Literal/Original texts

[Rev.Reverence]

problem with this is, if you're a devout follower of your faith, you're not typically encouraged to (and quite often discouraged from) exploring other religions, so many adherents won't be able/willing to explore these in any depth.

and btw, it's kama sutra, i believe...

Yes, I find myself lucky that I was brought up in a secular/spiritual situation, so I got to listen to my own Heart more often than not.

The New religions, mostly, tell us to look to our neighbor (they mean the guy next door), for Wisdom, perhaps we had not found.

(Yes, it is 'kama' I did not see that and now I must go fix it...)

[Steven]

you don't, directly, but it does manage to come across this way, to at least a few people... it's cool, though!

well I have to own this then, and so I promise that I will give it a great deal of thought.

[Steven]

problem with this is, if you're a devout follower of your faith, you're not typically encouraged to (and quite often discouraged from) exploring other religions, so many adherents won't be able/willing to explore these in any depth.

and btw, it's kama sutra, i believe...

I think that you should though - do your best to be satisfied that you are on teh right path for you. I have many differetn types of religeous (and a littel bit of gnostic writing) in my library.

[Fierce Critter]

well, i will say, for me it's not about trying to get him to admit to something he doesn't believe, it's more of 1) trying to understand where he's coming from, and 2) trying to get him to admit that other people don't necessarily see things his way - that x-tianity, while collectively similar, is open to interpretation by the individual/group/society that is working with it.

obviously, steven believes strongly, and is firm in his beliefs, and i applaud that! unfortunately, sometimes it comes across as steven (and some others) appearing to say "this is how it is, and is the only way it is", which i feel to be inaccurate.

do you (you too, steven) see where i'm coming from here? i hope so...

In your case, actually, I do see more fact-finding and "seeking understanding" in this particular conversation. So yes, I see where you're coming from.

I think that the "trying to get him to admit that other people don't see things his way" is pointless in this case. I think Steven has made it exceptionally clear in the past that he knows he's the odd-man-out on DGN when it comes to matters of Christian belief. That he knows there are plenty of belief systems out there that don't agree with what he believes/follows. I've also seen him say in other threads that he sometimes is ostracized by the Christian community as well as his beliefs don't even necessarily reflect all those commonly held by your everyday Christian. I've seen him lament that he actually thinks that his way of thinking is becoming more and more in the minority in this day and age. While I might not agree with that, if that's what he's seeing, then there must be some basis to it.

sometimes it comes across as steven (and some others) appearing to say "this is how it is, and is the only way it is", which i feel to be inaccurate.

In Steven's case, this is how it is, and is the only way it is - for him. I'm sure he'd like to see others believe the same way he does, but I'm just as sure that he knows that's only going to happen with some people he meets, not all of them.

To relate how all of us do this in some way, recall the "depression" discussion/debate between the two of us some time ago? You held to your belief on how "things are" when it comes to depression and treating/getting over it just as strongly as Steven holds to his religious beliefs. And I defended my experience/opinion just as vehemently there as you are doing here. That may have been a matter of mental health vs. this being a matter of faith, but it's a similar vibe.

And if I want to look at all of this in a positive light, all any of us are doing is possibly thinking that someone would be happier if they could just see things the way we do. I think a lot of us who don't subscribe to the hardcore Christian way of thinking tend to get zealous about this sort of thing because we see how much influence Christianity has over aspects of how the world turns. I know I bristle at Christians who try to push laws on society that I feel are based on a morality dictated by the Bible.

If I'm looking at Christians in a positive light, Christians do this because they really believe that the end-all, be-all of existence is to sit with Jesus and God in Heaven. And they really want that Heavenly reward when they die. And they really wish well for others, so they want them to also achieve Grace.

Likewise, those of us who don't follow the Bible as literal or a good source of "behavior guidelines" think that happiness stems from personal freedoms not dictated by a particular belief system/religion, so maybe we wish Christian "bible thumpers" would understand that they'd just be happier if they'd loosen up and not be so judgmental.

Sometimes these discussions are great in that even if we don't agree with what the other person is maintaining, we can get some knowledge to add to our big, mental file cabinet of "stuff" we know. That is never a bad thing, IMNSHO.

Steven, sorry if I'm talking for you here or putting words in your mouth. Correct me if I've gotten anything wrong.

[Steven]

I think your on a healthy roll Love, and I forgot about that thread on depression - that was a very good example to use to exemplify how certain dynamics come in to play when we take a particular position....you have given me a great deal to think about.......I always appreciate your input, its very balanced and well thought out and for lack of a better descriptive....its very "fair". thank you Camille for doing what you do, the way you do it. there has been quite a few times when it has been you who has lifted my spirits.

