Thoughts on Christianity

A place to relax and socialize - to muse, think aloud and suggest
Post Reply
Dcopymope
Banned
Posts: 670
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 1:59 am
Contact:

Re: Thoughts on Christianity

Unread post by Dcopymope » Wed Jun 04, 2014 12:38 am

In this video, I explain the motive for the concealment of the skeletal remains of the giants of Genesis 6 and their possible unveiling at a later date in relation to a much anticipated deception concerning disclosure of extraterrestrial life.

Smithsonian Museum closing the Fossil Hall for a five year overhaul (keep this in mind as time goes along): http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/local/wp/2014/04/25/smithsonians-dinosaur-hall-to-close-monday-for-five-year-48m-renovation/

Aliens and Evolution: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vagfcQ3gUVM

Why an Extraterrestrial God Appeals to Today's Culture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uB-PXRTrPc

Triple Helix - Michael Hoggard: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TobwitdQmKg


The giants of Genesis six and the alien deception:
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVnbenqc5HY

nimblehorse
Member
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 6:24 am

Re: Thoughts on Christianity

Unread post by nimblehorse » Wed Jun 04, 2014 12:52 am

Thoughts on Christianity.

Some pictures of Israelites. Hebrews entering Egypt - approx. 1877 b.c.e.
Image


Image


Image source: http://sarabe3.tripod.com/israeliteimages.html

Red, white & blue ?


Edited to remove wisecrack.
Last edited by nimblehorse on Fri Jun 06, 2014 11:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

fbenario
Member
Posts: 2231
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA
Contact:

Re: Thoughts on Christianity

Unread post by fbenario » Wed Jun 04, 2014 1:13 am

nimblehorse wrote:Handbags at ten paces :lol:

Some pictures of Israelites. Hebrews entering Egypt - approx. 1877 b.c.e.
Image


Image


Image source: http://sarabe3.tripod.com/israeliteimages.html

Red, white & blue ?

This post is meaningless, and seems to be taking the piss. It should either be deleted or moved to The Derailing Room.

iCONOCLAST
Member
Posts: 62
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 12:15 pm

Re: Thoughts on Christianity

Unread post by iCONOCLAST » Wed Jun 04, 2014 2:55 am

fbenario wrote:This post is meaningless, and seems to be taking the piss. It should either be deleted or moved to The Derailing Room.


I like the post. It is using the art of the ancient Egyptians to enlighten us. It is refreshing to see a primary source instead of the Wholly BuyBull for a change. The images are IMHO homoerotic in nature.

Dcopymope
Banned
Posts: 670
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 1:59 am
Contact:

Re: Thoughts on Christianity

Unread post by Dcopymope » Wed Jun 04, 2014 11:12 pm

Giant humans scrubbed from history:
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRfyO-NSNnE

http://greaterancestors.com/greater-humans/

nimblehorse
Member
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 6:24 am

Re: Thoughts on Christianity

Unread post by nimblehorse » Tue Jun 10, 2014 12:47 am

Thought's
on Christianity


I'm happy that Simon has altered the title of this thread from 'Truths
about Christianity'. Truths can be confused with opinion & vice
versa whereas 'Thought's are simple musings, harmless really.

What I would like to do with this post, is show how Bible scripture has been
deliberately falsified/redacted/mistranslated & contorted over the millennia, in order to
promote an political agenda.
I will simply show various verses from the common or garden, King James Version(KJV) as they appear today & compare that Medieval English translation with the original Hebrew word definitions.
I will start this analysis at the beginning, Genesis 1, the Old Testament.

As with Finding anomalies in media faked imagery, I plan to show you similar anomalies and inconsistencies with these scriptural Interpolations. By so doing, an alternative version of scripture is revealed.

My premise is that the Bible(Old Testament) is the history of the white Aryan peoples.
Written by, for and about those ancient Aryans, ancestors of the bronze
age Celts. This fact has been concealed through many different processes
in order to universalise the message, a catch all for religious
institutions & despots.

