0&utm_source=WhatCountsEmail&utm_medium=BHDA%20Daily%20Newsletter&utm_campaign=1_25_23_Mary_Isis_and_Goddesses
Quote
Unlike Hercules, Achilles, and Perseus, demigods were seen more negatively by ancient Israelites

 John Drummond  January 24, 2023  19 Comments  85231 views  Share

Sandwiched between the genealogies of Adam’s descendants and the tale of Noah’s flood are a few enigmatic verses that leave many of us scratching our heads and wondering what it’s all about:

When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not abide in[a] man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown. (Genesis 6:1–4)

More often than not it’s just easier to shrug our shoulders and move on to the story of Noah and his family. But the questions remain all the same: Who are these “sons of God” and their Nephilim children, and why would the author of Genesis choose to mention them at all?

In the text we discover that the “sons of God” (Hebrew Benai-Elohim) succumbed to their passions for the “daughters of Men” and had children with them. These offspring were known as the Nephilim (literally, “the fallen ones”), and they were the “mighty ones of old” and “men of renown.”

Though centuries of rabbinical and church tradition would say otherwise, the audience to whom the text was intended would have understood the “sons of God” to be the members of the divine assembly mentioned throughout the literature of the ancient Near East, including the Bible (see Job 6:1; Job 38:7; Psalm 29:1; Psalm 82). In the biblical texts, the “sons of God” are usually described as lesser heavenly beings in the service of the Most High. In the texts of the cultures that surrounded Israel, like the Canaanite literature found at Ugarit, the “sons of God” similarly appear as divine beings in the service to the king of the gods, El, and his queen, Asherah. They include the likes of Baal, Anath, Astarte, Yam, and Mot. The audience of Genesis would have definitely understood these so-called “fallen ones” to be the offspring of celestial beings and human women. (Coincidentally the root of the word Nephilimis used elsewhere for miscarriages and other strange births. Exodus 21:22)

The reason the author chose to mention the Nephilim can be found in their description, which translated means something to the effect of “ancient champions who made a name for themselves.” Every society has myths and legends about gods having children with humans who become epic heroes and legendary kings. Many of us in the West are familiar with the exploits of Hercules, Achilles, and Perseus, and the Classical versions of their tales have been told and retold for well over two thousand years. However, many famous Classical stories are merely reimagined from earlier Near Eastern ones. There was a vast corpus of heroic literature available from Babylon to Egypt, including such tales as the Epic of Gilgamesh, and the ancient Israelites would have likely known these stories.

Readers of the Bible will be quick to point out the obvious problems with the Israelites’ enjoying the epic tales of demigods’ slaying monsters—they glorify a pagan culture filled with a slew of gods and goddesses far removed from the one true holy God of Israel. And just as my eighth grade Bible teacher thought my deep love of Star Wars was going to lead me into witchcraft one day, the religious leaders of ancient Israel likely feared the stories of Gilgamesh and other demigods would lead the people into idolatry. Unlike my teacher, however, the leaders of Israel did not threaten school detention. Instead, they chose a much more diplomatic solution to the Israelites’ love of stories about epic heroes. They gave an orthodox explanation for them and wove them into the context of their own narrative.

Instead of denying the existence of famous heroes altogether, the author labels them “the fallen ones” and all but blames them for the utter depravity that fell upon the world and necessitated the flood. As to how they corrupted the world we can only guess, but the concept of “making a name for oneself” is clearly at odds with the worldview found within the pages of the Bible, specifically the Book of Genesis, and calls to mind the human pride and wickedness that began in the Garden of Eden. Just after the flood, in Babel (Babylon), a place with a long association with epic tales and legendary kings, human beings decided to band together and build a tower to heaven to make a name for themselves (Genesis 11:1–9).

Were they trying to create their own legends to cement themselves in history alongside the Nephilim? We can only speculate. What we do know is that it isn’t the son of a god or goddess that steps onto the biblical stage soon after the folly of Babel, but a childless man with no strength or glory to speak of. His gift is not the power given by his divine lineage, but a promise of a future for his descendants. And it is God, not the man, who gives him a new name that will be remembered throughout the generations—Abraham.

The legacy of the Nephilim did not end with the flood, however, as the biblical texts go on to attribute them as the ancestors of some of the Israelites’ most feared enemies (Numbers 13:33). Another feared group that was legendary by the time the Israelites settled the land was the Rephaim, who were known to be powerful giants (Deuteronomy 2:11, 20, 3:11; Joshua 12:4, 13:12). It’s unknown if the Israelites originally equated the Rephaim with the Nephilim, but it is clear that by the Intertestimental period (the fourth–first centuries B.C.E.) the Nephilim were thought to be the monstrous giant offspring of fallen angels and humans, as described in the pseudographical Book of Enoch and Jubilees, as well as others found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The authors of the Greek Septuagint even chose to use the word gigantes in their translation of Genesis 6, a word that also invokes the monstrous Titans—the legendary giants that were destroyed by the gods in Greek myth. And like the Titans of old, the legend of the Nephilim only continues to grow in modern times.
6
Theology Forum / Re: Melchizidec
« Last post by Reformer on Today at 13:28:10 »
3 Resurrections:

"Melchizedek was NOT the pre-incarnate Christ.  Not remotely possible."