[Pandora]

Ok here are the comparisons. The information was taken word for word from this site, which promotes several theories:

Noah

Comparing the stories

The Chaldean Flood Tablets from the city of Ur in what is now Southern Iraq, describe how the Bablylonian God Ea had decided to eliminate humans and other land animals with a great flood which was to become "the end of all flesh". He selected Ut-Napishtim, to build an ark to save a few humans, and samples of other animals.

The Babylonian text "The Epic of Galgamesh" 1,8 and the Hebrew story are essentially identical with about 20 major points in common. Their texts are obviously linked in some way.

Either:

Genesis was copied from an earlier Babylonian story, or

The Galgamesh myth was copied from an earlier Hebrew story, or

Both were copied from a common source that predates them both.

In both the Genesis and Galgamesh stories:

The Genesis story describes how mankind had become obnoxious to God; they were hopelessly sinful and wicked. In the Babylonian story, they were too numerous and noisy.

The Gods (or God) decided to send a worldwide flood. This would drown men, women, children, babies and infants, as well as eliminate all of the land animals and birds.

bullet The Gods (or God) knew of one righteous man, Ut-Napishtim or Noah.

The Gods (or God) ordered the hero to build a multi-story wooden ark (called a chest or box in the original Hebrew).

The ark would be sealed with pitch.

The ark would have with many internal compartments

It would have a single door

It would have at least one window.

The ark was built and loaded with the hero, a few other humans, and samples from all species of other land animals.

A great rain covered the land with water.

The mountains were initially covered with water.

The ark landed on a mountain in the Middle East.

The hero sent out birds at regular intervals to find if any dry land was in the vicinity.

The first two birds returned to the ark. The third bird apparently found dry land because it did not return.

The hero and his family left the ark, ritually killed an animal, offered it as a sacrifice.

God (or the Gods in the Epic of Gilgamesh) smelled the roasted meat of the sacrifice.

The hero was blessed.

The Babylonian gods seemed genuinely sorry for the genocide that they had created. The God of Noah appears to have regretted his actions as well, because he promised never to do it again.

The were a number of differences between the two stories: (Though the above similarities are pretty hard to dismiss imo.)

Noah received his instructions directly from Jehovah; Ut-Napishtim received them indirectly during a dream.

Noah's ark was 3 stories high and rectangular in shape. Two estimated dimensions are 547 x 91 ft. and 450 x 75 ft. The Babylonian ark was 6 stories high and square.

Ut-Napishtim invited additional people on board: a pilot and some skilled workmen.

Noah's ark landed on Mt. Ararat; Ut-Napishtim'sat on Mt. Nisir; these locations are both in the Middle East, and are located few hundred miles apart

In the Bible, some of the water emerged from beneath the earth. And the rains from above lasted for 40 days and nights.

A 40 day interval often symbolized a period of judgment in the Hebrew Scriptures. 2 In the Babylonian account, the water came only in the form of rain, and lasted only 6 days.

bullet Noah released a raven once and a dove twice; Ut-Napishtim released three birds: a dove, swallow and raven.

Which Came First Noah or Ut-Napishtim?

The Babylonian tablets which contain the full story of the flood have been dated circa 650 BCE. However, portions of the story have been found on tablets from about 2000 BCE. A study of the language used in the tablets indicates that the story originated much earlier than 2000 BCE. 3 Variations of the original story have been found translated into other ancient languages. 4

Many conservative Christians believe that the flood occurred in 2349 BCE, and that the account in Genesis was written by Moses in the 1450's BCE, shortly before his death. 5,8 Thus, the Babylonian text must be a corrupted version based on a Paganized adaptation of the true story in Genesis. Alternatively, it might be an independent attempt at describing the world-wide flood.

*Pandora note: The Epic of Gilgamesh is the one of the earliest recorded works of literary fiction using primary source material to validate its existence. It came before Genesis was written, far before it.

Liberal theologians, noting the different names used to refer to God, and the different writing styles throughout the Penaeuch (first 5 books of the Hebrew Scriptures), believe that Genesis was assembled over a 4 century interval, circa 950 to 540 BCE by authors from a variety of traditions. 6

J and P seem to have based their stories on two original stories from Mesopotamian sources, perhaps based on a massive series of floods in Ur and surrounding areas circa 2800 BCE which would be perceived by the local population as being very extensive; perhaps world wide. Alternatively, it may have been based on the catastrophic flooding of the Black Sea.