Take for my 1st example the name 'Adam' so called 'first Human'. This is what
Wickedpedia has to say...
Etymology

Adam (Hebrew: אָדָם, Arabic: آدم) as a proper name, pre-dates its
generic use in Semitic languages. Its earliest known use as a genuine
name in Historicity is Adamu, as recorded in the Assyrian King List.[2]
Its use as a common word in the Hebrew language is ׳āḏām, meaning
"human". Coupled with the definite article, it becomes "the human".[3]

Its root is not attributed to the Semitic root for "man" -(n)-sh.
Rather, ׳āḏām is linked to its triliteral root אָדָם (A-D-M ), meaning
"red", "fair", "handsome".[4] As a masculine noun, 'adam [5] means
"man", "mankind" usually in a collective context as in humankind.[4][6]
The noun 'adam is also the masculine form of the word adamah which means
"ground" or "earth". It is related to the words: adom (red), admoni
(ruddy), and dam (blood).[7]
In the Book of Genesis, ׳āḏām can also be rendered "mankind" in the most
generic sense, which is similar to its usage in Canaanite
languages.[8][9] The use of "mankind" in Genesis, gives the reflection
that Adam was the ancestor of all men.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam


However wiki fails to mention the actual Hebrew lexicon number &
definition shown below.
H119 'adam aw-dam' to show blood (in the face), i.e. flush or
turn rosy:--be (dyed, made) red (ruddy).

http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=119

So in the Genesis story, where you see the word 'Adam' or the word 'Man', then it is from the original Hebrew word 'Aw-dawm', 'to show blood in the face' or 'the
blusher'.(H119,H120,H122)
Well only the white race has the ability to blush. There is simply no
doubt about this. However the powers at be have an agenda and use many
cunning arguments to obscure this fact.
The establishment version of scripture has this Adam as the 1st human the 1st Man.
again, this is an distortion.
In the three verses below, in this King James version, Gods
actual name has been removed (Yahweh) & the title 'God' or 'Lord'
put in its place[throughout scripture], also where you read 'Man', it is H120 'Aw-dawm' (rosy
cheeks).
Genesis chapter 1, Verse 25-27
1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and
cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth
after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image,
after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea,
and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the
earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the
image of God created he him; male and female created he them.


The creation story in genesis is actually very similar to the popular
secular sciences evolutionary theory. Such as, complex Life on earth
developed out of the oceans over millions/billions of years. Like we are
all descended from an Ape called Lucy some £3.2 million years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_%28Australopithecus%29

I will quickly run through the 6 day creation.

Day 1:Heaven & Earth created/Night & Day.
Day 2:Waters & Firmament.
Day 3:Dry land/Oceans,1st Plants.
Day 4:Arranges the Stars & Heavenly bodies.
Day 5:Fish/Sea Creatures/Birds/Beasts & Animals of all kinds
Day 6:Cattle/Beasts of the Earth, Man (Aw-dawm).

Now if you understand that the word 'Day' in the above verse is, 'Yom'
Hebrew lexicon number H3117.
It can mean an 24 hour period but In context it has a meaning of an
unspecified length of time, also the association of being the hottest
part of the day, intense heat of the midday sun as perceived by primitive agricultural workers.
http://studybible.info/strongs/H3117

My contention is this. We know through empirical science & the
fossil record, that the white Caucasians as a race, the white race, are
the most recent addition to the 'Human Family'. Many
Australasian/Negroid skeletons have been found pre-dating any white man's remains.
So I am suggesting that the older races['Beast of the Earth'] were
created by Yahweh on the sixth day(aeon) who went on to complete the set
with Aw-dawm, the blusher(Caucasoid).

Note: the words 'beast of the earth' in the Hebrew are simply 'Chay'
(Living creature) & 'Erets' (earth).

Ok, here is another interesting angle with this creation story.

