Originally posted by Shane

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

I am not sure you are reading that correctly, let me help.

You are a funny one KJ

Genesis 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

Yeah, that cleared it up.

Not sure what was funny aside from your clear lack of understanding of the words being used here.

Prevailed - as in overtook all, overpowered all else, won!

All - as in all, every, not some, not most, but every single one.

High hills and mountains - see ALL above and simply add them together.

I am not sure what you do not get here? You seem to have gone to a lot of trouble to post a lot of nonsense about the suspected area but not one bit of what you are surmising actually coincides with the quoted text above.

You found a valley with short hills in it, good for you!

What you did not find was a geographical location that would offer from it's perspective, a view that ALL the mountains and high hills had been PREVAILED over by water.

Maybe you need to try and explain what your theory is a little better instead of muddying up your post with miscellaneous 'facts.' It sounds a lot to me like what you are saying is that the story is a lie but if you change most of the key details, it is probably true.

Care to try a gain?

Originally posted by Shane
Problem is, your fictional account staged within Ancient Rochester, New York, is a Fictional Account.

Nope. The problem is that I told you it was a fictional story. Basically you are saying that the difference being that no one authoring any part of the bible told you they were writing fiction and therefor it is more valid than my premise.

That is really a weak argument. How about you explain any real differences that lend validity to one and detract from another? Can you do that?

Extremists, (and I am not suggesting you are one), have claimed the Bible, and the premise of the tales, (as they put it) which are found within the Bible rank with you Rochester story, which is plainly and obviously not the case. Finding David's Palace, validates the "Davidic" teachings, since without one, there wouldn't be the other.

1.Where is evidence anyone found David's Palace?
How does finding a Palace validate narratives that take place around it?

2.Please see the other poster's reference to spiderman and NYC before you answer that.

3.Why would you talk to me about what extremists would say, say I am not being called one, then use what the say as something to argue against in a response to me?

Therefore, we have a situation where the matter now becomes one of acceptance. If those, with the Anti "Israel", never was a David, and at best, a farmstead domain for Solomon mentality can not accept fact, then it is beyond me, or any for that matter to ever submit evidence they will accept short of having some devination and raising the spectre of David in an occultic seance of pagan channeling to shake the peanut between their ears onto the Engage/Start position.

Oh hell, now I am ranting. Sad part is it's not at you.

Now, I understand your "Point of View". I do not agree with your point of view, which is my right, and I get you do not agree with mine, which is your right.

And I also hope, we can discuss this in a civil manner. It is something this Specific Forum lacks from time to time. To much inbreeding on both sides, as it appears sometimes.

The Only thing I ask anyone, is to read the material offered. Your views, are as valid as Mine, and in most cases, (Not here yet, but it will come), these opposing views actually are not that opposite in the long run.

Just the same Thing/Story told through the eye's of different Origins/Peoples. This is, where it generally ends anyhow.

I see you have "Other comments", so let's work on these next.

Ciao

Shane

Lost me at "anti-isreal." I am not sure what that even means but I know it has nothing to do with this thread.

Originally posted by Angus123
When an ark that is large enough to contain a pair of every land-dwelling species... 33 million in all... I'll believe it.

Anyone who can't or refuses to understand what you just said is a fool.

Obviously there was never any literal ark. IF, and that's a big if, the story from the bible was actually based on ANYTHING, it was based on a genetic bank, a genetic "ark" if you will. The only way you could store two of every species on the planet is with tiny samples of their genetic material.

Likewise, if the above were true Noah didn't physically collect every sample on his own or with his family. That would be physically impossible unless he could fly around the world and stop time like Santa Claus. The word "Noah" or whatever the actual Aramaic word is could have been either the name of a group of people or ETs that collected the samples, or it could have been the name for a type of machine used to collect the genetic material, or the name of the process for cultivating and/or storing the genetic material.

Originally posted by pjslug
The word "Noah" or whatever the actual Aramaic word is could have been either the name of a group of people or ETs that collected the samples, or it could have been the name for a type of machine used to collect the genetic material, or the name of the process for cultivating and/or storing the genetic material.