[Sybil]

I suppose thats a matter of opinon but if your asking Steven: yes. and it sucked.

now - in fairness Phee - as this historical text your quoting from refers specifically to the early generations of ancient Israel in pre-jerusalem times where they had not even yet established themselves as a solid fixed nation let alone moved toward fulfillemnt of Messianic prophesy - is this text saying:

"hey - STEVEN URENDA - CHRISTIAN IN GARDEN CITY - GO, RAPE, PILLAGE, AND PLUNDER IN MY NAME"

is this text instructing me to do this Phee?

does this text APPLY to me Phee?

and does this text present itself as THE WAY to be a Christian or follower of YHWH?

hmmmm....

Pardon my late entry to the convo.....

Ummm.. I read this a few times, and from what I see here, the soldiers, in an odd way, are saving the girl they find attractive from death..... cuz this is war we are talking about, right?? And when they bring her home, she has a month to "bewail her father and mother". Then after the month he can take her as wife. Now.. in my personal experience, having moved in with my man and my parents moved far away right afterwards.. a very strong bond occurs between the woman and man... in a month, it isnt necessarilly rape that the woman is experiencing.

I say this next thing gently... when you read the Bible and take its information deep into your heart and mind... its something you have to do prayerfully.... if you read when you are angry or search for things when you are angry or trying to prove a point, sometimes you may not take things into proper perspective....??

(I am enjoying reading all of the questions and information in here!!!!! Again, I am sorry to enter so late into this.)

[Sybil]

Steven, that reply was to Phee's question about God condoning rape, and also to your responce.........

[Sybil]

I've been reading all of this.

I've been talking privately with Steven about just this sort of thing.

I want to say this. Just as biblical text and how one fits it into their life is faith-based, so is dealing with people themselves.

I don't agree with Steven on everything he believes. I might even wish he felt differently.

But overall, I like Steven. I think he's got a very good head on his shoulders. I think that, perhaps, some people, and maybe even Steven, don't have a problem with certain "sheeple" tendencies. I think that this isn't always a bad thing.

One-on-one, I find dealing with "people like Steven" is painless. He believes what he believes, I believe what I believe, move past that and meet in the middle with the things we agree on and agree to disagree on the rest.

I do agree with the undercurrent of purpose of people like the person in the Dr. Laura e-mail, however, that in big groups, "people like Steven" can sway public opinion - based on something that is very heavily faith-based and may OR may not be fact-based. And that the direction they can sway people isn't neccesarily what I would consider a "good" direction (i.e. homosexuality). This is what I was referring to in another thread here when I say I'm sick of people treating written works of ANY kind as "law" rather than "inspiration."

Which leads me back to Steven. I think he's pretty well stated that he treats the bible at times as law, and at other times, as inspiration. And people can go on and on and on at him, seemingly trying to get him to say words to the literal effect of, "YES! I AM PICKING AND CHOOSING WHAT TO BELIEVE BASED ON WHAT DOES AND DOES NOT WORK FOR ME, AND IF IT DOESN'T WORK FOR YOU, I DON'T CARE AND YOU'RE THE ONE WHO IS DAMNED TO HELL."

Steven is not going to do that, folks. You can keep on at him like this, and he's not going to go there.

And I don't think it's fair to try to get him to. And I do believe that is what is going on here.

It's going to come off that way, anyway, since Steven is the "maverick Christian in residence" on DGN. So these threads are always going to be Steven by himself on the one side of the conversation, and Phee, Mike, Pandora, and sometimes even Critter on the other side.

A person I once knew, a girl who I thought was rather an air-head, was a bible reader. And I asked her once how she could treat as divine law something that is written and re-written by humans. Her simple response was, "that's where the faith comes in."

I couldn't argue with that. It was the smartest thing I've ever heard her say. And I don't think the answer is ever more complicated, or different than that.

I personally admire Steven his steadfastness in his faith. I might not agree with a lot of what he believes. But I don't feel I need to try to change it.

That's all these conversations really ever are. One side trying to get the other side to admit to something wrong or incorrect, and the other side trying to maintain their position.

Just some observations, that at this point, I'm not even sure why I'm posting this. Maybe it's because I don't like seeing Steven having to field and volley all this on his own. So I needed to say something in support.

<-- hitting the "add reply" button before I can change my mind and delete it all

GRRL!!!!!! WHEN I GET TO HUG YOU IN REAL LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SERIOUSLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Fierce Critter]

GRRL!!!!!! WHEN I GET TO HUG YOU IN REAL LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SERIOUSLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Srsly. :D

Looking forward to it. WORKING on it!!!