1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.…


So, in the 1st verse, God created the heavens & the earth, period. 2nd verse, The earth was formless & void...well, that small word 'was' [highlighted in green], is the Hebrew word 'Haw yaw' meaning 'to become'.

H1961 - hâyâh
A primitive root; to exist, that is, be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary)


The idea is that the world was in existence, then some sort of catastrophe such as an asteroid hit, and the world became formless & void, and darkness was over the face of the water. The 6 day creation that follows, is the worlds life systems coming back from the brink.

Then in verse 28 it says;
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it:

http://studybible.info/strongs/H4390

Why would they need to 'Replenish' anything ?

Dcopymope
Banned
Posts: 670
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 1:59 am
Contact:

Re: Thoughts on Christianity

Unread post by Dcopymope » Tue Jun 10, 2014 3:50 am

nimblehorse wrote:Thought's
on Christianity


I'm happy that Simon has altered the title of this thread from 'Truths
about Christianity'. Truths can be confused with opinion & vice
versa whereas 'Thought's are simple musings, harmless really.

What I would like to do with this post, is show how Bible scripture has been
deliberately falsified/redacted/mistranslated & contorted over the millennia, in order to
promote an political agenda.
I will simply show various verses from the common or garden, King James Version(KJV) as they appear today & compare that Medieval English translation with the original Hebrew word definitions.
I will start this analysis at the beginning, Genesis 1, the Old Testament.

As with Finding anomalies in media faked imagery, I plan to show you similar anomalies and inconsistencies with these scriptural Interpolations. By so doing, an alternative version of scripture is revealed.

My premise is that the Bible(Old Testament) is the history of the white Aryan peoples.
Written by, for and about those ancient Aryans, ancestors of the bronze
age Celts. This fact has been concealed through many different processes
in order to universalise the message, a catch all for religious
institutions & despots.

Take for my 1st example the name 'Adam' so called 'first Human'. This is what
Wickedpedia has to say...
Etymology

Adam (Hebrew: אָדָם, Arabic: آدم) as a proper name, pre-dates its
generic use in Semitic languages. Its earliest known use as a genuine
name in Historicity is Adamu, as recorded in the Assyrian King List.[2]
Its use as a common word in the Hebrew language is ׳āḏām, meaning
"human". Coupled with the definite article, it becomes "the human".[3]

Its root is not attributed to the Semitic root for "man" -(n)-sh.
Rather, ׳āḏām is linked to its triliteral root אָדָם (A-D-M ), meaning
"red", "fair", "handsome".[4] As a masculine noun, 'adam [5] means
"man", "mankind" usually in a collective context as in humankind.[4][6]
The noun 'adam is also the masculine form of the word adamah which means
"ground" or "earth". It is related to the words: adom (red), admoni
(ruddy), and dam (blood).[7]
In the Book of Genesis, ׳āḏām can also be rendered "mankind" in the most
generic sense, which is similar to its usage in Canaanite
languages.[8][9] The use of "mankind" in Genesis, gives the reflection
that Adam was the ancestor of all men.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam


However wiki fails to mention the actual Hebrew lexicon number &
definition shown below.
H119 'adam aw-dam' to show blood (in the face), i.e. flush or
turn rosy:--be (dyed, made) red (ruddy).

http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=119

So in the Genesis story, where you see the word 'Adam' or the word 'Man', then it is from the original Hebrew word 'Aw-dawm', 'to show blood in the face' or 'the
blusher'.(H119,H120,H122)
Well only the white race has the ability to blush. There is simply no
doubt about this. However the powers at be have an agenda and use many
cunning arguments to obscure this fact.
The establishment version of scripture has this Adam as the 1st human the 1st Man.
again, this is an distortion.
In the three verses below, in this King James version, Gods
actual name has been removed (Yahweh) & the title 'God' or 'Lord'
put in its place[throughout scripture], also where you read 'Man', it is H120 'Aw-dawm' (rosy
cheeks).
Genesis chapter 1, Verse 25-27
1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and
cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth
after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image,
after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea,
and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the
earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the
image of God created he him; male and female created he them.