Interesting theory. The thing is, the bible pretty clearly lays out that he is a man with a lifespan, a wife, children. The more you read, the harder it gets to make the argument that they really meant something else. Maybe you read something in the bible that I did not?

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Interesting theory. The thing is, the bible pretty clearly lays out that he is a man with a lifespan, a wife, children. The more you read, the harder it gets to make the argument that they really meant something else. Maybe you read something in the bible that I did not?

No, I just don't take religion seriously at all. It's a vicious roadblock on the path to truth and enlightenment. I do however think that the writing of the bible was done for a reason, and the church felt much of it a threat which is why they have removed portions of it over the centuries.

Please use common sense. How would it be physically possible for a man to gather animals from all over the world, persuade them to follow him, and then fit tens of millions of species on a wooden boat that would have to be the size of a city, all in a fairly short amount of time?

[edit on 6/5/2010 by pjslug]

Bible is not a real history. It is absolutely based on hidden meanings and reading between lines. Other than that Noah and other stuff doesnt exist, didnt exist. It has some truth. But the book is based on hidden stuff and requires good research to understand it. Most of the direct meanings are not true. It was written by a intelligent fellow with good insight. Fear is its weapon for the mass. All weapons which were advanced just before a few years becomes obsolete and worthless soon. But 'Religion' is the true weapon of mass destruction which is still a powerful one even after hundreds and thousands of years.

Originally posted by pjslug
No, I just don't take religion seriously at all.

We are talking about the bible, not religion. I thought that was important as you were speaking of what you believed about the bible and this thread is about the bible. Religion is a whole other can of worms.

It's a vicious roadblock on the path to truth and enlightenment. I do however think that the writing of the bible was done for a reason, and the church felt much of it a threat which is why they have removed portions of it over the centuries.

I cannot really dispute that but does that mean that you can just make up details on your own and then proclaim them as a real belief? I mean, believe in what you want but do you not have an issue believing in something you just made up yourself based on something you already feel is bad information?

Please use common sense. How would it be physically possible for a man to gather animals from all over the world, persuade them to follow him, and then fit tens of millions of species on a wooden boat that would have to be the size of a city, all in a fairly short amount of time?

Are you seriously telling me to use common sense? I think you need to think about what you just said.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Not sure what was funny aside from your clear lack of understanding of the words being used here.

Prevailed - as in overtook all, overpowered all else, won!

All - as in all, every, not some, not most, but every single one.

High hills and mountains - see ALL above and simply add them together.

I am not sure what you do not get here? You seem to have gone to a lot of trouble to post a lot of nonsense about the suspected area but not one bit of what you are surmising actually coincides with the quoted text above.

You found a valley with short hills in it, good for you!

What you did not find was a geographical location that would offer from it's perspective, a view that ALL the mountains and high hills had been PREVAILED over by water.

You see KJ.

Your prespective, has not permitted you to comprehend the words YOU opts to distinguish as being factual, actually have meanings not exactly what they mean today.

I found and created nothing to depict these same words being utilized out of context. The Term Mountain, which you rest your arguement on was documented BIBLICALLY to also express the meaning, that amount to discribing Hills at best. I did not do anything to misrepresent that connotation, nor have I attempted to distort the meaning of the word. I have only offered the EXACT IMPLICATION that the term Mountain expresses.

Certainly your echoed response imploreing these terms be understood, as we understand them today, is a distraction to the FACTS.

I do feel sorry that your view is based on such beliefs, because having preconcieved notions that are unable to become adaptive when presented with FACTUAL additional support which does afford some measure of discernment makes discussion all the more difficult.

The views you have taken your stand upon are much akin to the Doctrines, Dogmas and Theologoies that the "Church" utilizes to keep the sheep inline. Yeah, the Church believes every single creature was loaded upon the Ark. Yes the Church thinks ever mountain top was submerged under water. Yes the Church believes only three Sons and their Wifes made it upon the Ark. Yes the Church thinks that inbreeding is the reason for the Races we have today.

Of course, NONE of this is BIBLICAL, but that's what these preconcieved notions lead to.

Maybe you need to try and explain what your theory is a little better instead of muddying up your post with miscellaneous 'facts.' It sounds a lot to me like what you are saying is that the story is a lie but if you change most of the key details, it is probably true.