[Pandora]

And I don't think it's fair to try to get him to. And I do believe that is what is going on here.

It's going to come off that way, anyway, since Steven is the "maverick Christian in residence" on DGN. So these threads are always going to be Steven by himself on the one side of the conversation, and Phee, Mike, Pandora, and sometimes even Critter on the other side.

A person I once knew, a girl who I thought was rather an air-head, was a bible reader. And I asked her once how she could treat as divine law something that is written and re-written by humans. Her simple response was, "that's where the faith comes in."

I couldn't argue with that. It was the smartest thing I've ever heard her say. And I don't think the answer is ever more complicated, or different than that.

I personally admire Steven his steadfastness in his faith. I might not agree with a lot of what he believes. But I don't feel I need to try to change it.

That's all these conversations really ever are. One side trying to get the other side to admit to something wrong or incorrect, and the other side trying to maintain their position.

Just some observations, that at this point, I'm not even sure why I'm posting this. Maybe it's because I don't like seeing Steven having to field and volley all this on his own. So I needed to say something in support.

<-- hitting the "add reply" button before I can change my mind and delete it all

``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

For my part I've never once said I was trying to get Steve or anyone else to do anything. Steven is obviously an intelligent person and has held his own in this conversation I think. I haven't made any personal comments and wouldn't, that's not what this topic is for. I'm not attacking Steve and I offer my sincere apologies if he or anyone else felt I was. I'm asking and answering questions. He is too. It's fun!

I enjoy talking about religion/God/ and the possible facts around it for my benefit, I get exposed to new scholars, new opinions, which all serve to broaden my mind and make me more tolerant. And possibly others. I mean shit, a few hundred years ago I would have been burned at the stake for being a heretic/atheist. Christians aren't exactly persecuted in this country are they? The non-believers are the vast minority and in the greatest danger of being messed with.

Without free and public discourse this country wouldn't be where it is now. Free speech and the encouragement of free speech is an absolute necessity for me and for every American, and human being if we are ever to grow and become more accepting of each other so as to avoid any future holy wars and possible nuclear fallout due to fanaticism on either side of the spectrum.

[Steven]

I say this next thing gently... when you read the Bible and take its information deep into your heart and mind... its something you have to do prayerfully.... if you read when you are angry or search for things when you are angry or trying to prove a point, sometimes you may not take things into proper perspective....??

(I am enjoying reading all of the questions and information in here!!!!! Again, I am sorry to enter so late into this.)

this wasd a good point Sybil......"how" you dig into the text makes a big diff.

[Steven]

Ok here are the comparisons. The information was taken word for word from this site, which promotes several theories:

Noah

Comparing the stories

The Chaldean Flood Tablets from the city of Ur in what is now Southern Iraq, describe how the Bablylonian God Ea had decided to eliminate humans and other land animals with a great flood which was to become "the end of all flesh". He selected Ut-Napishtim, to build an ark to save a few humans, and samples of other animals.

The Babylonian text "The Epic of Galgamesh" 1,8 and the Hebrew story are essentially identical with about 20 major points in common. Their texts are obviously linked in some way.

Either:

Genesis was copied from an earlier Babylonian story, or

The Galgamesh myth was copied from an earlier Hebrew story, or

Both were copied from a common source that predates them both.

In both the Genesis and Galgamesh stories:

The Genesis story describes how mankind had become obnoxious to God; they were hopelessly sinful and wicked. In the Babylonian story, they were too numerous and noisy.

The Gods (or God) decided to send a worldwide flood. This would drown men, women, children, babies and infants, as well as eliminate all of the land animals and birds.

bullet The Gods (or God) knew of one righteous man, Ut-Napishtim or Noah.

The Gods (or God) ordered the hero to build a multi-story wooden ark (called a chest or box in the original Hebrew).

The ark would be sealed with pitch.

The ark would have with many internal compartments

It would have a single door

It would have at least one window.

The ark was built and loaded with the hero, a few other humans, and samples from all species of other land animals.

A great rain covered the land with water.

The mountains were initially covered with water.

The ark landed on a mountain in the Middle East.

The hero sent out birds at regular intervals to find if any dry land was in the vicinity.

The first two birds returned to the ark. The third bird apparently found dry land because it did not return.

The hero and his family left the ark, ritually killed an animal, offered it as a sacrifice.

God (or the Gods in the Epic of Gilgamesh) smelled the roasted meat of the sacrifice.

The hero was blessed.

The Babylonian gods seemed genuinely sorry for the genocide that they had created. The God of Noah appears to have regretted his actions as well, because he promised never to do it again.