The creation story in genesis is actually very similar to the popular
secular sciences evolutionary theory. Such as, complex Life on earth
developed out of the oceans over millions/billions of years. Like we are
all descended from an Ape called Lucy some £3.2 million years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_%28Australopithecus%29

I will quickly run through the 6 day creation.

Day 1:Heaven & Earth created/Night & Day.
Day 2:Waters & Firmament.
Day 3:Dry land/Oceans,1st Plants.
Day 4:Arranges the Stars & Heavenly bodies.
Day 5:Fish/Sea Creatures/Birds/Beasts & Animals of all kinds
Day 6:Cattle/Beasts of the Earth, Man (Aw-dawm).

Now if you understand that the word 'Day' in the above verse is, 'Yom'
Hebrew lexicon number H3117.
It can mean an 24 hour period but In context it has a meaning of an
unspecified length of time, also the association of being the hottest
part of the day, intense heat of the midday sun as perceived by primitive agricultural workers.
http://studybible.info/strongs/H3117

My contention is this. We know through empirical science & the
fossil record, that the white Caucasians as a race, the white race, are
the most recent addition to the 'Human Family'. Many
Australasian/Negroid skeletons have been found pre-dating any white man's remains.
So I am suggesting that the older races['Beast of the Earth'] were
created by Yahweh on the sixth day(aeon) who went on to complete the set
with Aw-dawm, the blusher(Caucasoid).

Note: the words 'beast of the earth' in the Hebrew are simply 'Chay'
(Living creature) & 'Erets' (earth).



The Bible has nothing at all in common with evolution. Evolution states that by millions of years of death and survival of the fittest came man, the Bible states the exact opposite that by the sin of man came death. Evolution makes the claim that life developed by the long discredited unproven means of abiogenesis, which means that biological life forms arrived spontaneously by itself, with the help of natural phenomena such as lightning and volcanic activity striking the oceans beginning the long chain of common descent from single celled water based organisms to humanity. It’s the same rubbish shown in the Noah movie as I pointed out in my video, what amounts to theistic evolution. The Bible, however plainly states that there was a designer who is separate from creation referred to as God, and there was no common descent from some imagined single celled organisms, but that all creatures were created separately on the same day after their own kind, and that man was fashioned from the dust of the earth, not from an ape or any other creature.

And it was dis-proven years ago that we have any ancestral link to this icon of evolution called “Lucy”. Its about as phony as the Piltdown man. The “proof” that Lucy ever walked bipedal is based on a faulty reconstruction of its foot from different fossils such as the H. habilis, and that its been known for years that Lucy “almost certainly did not walk like us or, by extension, like the hominids at Laetoli”, as the article below states. Also, recent DNA sequencing techniques have dis-proven the long touted rubbish that “99%” of human DNA is similar to apes and that its actually no more than about 70%. Based on real observed, testable science, we are not interchangeable with apes or any other creature for that matter no matter how much the high priests of materialism would like you to believe.

99% DNA similarities between apes and man debunked

Footprints to Fill - "A. afarensis almost certainly did not walk like us or, by extension, like the hominids at Laetoli"


nimblehorse wrote:[size=150]Ok, here is another interesting angle with this creation story.

1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2The earth [color=#00BF00]was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.…


So, in the 1st verse, God created the heavens & the earth, period. 2nd verse, The earth was formless & void...well, that small word 'was' [highlighted in green], is the Hebrew word 'Haw yaw' meaning 'to become'.

H1961 - hâyâh
A primitive root; to exist, that is, be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary)


The idea is that the world was in existence, then some sort of catastrophe such as an asteroid hit, and the world became formless & void, and darkness was over the face of the water. The 6 day creation that follows, is the worlds life systems coming back from the brink.

Then in verse 28 it says;
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it:

http://studybible.info/strongs/H4390

Why would they need to 'Replenish' anything ?