I "covered my tracks" by saying there's a possibility or probability.

   About Jesus being Melchizedek, Jarrod may possibly have it correct by saying, "I think it's similar to the case of whether John the Baptist was the promised return of the prophet Elijah."

Buff
7
Theology Forum / Re: Melchizidec
« Last post by Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Today at 11:56:27 »
Ah... Viva la reincarnation.
I hadn't thought of it in those terms, but I guess that's one way of looking at it.

Quote from: me
"The Bible ISN'T 100% consistent with ITSELF in everything it says."
Proof that the bible is not the inerrant word of God.... nor is it inspired, wouldn't you say?
I would say that the Bible contains the Word of God. 

Parts of it are inspired.  You can usually tell which parts because it tells you in advance "hey! this part is directly the words of God given to the prophet" or something like that.

Jarrod

8
I was a little alarmed at what you wrote until I got to " Back when we evolved from non-human primates, one specific gene came into play, which made our brains bigger while theirs stayed smaller."

Is that from the link? It certainly cannot be from your beliefs?

If that is from the link I will jump for joy because it may be a small step for mankind but it is a giant leap toward the final end which cannot come soon enough for me. ::tippinghat::
I read an article the other day theorizing that some apes evolved because their community ate psychoactive mushrooms that grew in their habitat for some large number of years.

Maybe you just need to eat some shrooms so you can evolve more, Rella.  ::noworries::

Jarrod
9
Theology Forum / Re: Melchizidec
« Last post by Rella on Today at 11:16:49 »
I think it's similar to the case of whether John the Baptist was the promised return of the prophet Elijah.

Matthew's gospel has Jesus saying that he was:
Matthew 11:14  And if ye will receive it, [John the Baptist] is Elias, which was for to come.

While John denies it in the gospel of John:
John 1:21 And [the Pharisees] asked [John the Baptist], What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not.

Rella provided some evidence (or the person she quoted did) that some 1st-century Jews were expecting a return of Melchizedek as a Messianic figure, and that Jesus made reference to this, claiming to be that Messiah.

Your attempts to void that evidence by claiming that it needs to be consistent with a few words in some verses in the Bible are noted, but ultimately that's bad logic.  There are other verses in the Bible that support the idea.  The Bible ISN'T 100% consistent with ITSELF in everything it says.

Jarrod

Ah... Viva la reincarnation.

"The Bible ISN'T 100% consistent with ITSELF in everything it says."

Proof that the bible is not the inerrant word of God.... nor is it inspired, wouldn't you say?

3R is spot on in this.

 ::eatingpopcorn:
10
[quote author=Texas Conservative link=topic=112108.msg1055209624#msg1055209624 date=1672606962]
How do Baptism, Science, and the OP fit together:

https://youtu.be/mSy1NQx2bJE

[/quote]

Thyat's easy.

Based on DaveW's post http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/news-from-around-the-world/ok-now-this-is-really-sick/
of today...
Quote

Looks like WW2 allies  Germany and Japan finally fulfilled Hitler's dream of making human-monkey hybrids.

https://interestingengineering.com/science/scientists-grow-bigger-monkey-brains-using-human-genes-replicating-evolution?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=content&utm_campaign=organic&utm_content=Jan23&fbclid=IwAR3ra_Z81bgricDh0zDTrRlrsMCgSnw5BMIoOEGixv4F7kUlEoammkPDeFI

It's our larger brains that set us apart from other primates. Back when we evolved from non-human primates, one specific gene came into play, which made our brains bigger while theirs stayed smaller.

Now a collaboration between researchers in Germany at the Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics and in Japan at the Central Institute for Experimental Animals, has used that same gene to grow a monkey brain to be bigger for the first time.

Their study was published in Science on Thursday.

This study is not only incredible, it's also enlightening. It could replicate the moment in evolution where humans became separate from other primates. All due to one gene.

"We had certain hopes — what the gene, ideally, could do and should, if it had the function that we had postulated it should have," lead study author Wieland  Huttner of the Max Planck Institute told Inverse.


When they get those primates up to the intelligence of the human being.... they WILL NEED TO BAPTIZE THEM  rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl.....

And further science and invention will need to get a good filtering system for all those baptismal tanks and pools.

IT ALL ties together.  ::tippinghat::[/size]
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10