The were a number of differences between the two stories: (Though the above similarities are pretty hard to dismiss imo.)

Noah received his instructions directly from Jehovah; Ut-Napishtim received them indirectly during a dream.

Noah's ark was 3 stories high and rectangular in shape. Two estimated dimensions are 547 x 91 ft. and 450 x 75 ft. The Babylonian ark was 6 stories high and square.

Ut-Napishtim invited additional people on board: a pilot and some skilled workmen.

Noah's ark landed on Mt. Ararat; Ut-Napishtim'sat on Mt. Nisir; these locations are both in the Middle East, and are located few hundred miles apart

In the Bible, some of the water emerged from beneath the earth. And the rains from above lasted for 40 days and nights.

A 40 day interval often symbolized a period of judgment in the Hebrew Scriptures. 2 In the Babylonian account, the water came only in the form of rain, and lasted only 6 days.

bullet Noah released a raven once and a dove twice; Ut-Napishtim released three birds: a dove, swallow and raven.

Which Came First Noah or Ut-Napishtim?

The Babylonian tablets which contain the full story of the flood have been dated circa 650 BCE. However, portions of the story have been found on tablets from about 2000 BCE. A study of the language used in the tablets indicates that the story originated much earlier than 2000 BCE. 3 Variations of the original story have been found translated into other ancient languages. 4

Many conservative Christians believe that the flood occurred in 2349 BCE, and that the account in Genesis was written by Moses in the 1450's BCE, shortly before his death. 5,8 Thus, the Babylonian text must be a corrupted version based on a Paganized adaptation of the true story in Genesis. Alternatively, it might be an independent attempt at describing the world-wide flood.

*Pandora note: The Epic of Gilgamesh is the one of the earliest recorded works of literary fiction using primary source material to validate its existence. It came before Genesis was written, far before it.

Liberal theologians, noting the different names used to refer to God, and the different writing styles throughout the Penaeuch (first 5 books of the Hebrew Scriptures), believe that Genesis was assembled over a 4 century interval, circa 950 to 540 BCE by authors from a variety of traditions. 6

J and P seem to have based their stories on two original stories from Mesopotamian sources, perhaps based on a massive series of floods in Ur and surrounding areas circa 2800 BCE which would be perceived by the local population as being very extensive; perhaps world wide. Alternatively, it may have been based on the catastrophic flooding of the Black Sea.

some quick thoughts on this, and thanks for submitting it:

first thign that coems to mind, is that literally just about all cultures and continents have legends of an epic worldwide flood....even our own native american cultures have that.

that sort of consistency - leads me to beleive that "something" was certainly going on. I have also read numerous scientific hypothesis that state that a "firmament" of moisture in earths atmosphere at one time broke loose....literally pouring down on the earth....

anyway - moving onward...I am confused by one thing Pandora - your lead in paragraph states that:

Either:

Genesis was copied from an earlier Babylonian story, or

The Galgamesh myth was copied from an earlier Hebrew story, or

Both were copied from a common source that predates them both.

but then you close up with your own Pandoran (that was kind of cool...."Pandoran") statement of:

*Pandora note: The Epic of Gilgamesh is the one of the earliest recorded works of literary fiction using primary source material to validate its existence. It came before Genesis was written, far before it.*

here's what I (Steven) think: nobody knows for sure.

but - obviously I have my personal hunches.

now i need to for clarity, bring in that which you will ultimately reject - but I do so so that you can get a better grasp of my (personal) logic in this regard, so bear with me for a moment...

A) If there is really "God" as described in Hebrew text - then there is likewise his advasary Lucifer as also prescribed in Hebrew text - whos had an active hand in all thigns since the beginning of creation, as the hebrew text shows.

B) in light of that - an adversary opposed to the relationship between God and Man that superceded the God and Angel relationship would try to "un-do" what the creator was doing. First Case: the fall of man at the Garden by the temptation for power and knowledge to be "just like God" - interestingly exactly what Lucifer himself wanted. After God declares the future redemptive process - then the goal would be to thwart that plan.

so lets look at that plan in item C.

C) the provision of a mediator - half mortal, half divine, the only creature "equipped" to handle such a burdon, introduced in to future events on behalf of mankind. If Lucifer knew this, and I beleive he did - he simply needs to taint or spoil the conduit that allows that to happen: Man himself - taint the bloodline -taint the vehicle needed to support a divinely appointed intercessor.