What’s described here is what’s called the gap theory, a theory that was made up solely to accommodate the evolutionary timescale. It has no basis in sound Biblical doctrine and only works by taking scriptures out of context with an ad hoc interpretation of the first two verses of Genesis. It’s about Christians compromising their faith for the foolish beliefs of the world. As shown here, the verse used the most is verse 28 where God tells Adam and Eve to replenish the earth. As you can see throughout 'nimblehorse' entire post, he’s using confirmation bias. He uses Hebrew translations in other places so as to discredit the literal interpretation of the book and does a 180 and sticks with literal interpretations of scripture where it suits him, such as in verse 28. As time went along, the English language has changed quite a bit, so you can expect the term ‘replenish’ to undergo similar changes. Today the term replenish means to start over. In 1611 however, the term simply meant “to fill”. It wasn't meant to be some mystical reference to some previous creation, the term meant exactly what it’s meant to mean today, which is to reproduce after their kind.

Link: http://av1611.com/kjbp/kjv-dictionary/replenish.html

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/replenish

All should take heed to all those coming in here with responses full of fake long discredited “science” and false Biblical doctrines, I will gracefully eviscerate it scientifically and theologically. I let the Bible speak for itself and let all men and their "interpretations" and heathen beliefs stand as liars.

Lazlo
Member
Posts: 220
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2012 4:13 pm

Re: Thoughts on Christianity

Unread post by Lazlo » Tue Jun 10, 2014 5:31 am

Amalachites Beware

Dcopy writes:
All should take heed to all those coming in here with responses full of fake long discredited “science” and false Biblical doctrines, I will gracefully eviscerate it scientifically and theologically. I let the Bible speak for itself and let all men and their "interpretations" and heathen beliefs stand as liars.


For the love of God, lets just hope there are no Amalachites around this board that need a good smiting. This whole approach is both parochial and tendentious. Plus, it sounds like some kind of Mosaic threat.

Dcopymope
Banned
Posts: 670
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 1:59 am
Contact:

Re: Thoughts on Christianity

Unread post by Dcopymope » Tue Jun 10, 2014 10:20 am

Lazlo wrote:Amalachites Beware

Dcopy writes:
All should take heed to all those coming in here with responses full of fake long discredited “science” and false Biblical doctrines, I will gracefully eviscerate it scientifically and theologically. I let the Bible speak for itself and let all men and their "interpretations" and heathen beliefs stand as liars.


For the love of God, lets just hope there are no Amalachites around this board that need a good smiting. This whole approach is both parochial and tendentious. Plus, it sounds like some kind of Mosaic threat.


The first threat comes from the distortion of the word of God, which will naturally provoke a retaliation in kind. In fact its more than a threat, its an act of war the way I see it. I would have left 'nimblehorse' alone if his post was about his Gnostic Aryan interpretations. But then, he tried to justify his beliefs with "science" falsely so called, and it just sparked a flame within me.

pov603
Member
Posts: 836
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 8:02 pm

Re: Thoughts on Christianity

Unread post by pov603 » Tue Jun 10, 2014 11:19 am

In the great words of Ricky Gervais: 'I'd like to thank God for making me an Atheist'

nimblehorse
Member
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 6:24 am

Re: Thoughts on Christianity

Unread post by nimblehorse » Tue Jun 10, 2014 10:45 pm

Yes, very good. I was simply putting a point of view into the mix.