Care to try a gain?

Why you are also impatient KJ. Care to try again? My friend, I had not even started.

Genesis 1 and the Recreation of Mankind needs to be addressed.
Genesis 2 and the Creation of Adam needs to be addressed.
The Origin of the Great Flood Needs to be addressed.
These "figures" need to be identified and addressed.
The Origin of these "Figures" (Sons of God), needs to be addressed.
The Fall needs to be addressed.
The Home of the Fallen needs to be addressed.
The Reason Noah was "selected" needs to be addressed.

And this doesn't even consider the Travels of Adam and Eve, and the additional travels of Cain onto Nod from the Origin of their creation, Edin.

Then there is "outside" matters that will likely become involved such as Atlantis.

I do not know exactly what we will accomplish, but I do care to at least attempt to support my view with BIBLICAL Teachings. Not Doctrines, Dogmas, and Theologies created by MAN.

Ciao

Shane

Originally posted by pjslug
The word "Noah" or whatever the actual Aramaic word is could have been either the name of a group of people or ETs that collected the samples, or it could have been the name for a type of machine used to collect the genetic material, or the name of the process for cultivating and/or storing the genetic material.

Now, this is absurb. The name Noah has it's meaning, and it is the Name of the Last of the Adamic Family Line. It (The Bloodline) is also without the POLLUTED mingling with the "Son's of GOD", generally refered to as the Fallen.

So what does Noah mean?

5146 Noach no'-akh the same as 5118; rest; Noach, the patriarch of the flood:--Noah.

Noach, is the Name and it implies Rest. It comes from the following Word.

5118 nuwach noo'-akh or nowach {no'-akh}; from 5117; quiet:--rest(-ed, -ing place).

Here the meaning expands to suggest Quiet, and Rest. This comes from the following Prime Root word.

5117 nuwach noo'-akh a primitive root; to rest, i.e. settle down; used in a great variety of applications, literal and figurative, intransitive, transitive and causative (to dwell, stay, let fall, place, let alone, withdraw, give comfort, etc.):--cease, be confederate, lay, let down, (be) quiet, remain, (cause to, be at, give, have, make to) rest, set down. Compare 3241.

And since we are instructed, we should Compare 3241.

3241 Yaniym yaw-neem' from 5123; asleep; Janim, a place in Palestine: -Janum (from the margin).

Which comes from this Prime Root

5123 nuwm noom a primitive root; to slumber (from drowsiness):--sleep, slumber.

So it is a Peaceful, Resting, Quiet Place, which is the meaning of Noahs name. And we are also directed to ensure we are not confused and imply Sleeping, Slumber or Asleep.

You see. NOAH has a MEANING, and all you need to do is seek it.

Ciao

Shane

Originally posted by pjslug

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Interesting theory. The thing is, the bible pretty clearly lays out that he is a man with a lifespan, a wife, children. The more you read, the harder it gets to make the argument that they really meant something else. Maybe you read something in the bible that I did not?

No, I just don't take religion seriously at all. It's a vicious roadblock on the path to truth and enlightenment. I do however think that the writing of the bible was done for a reason, and the church felt much of it a threat which is why they have removed portions of it over the centuries.

Please use common sense. How would it be physically possible for a man to gather animals from all over the world, persuade them to follow him, and then fit tens of millions of species on a wooden boat that would have to be the size of a city, all in a fairly short amount of time?

[edit on 6/5/2010 by pjslug]

I left all your conversation here for review. You are 100% correct in TWO (2) things here.

1st: RELIGION is created by MAN alone. It has very little to actually having any BIBLICAL FACTS brought forth into the Mix. It is the self interests of whatever sect/cult that take priority. GOD,0 and his Word, take 2nd place in respects of being taught.

2nd: The Original Texts are infact left for a reason. It is so Israel, knows it's GOD and HIS intent. The Greek Texts testify for the Christain, the Story of Christ, in a limited extent.

As for your ponderings, Noah did nothing to bring the Animals to the Ark. GOD did it all. And who is to say the Creator can not get things where they belong. HE'S the Creator. Anything is possible.

Ciao

Shane