D) enter the Nephilim - brought up right before the flood account in hebrew text. a tainted half breed that was violent and preyed on man, that have their orgins in rebellion against a divine order or plan. Nefilim DNA in the populated earth would certainly pose a problem for a future Messiah of divine nature. Nefilim or zamzummim, or the watchers, or whatever...you find legends of them in many cultures and continents as well, and again....evenin our native american cultures. Whatever you think they are or are not - they are found pre and post flood in Hebrew writings and they are always in opposition to Israel or god. Also notable are other stories of other rebellions in heaven led by other angels which most of you know. Personally, I beleive it.

E) Noah - in accurate translation - is not neccesarily described as more "righteous" than his fellow man. He is actually described as untainted...a pure strain of untainted DNA perhaps? I think so.

now all that stuff is "unprovable"...... but its also what I personally beleive.

I know hta tyou think the Hebrew story of Noah is a rip off - but that likewise is "unprovable" and you have to beleive what you do based on whats most important to you, which I respect.

i will also add - and this is a whole other oprah - that again in regards to a Divine Advasary of YHWH - it would be (and is not) no suprise to find alternative written histories on all things spiritual, not to mention interestingly seemingly parralel ideas in other cultures, because if an advasary does exist - all he has to do is create enough doubt against the order of YHWH to accomplish his original goal. We do this sort of thing all the time in the modern era with propoganda. But i dont think we invented it.

[Rev.Reverence]

here's what I (Steven) think: nobody knows for sure.

but - obviously I have my personal hunches.

now i need to for clarity, bring in that which you will ultimately reject - but I do so so that you can get a better grasp of my (personal) logic in this regard, so bear with me for a moment...

A) If there is really "God" as described in Hebrew text - then there is likewise his advasary Lucifer as also prescribed in Hebrew text - whos had an active hand in all thigns since the beginning of creation, as the hebrew text shows.

B) in light of that - an adversary opposed to the relationship between God and Man that superceded the God and Angel relationship would try to "un-do" what the creator was doing. First Case: the fall of man at the Garden by the temptation for power and knowledge to be "just like God" - interestingly exactly what Lucifer himself wanted. After God declares the future redemptive process - then the goal would be to thwart that plan.

so lets look at that plan in item C.

C) the provision of a mediator - half mortal, half divine, the only creature "equipped" to handle such a burdon, introduced in to future events on behalf of mankind. If Lucifer knew this, and I beleive he did - he simply needs to taint or spoil the conduit that allows that to happen: Man himself - taint the bloodline -taint the vehicle needed to support a divinely appointed intercessor.

D) enter the Nephilim - brought up right before the flood account in hebrew text. a tainted half breed that was violent and preyed on man, that have their orgins in rebellion against a divine order or plan. Nefilim DNA in the populated earth would certainly pose a problem for a future Messiah of divine nature. Nefilim or zamzummim, or the watchers, or whatever...you find legends of them in many cultures and continents as well, and again....evenin our native american cultures. Whatever you think they are or are not - they are found pre and post flood in Hebrew writings and they are always in opposition to Israel or god. Also notable are other stories of other rebellions in heaven led by other angels which most of you know. Personally, I beleive it.

E) Noah - in accurate translation - is not neccesarily described as more "righteous" than his fellow man. He is actually described as untainted...a pure strain of untainted DNA perhaps? I think so.

now all that stuff is "unprovable"...... but its also what I personally beleive.

I know hta tyou think the Hebrew story of Noah is a rip off - but that likewise is "unprovable" and you have to beleive what you do based on whats most important to you, which I respect.

i will also add - and this is a whole other oprah - that again in regards to a Divine Advasary of YHWH - it would be (and is not) no suprise to find alternative written histories on all things spiritual, not to mention interestingly seemingly parralel ideas in other cultures, because if an advasary does exist - all he has to do is create enough doubt against the order of YHWH to accomplish his original goal. We do this sort of thing all the time in the modern era with propoganda. But i dont think we invented it.

As a life long skeptic, I can toatally dig the first two lines I quoted here. And I agree to the large picture...

In the points A-E, however, I gotta speak up, I've studied ALL about the 'Divine Advisary', 'Shitan-El' is it's name in the TORA. I have several freinds who are Jews, and into the QBL, (kabbalah), and they don't use the word 'Lucifer'. I'm not saying that you can't have 'your own name' for the ADVISARY, but don't try to tell us it has Hebrew roots...I know that to be untrue.

Lucifer is a 'pagan' deity, from the Italian peninsula... Demonfied...

[Steven]

As a life long skeptic, I can toatally dig the first two lines I quoted here. And I agree to the large picture...

