WOW moses wrote the Genesis not jewish preists. Interesting how people threw away the flood story for myth of gilgamesh. Even Jesus spoke about Noah's flood. Fact is all civilizations have flood legends, even the incas and indians. This is satans handy work trying to divert people from true worship and the true God. What a waste of time witching this made by people who prefer myth because they cannot understand something.
who wants the true story plz go read the story of Noah (Nouh in Arabic) in the holy Quran, 14 centuries ago some jews asked Muhammed PBUH about this story and he told them the real one
The Sumerian and Babylonian texts were written over 2 millennia before that.
Furthermore Mohammed didn't write a single word down, he was analphabetic. The Qur'an was written by many other people and was compiled from these scraps by Uthman over ten years after Mohammed’s death. To claim that it is perfect or undistorted is false.
new version: "The Sheep Is Break Down - Noah's Ark in an Ice Cave: Fact or Fiction?" look for it under youtube channel "TravelBeam". Noah's Ark fraud by Parasut and the Chinese NAMI team. Fraud is a felony.
There's something in the tone of the voice of the narrator, plus the music, that's annoying (similar tone to the Lost Tomb of Jesus series on youtube). Is it just american documentaries that use voices that sound like they should be on some kind of sensational shock horror crime watch program?
Give me trustworthy Attenborough any day, he pronounces Iraq properly too.
@czeshirecat "Give me trustworthy Attenborough..."-czeshirecat
David Attenborough is a Freemasonic; wishes for population control; tied to the Optimum Population Trust down in Manchester, England. The same OPT that Knight of Malta Duke Thomas Cruise Mapother IV has donated over five million dollars to so far. What else does Attenborough do? Well he promotes the false theory of Evolution. A idea which originates from Egypt but was forced upon us by a Jesuit soldier by the name of Erasmus Darwin.
This is from the 1828 Webster's Dictionary:U'NICORN,n.[L. unicornis; unus, one, and cornu, horn.]1.an animal with one horn; the monoceros. this name is often applied to the rhinoceros.2.The sea unicorn is a fish of the whale kind, called narwal, remarkable for a horn growing out at his nose.3. A fowl.In the 2010 edition a unicorn is a mythical animal generally depicted with the body and head of a horse the hind legs of a stag the tail of a lion and a single horn in the middle of the forehead
@InternetDarkLord It goes to the point that unicorns in the Bible are not from the current definition of today which is a fairytale creature from myth. @ndrthrd1 said we must do gymnastics to defend our book of myth. I'm justing pointing out you need to understand meanings of words in the Bible verses the meanings of the same words today. Its funny that webster changed its definition of the word over the years to accomadate fairy tales.Dinosaur wasn't even a word until 1842. That's all I'm sayin
@InternetDarkLord I see by this reply, you acquiesced to "ranmcsj" concerning the biblical unicorn of an 'oxen' nature. Now maybe you'll remove it from your repertoire of dirty jesuit shit-bag tricks?
Just as you should drop your empty Isaiah "young girl" issue?
"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."-Isaiah 7:14
The word בתולה bethûlâh, denotes a pure virgin / ἡ παρθένος hē parthenos, "a virgin"
@SpencerBenedict2nd , still spewing vomit I see. Its a shame no one can measure just how much faith you have. Would you say it was as much as a mustard seed?
If there actually was any truth to your nonsense we would all feel it just as we do pain, pleasure, alcohol, drugs, antibiotics, etc. It could be tested and produce the same positive effect, time and time again but it doesn't. You can not produce anything other than an ignorant contradicting book written by fools.
You act like it was the ONLY book written in that era. There were far better books written by men with better education. Books that contributed to the evolution of intelligence, while your book tries to destroy it! Should we lock up all the Galileo's again? Start burning witches?
You christards sure use the science of doctors and hospitals instead of praying don't you. You want to squash science but you sure use it to your benefit dont you.
@TheMassdistortion "Books that contributed to the evolution of intelligence,..."-TheMassDistorted
>Since the Jesuit control of "education" in Academia, there has been nothing less than DEVOlution of intelligence over the past 400+ years.
"Should we lock up all the Galileo's again?"-TheMassDelusion
>The supposed "inquisition" of Galileo was nothing but a false front Vatican ruse, as both Copernicus & Galileo were popish Rome pawns shilling the Jesuit Heliocentricity Hoax upon mankind, "idiot".
@SpencerBenedict2nd No it doesn't help, it only exacerbates your statement. "Universal truth" is An absolute truth, is an unalterable and permanent fact, no matter where you go you get the same answer, that is a universal truth. I'm willing to bet that your "truth" is far from that definition. This is where i have a problem with the ilks of your kind. You offer something that can NOT be tested. Whats next a square dance?
""Universal truth" would be a more apt description of what i have been imbued."
Truth can be tested, so no this doesn't help. The next step would be to present the truth, as I have not seen you "supply" anything other than lip service. You can keep the words, i want to "see" the truth.
@TheMassdistortion "You can keep the words, i want to "see" the truth."-MassivelyDistorted&Deluded
>I only deal in and supply truth to those searching for it. "Truth" is not up for debate. That would be like beating a dead horse. Stupid.