"THE LIVING ROOM
A place to relax and socialize - to muse, think aloud and suggest "

no offence intended

dblitz
Member
Posts: 246
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 2:32 am

Re: Thoughts on Christianity

Unread post by dblitz » Wed Jun 11, 2014 1:16 pm

I wish more people would read real golden age science fiction, then they would realize how many amazing ways the bible can be explained away. Christian Identity or whatever is one of the more boring ways, frankly. Read Philip. K. Dick's 'Valis' trilogy plus 'Radio Free Albemuth.' Then read all the Asimov robot stories and the 'The End of Eternity' for a start. Imagination is nice, but God's ideas are slightly bigger :) Why not be one instead of submitting to one.

nimblehorse
Member
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 6:24 am

Re: Thoughts on Christianity

Unread post by nimblehorse » Sun Jun 15, 2014 11:05 pm

Ok, I will try and respond to dcopy:

My comments in red.
The Bible has nothing at all in common with evolution.[I said the creation story in Genesis is similar to the main stream evolution theory] Evolution states that by millions of years of death and survival of the fittest came man, the Bible states the exact opposite that by the sin of man came death.[this sounds illogical, what is 'kind after kind', if no 'death' is involved ?] Evolution makes the claim that life developed by the long discredited unproven means of abiogenesis, which means that biological life forms arrived spontaneously by itself, with the help of natural phenomena such as lightning and volcanic activity striking the oceans beginning the long chain of common descent from single celled water based organisms to humanity.[Isnt that what god does, through the 6 day(epoch) creation ? It’s the same rubbish shown in the Noah movie as I pointed out in my video, what amounts to theistic evolution. The Bible, however plainly states that there was a designer who is separate from creation referred to as God[actually, staying with chapter 1, Genesis, the 'God' is 'Elohim' number H430, gods plural , and there was no common descent from some imagined single celled organisms[I didnt say they did.], but that all creatures were created separately on the same day[on separate 'Days'] after their own kind,[ starting with plants, then fishes, then land animals, each [st]'Day'[/st] epoch, building on complexity.] and that man was fashioned from the dust of the earth[That is genesis two, that makes Adam from mud & I am proposing to expound on that in a future post.], not from an ape or any other creature.[?]


And it was dis-proven years ago that we have any ancestral link to this icon of evolution called “Lucy”. Its about as phony as the Piltdown man. The “proof” that Lucy ever walked bipedal is based on a faulty reconstruction of its foot from different fossils such as the H. habilis, and that its been known for years that Lucy “almost certainly did not walk like us or, by extension, like the hominids at Laetoli”, as the article below states. Also, recent DNA sequencing techniques have dis-proven the long touted rubbish that “99%” of human DNA is similar to apes and that its actually no more than about 70%. Based on real observed, testable science, we are not interchangeable with apes or any other creature for that matter no matter how much the high priests of materialism would like you to believe.

Ah, we concur, regarding the discredited evolutionary theory.

Except, I was pointing out the ludicrous(to me) & popular, Judeo-Christian idea that all men are related to this Adam, created some 6000-7000 years ago. Sort of evolutionary theory, on steroids.

What’s described here is what’s called the gap theory, a theory that was made up solely to accommodate the evolutionary timescale. It has no basis in sound Biblical doctrine and only works by taking scriptures out of context with an ad hoc interpretation of the first two verses of Genesis. It’s about Christians compromising their faith for the foolish beliefs of the world. As shown here, the verse used the most is verse 28 where God tells Adam and Eve to replenish the earth. As you can see throughout 'nimblehorse' entire post, he’s using confirmation bias. He uses Hebrew translations in other places so as to discredit the literal interpretation of the book and does a 180 and sticks with literal interpretations of scripture where it suits him, such as in verse 28. As time went along, the English language has changed quite a bit, so you can expect the term ‘replenish’ to undergo similar changes. Today the term replenish means to start over. In 1611 however, the term simply meant “to fill”. It wasn't meant to be some mystical reference to some previous creation, the term meant exactly what it’s meant to mean today, which is to reproduce after their kind.


I took the Hebrew word number H4390,
mâlê' mâlâ'
maw-lay', maw-law'
A primitive root, to fill or (intransitively) be full of, in a wide application (literally and figuratively)

KJV Usage: accomplish, confirm, + consecrate, be at an end, be expired, be fenced, fill, fulfil, (be, become, X draw, give in, go) fully (-ly, -ly set, tale), [over-] flow, fulness, furnish, gather (selves, together), presume, replenish, satisfy, set, space, take a [hand-] full, + have wholly.