In the points A-E, however, I gotta speak up, I've studied ALL about the 'Divine Advisary', 'Shitan-El' is it's name in the TORA. I have several freinds who are Jews, and into the QBL, (kabbalah), and they don't use the word 'Lucifer'. I'm not saying that you can't have 'your own name' for the ADVISARY, but don't try to tell us it has Hebrew roots...I know that to be untrue.

Lucifer is a 'pagan' deity, from the Italian peninsula... Demonfied...

Rev, Im not sure what your tryign to prove here as you respond to my post.

for example is the name of this advasary important? As God has many names, so does Satan, does it take away from what i was saying? Im confused with your rebuttal here. My post is about what I beleive - not "proof" of it.

[Rev.Reverence]

Rev, Im not sure what your tryign to prove here as you respond to my post.

for example is the name of this advasary important? As God has many names, so does Satan, does it take away from what i was saying? Im confused with your rebuttal here. My post is about what I beleive - not "proof" of it.

It's a common misconception I was simply stating fact I have researched, in depth and at length. If everybody gets to sway from the point a bit, so can I, but I don't think it was that off topic. I say things often for the readers. Also, it was the point I disagree upon you with, from the Quote. Names, in the Hebrew language, are POWER. I agree with you on a great deal more than you want to admit, and so you really don't like the bits when I don't agree with you, am I getting to the point here?

Because, it wasn't a rebuttal.

[vampire]

OK. I have sat on the sidelines .. reading ... watching ...

my brain hurts...

The Bible is ONE Story .... mostly stolen from other stories in the area.

The epic of Gilgamesh being but just one of those... it has it's originality due to the great talent

of Jewish STONERS .... yes .... people on drugs write amazing things

now about GOD ... i'm sorry to say this but GOD is more UNIVERSAL than just a book

and the Bible itself is contradictory, at that ... the Father is wrathful and vengeful whereas the Son is

pretty much a hippie ...

Great. Now humans make up stories ... exagerating events .. everyone knows that .. it's our nature

so it makes sense that when the seas rose due to abrupt climate change.. and the Mediteranean basin was inundated

people that had no knolege of topography and geography and climate ... thought a great power was at hand ... understandable.

Most of the stories in the Bible are directed at our human nature and how we can improve on it

but then so are the writings of the Corran ... and the Sutras and so on ...

taking good stories from all this "guidelines" and making an aplication of them in your life ... great

taking a good underline from Sponge BOB and making an aplication of it in your life ... also great

NO ONE BOOK needs to rule one's life

WARS start that way

Egos get destroyed that way

we are all made from the same materials ... same atoms ... diffrent recipies make us unique.

And that's the beauty of it ... I BET everyone HAS their own religion ... it's like a fingerprint

you take two Muslims and ask them how they view their relligion i guarantee you they will have different views

same with two Catholics .. etc.

.... ok i need a smoke .. so feel free to nuke me !......

[Steven]

It's a common misconception I was simply stating fact I have researched, in depth and at length. If everybody gets to sway from the point a bit, so can I, but I don't think it was that off topic. I say things often for the readers. Also, it was the point I disagree upon you with, from the Quote. Names, in the Hebrew language, are POWER. I agree with you on a great deal more than you want to admit, and so you really don't like the bits when I don't agree with you, am I getting to the point here?

Because, it wasn't a rebuttal.

no dude - the point here is that I literally am having a hard time understanding what you want to exemplify and why at certain parts of this conversation between so many people. You have a style of address that is a bit fragmented to say thte least. Im not being critical of you but i do want you to know that I get confused by your style - not due to a lack of depth or in my case, a lack of want.

As for what I dont want to admit - i'm seriously just plain confused with that statement - Im not even sure what were talking about here. Im not even sure what we agree on or dont agree on. Sway if you like Rev, your right we all do it...but help me with some sort of flow at least.

anyway - so I can follow you yes - names in Hebrew can equate to power. many things in Hebrew were purposefully not even spoken, and the culture was very cognizant of spoken blessings and curses.

[Steven]

OK. I have sat on the sidelines .. reading ... watching ...

my brain hurts...

The Bible is ONE Story .... mostly stolen from other stories in the area.

The epic of Gilgamesh being but just one of those... it has it's originality due to the great talent

of Jewish STONERS .... yes .... people on drugs write amazing things

now about GOD ... i'm sorry to say this but GOD is more UNIVERSAL than just a book

and the Bible itself is contradictory, at that ... the Father is wrathful and vengeful whereas the Son is

pretty much a hippie ...

Great. Now humans make up stories ... exagerating events .. everyone knows that .. it's our nature

so it makes sense that when the seas rose due to abrupt climate change.. and the Mediteranean basin was inundated

people that had no knolege of topography and geography and climate ... thought a great power was at hand ... understandable.