Strong(stein) concordance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong%27s_Concordance

Dcopymope
Banned
Posts: 670
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 1:59 am
Contact:

Re: Thoughts on Christianity

Unread post by Dcopymope » Fri Jun 20, 2014 10:32 pm

nimblehorse wrote:[this sounds illogical, what is 'kind after kind', if no 'death' is involved ?][/color]


A species producing after its own kind doesn't automatically mean there is death involved. Life, as the Bible describes it, resides not in a meat suit but the spirit that it encases. Adam was not considered alive until God breathed life into him, the same goes with all sentient life. Plants, therefore, are not considered "alive" or "sentient" as the Bible defines life, its just a biological life form solely designed to react to certain stimuli within the natural environment, it has no conscious or soul. There were no animal deaths either as all animals were originally designed to be herbivores before the fall in Eden. Death entering the world because of the sin of Adam is the plainly stated foundation of Biblical doctrine. Violate this, and it makes null and void the act of Jesus conquering death through the resurrection.

nimblehorse wrote:[Isnt that what god does, through the 6 day(epoch) creation ?


No, the bible doesn't state that nature created itself nor it does state that all life stems from a common ancestor as your holy books in academia would like you to believe. When you see the same transmissions in two different vehicles, that is not evidence of common ancestry, but of a common designer. This is the correct Biblical stance on creation, that you all have a common designer, which is the real reason why you have genetic similarities even to a banana, and I don't know about you, but my ancestors were not bananas.

nimblehorse wrote:Ah, we concur, regarding the discredited evolutionary theory.

Except, I was pointing out the ludicrous(to me) & popular, Judeo-Christian idea that all men are related to this Adam, created some 6000-7000 years ago. Sort of evolutionary theory, on steroids.


Its "ludicrous" in the minds of those that are of the world that would like you to believe that your ancestors were apes, and quite frankly, I don't feel a need to explain a "judeo-christian" idea as you call it that's plainly stated in the inspired word of God. The basic definition of the word 'evolution' is when something becomes better or more complex than what it is. The entire idea originates with the lie Satan told Adam and Eve, that if they eat this "fruit" they can become something different or more than what they were, as "gods", and we see all the false religions of the world still preaching the same tripe under the banner of the new age movement. According to the world, the Princess and the Frog was a real event. This is what the heathen would like you to believe despite the real evidence showing that quite the exact opposite has occurred on all accounts, as everything we see in creation is in its fallen or cursed state. If by "evolution" you mean the observable phenomenon of variation within a kind resulting in loss of genetic information overtime, then that's not "evolution" by its most basic definition.

nimblehorse wrote:I took the Hebrew word number H4390,
mâlê' mâlâ'
maw-lay', maw-law'
A primitive root, to fill or (intransitively) be full of, in a wide application (literally and figuratively)

KJV Usage: accomplish, confirm, + consecrate, be at an end, be expired, be fenced, fill, fulfil, (be, become, X draw, give in, go) fully (-ly, -ly set, tale), [over-] flow, fulness, furnish, gather (selves, together), presume, replenish, satisfy, set, space, take a [hand-] full, + have wholly.

Strong(stein) concordance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong%27s_Concordance


Well, you just proved my point, when the Bible was written in Hebrew and translated in English, it was always meant to mean produce after their kind, it was never understood nor meant to be an allusion to some imagined previous creation. Its been misunderstand this way today solely because of the continual changes to the english language. If you've watched my video in the link below, you can see how easily the gap theory can play into the alien deception, after all, motive is what I'm about when it comes down to it.

link: http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=1528&p=2390652#p2390499

Dcopymope
Banned
Posts: 670
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 1:59 am
Contact:

Re: Thoughts on Christianity

Unread post by Dcopymope » Sat Jun 21, 2014 4:06 am

Homology -- do common structures imply common ancestor?:
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ydajcf2SBw

Post Reply