Most of the stories in the Bible are directed at our human nature and how we can improve on it

but then so are the writings of the Corran ... and the Sutras and so on ...

taking good stories from all this "guidelines" and making an aplication of them in your life ... great

taking a good underline from Sponge BOB and making an aplication of it in your life ... also great

NO ONE BOOK needs to rule one's life

WARS start that way

Egos get destroyed that way

we are all made from the same materials ... same atoms ... diffrent recipies make us unique.

And that's the beauty of it ... I BET everyone HAS their own religion ... it's like a fingerprint

you take two Muslims and ask them how they view their relligion i guarantee you they will have different views

same with two Catholics .. etc.

.... ok i need a smoke .. so feel free to nuke me !......

well, since you posted this then Id like you to exemplify these points in greater detail if you dont mind:

the bible being just ONE story. WHAT is the story?

the fact that its just a story at all. there is no history in it? No measurable evidence?

these thefts you are alluding to. What got ripped off and reused besides the Noah account?

jewish stoners - who were they - what did they write specifically and what were they smoking?

hippie Jesus -vs-Angry God-vs the Jesus in the book of revalations: who's more macho and pissed?

"Most" of the stories in the bible directed at imporiving our nature: which ones? what do those stories say?

[Rev.Reverence]

A) If there is really "God" as described in Hebrew text - then there is likewise his advasary Lucifer as also prescribed in Hebrew text - whos had an active hand in all thigns since the beginning of creation, as the hebrew text shows.

Lucifer is not a Hebrew word.....

The rest of what you said is spot on, I may not agree with how you take it,(literally or allegorically), but the facts are noted historical and accurate.

I am quite new to the 'tkatka technology' and am having a somewhat difficult time... adjusting to the flow of typing rather than speaking... I am working on it... I know I'm post-modern and all, but I really do try to speak as clearly as possible.

[torn asunder]

I am quite new to the 'tkatka technology' and am having a somewhat difficult time... adjusting to the flow of typing rather than speaking... I am working on it... I know I'm post-modern and all, but I really do try to speak as clearly as possible.

out of curiosity, what does 'tkatka technology' actually mean!? i've been wondering for a while now...

[torn asunder]

anyway - so I can follow you yes - names in Hebrew can equate to power. many things in Hebrew were purposefully not even spoken, and the culture was very cognizant of spoken blessings and curses.

i'm guessing, (and please let me know if i'm wrong) that rev's intent is that, when you stated this...

A) If there is really "God" as described in Hebrew text - then there is likewise his advasary Lucifer as also prescribed in Hebrew text - whos had an active hand in all thigns since the beginning of creation, as the hebrew text shows.

you were refering to things described in the hebrew text, and the anme "lucifer" isn't hebrew. maybe he's suggesting you keep within the framework of your discussion!? (meaning, what's "lucifer's" hebrew name? use that in this sentence - follow me?)

probably not a big deal, but it helps, for the sake of consistency. that's what i took from it, anyway...

[Rev.Reverence]

out of curiosity, what does 'tkatka technology' actually mean!? i've been wondering for a while now...

Sorry dudes.. see what I mean.

tkatka= the sound your fingers make on the keyboard...(onomonopoea)

It means pressing buttons on a computer.

[torn asunder]

hey, steven, got a question for ya...

in this post you made, you listed A,B,C, etc... i'm curious, (because this might be one of the things that trips me up when we talk about this stuff) are you creating that list with this logical intent? (following)

accepting that A) is true, then B);

accepting that B) is true, then C);

etc...

because i think that's where i tend to find myself taking issue - insomuch as i'm thinking, "well, steven, A) might *not* be true", and then i argue/debate from that point. if you're building your posts in the above manner, i'll try to change the way i read/interpret them, and hopefully this will cut down on unnecessary confusion/antagonism, because for some reason, the thought that you might be following this "process" hadn't occurred to me before now...

[Steven]

i'm guessing, (and please let me know if i'm wrong) that rev's intent is that, when you stated this...

you were refering to things described in the hebrew text, and the anme "lucifer" isn't hebrew. maybe he's suggesting you keep within the framework of your discussion!? (meaning, what's "lucifer's" hebrew name? use that in this sentence - follow me?)

probably not a big deal, but it helps, for the sake of consistency. that's what i took from it, anyway...

I understand now.

but then again "Peter", "Steven", "Matthew" etc etc etc are not Hebrew names. they are translated names. I mean nobody in here is calling Jesus "Yeshuah" either - even though thats technically correct. I was unaware that this was a stumbling block for people....