Considering the medium, i can only give you the truth in the form of words and quotes from encyclopedic documented history. If you want to "see" truth, get up off your ass, go outside, open up your fucking eyes and look around.
@SpencerBenedict2nd You do NOT provide the truth. There is no way you can know the truth, as you were not there. You dont even have a Theory, You don't even have a hypothesis. You dont know the difference between faith and blind faith.
Please provide me with any "truth" that can be taken to a court of law. The only thing you have to be observed is your behavior and it is just a bunch of nonsense that equates to a square dance.
@TheMassdistortion I only said that i provide truth. I didn't say anything about you or anyone having to like it.
"Please provide me with any "truth" that can be taken to a court of law."-TheMassivelyDistortedTruthDenier
>"According to the laws of legal evidence used in courts of law, there is more evidence for the historical fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ than for just about any other event in history."
-Dr. Simon Greenleaf (a Harvard University professor of Law)
@PenisPufferBenedict2nd Greenleaf is an important figure in the development of that Christian school of thought known as legal or juridical apologetics. This school of thought is typified by legally trained scholars applying the canons of proof and argument to the defense of Christian belief.
So? Is this where I introduce Steven Hawking? Richard Dawkins? I'm talking to you directly.
@TheMassdistortion Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system to suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible in order for the Papacy to attain a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt'.
@TheMassdistortion This pathetic Stephen Hawkings is nothing more than the new front farse Papal puppet for the Vatican like their other puppet who was a dunce, Albert Einstein. Used of course to help destroy the Bible tied in with Evolution.
The Church of Rome wishes you to be uneducated & certainly not following the Bible which they want destroyed once & for all in order to reign in their despotic one world Godless tyranny.
Please don't fall for false Jesuit fronts like Hawkings & Einstein.
I can see that you have issues, so this conversation is over-with. I just wish for once that a christard could debate here but I know thats impossible.
"I just wish for once that a christard could debate here but I know thats impossible."-TheMassivelydistorted
>Are you really so daft not to realize that debating truth is vain? Being futile, i ask, what sense is there in that?
You can come to me anytime and ask to know the truth in something. If you want debate, go play with someone bogged down with "ideas", "theories", "speculations", "hypothesis" and "conjectures" which you are full of.
I can see that you have issues, so this conversation is over-with. I just wish for once that a christard could debate here but I know thats impossible.
"The word בתולה bethûlâh, denotes a pure virgin..."
Sure it does, but that is not what is written in Isaiah 7:14. Here the word used is "ha-almah" which means "the young woman", furthermore the name of the son born shall be "Immanu-El". Thus it can't be about Jesus as he is never referred to by that name.
h t tp://en(dot)wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/Isaiah_7:14#Article_in_.E2.80.9Cha-almah.E2.80.99.E2.80.9D
@Draugh39 Do you not know any better than to avoid the jesuitically controlled wikipedia website when it comes to such topics as Religion, Politics and any World History which involves either of the former?
Do you also fall prey to the delusion of the "Free Press" illusion? This is 2011 my friend, not 1811. On top of that we are over 400 years into Rome's Council of Trent Counter Reformation, so wake up to the reality of the world your currently living in & whose in control of its machinations.
The Hebrew language isn't "Jesuit controlled" and neither is Wikipedia. But if you want another viewpoint about that passage (Isaiah 7:14), why don't you ask a Rabbi? Or do you think they are Jesuit controlled too? As a matter of fact the Roman Catholic Church didn't at all like the Jews pointing out what is so clearly spelled out in the Torah, Or are you now arguing that the Jews somehow don't know what is in the Hebrew Bible?
"The Hebrew language isn't "Jesuit controlled" and neither is Wikipedia."-DraughtofComprehension39
>The Hebrew language is indeed NOT "jesuit controlled", but they have had a certain pointed control of information for over 400 years. The past 100 yrs of this control has been quite exceptional and brilliant.
With the Knights of Malta as their compatriots, the major mass media system is not one designed to inform, but is in place to misinform. Wikipedia is extremely corrupt.
"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." -Isaiah 7:14
"The Lord himself" (Hebrew, 'Adonai) shall give a "SIGN". A"SIGN"!! Now tell me, if she were NOT a virgin, what sort of "SIGN" would bearing a child be? Not one at all, as child bearing by natural means happens everyday, silly.
Hence the reason for saying, "BEHOLD"!! Behold-arresting attention to the extraordinary prophecy.
That is already addressed in the link I gave. Yes it is from Wikipedia but the link has references to other works you can check. The objections is by the Jews, who's book this is and the Jews have NEVER considered this as prophecy, it is a later christian view.
The word in the text is NOT "bethûlâh" as you have claimed but "ha-almah" which should be translated as "the young woman", (and also is in later translations of the Bible, also in the protestant ones).
@Draugh39 "The objections is by the Jews, who's book this is and the Jews have NEVER considered this as prophecy,..."-DraughtofKnowledge39
>This verse is not to be understood of Hezekiah, the son of Ahaz, by his wife, as some Jewish writers interpret it; which interpretation Jarchi refutes, by observing that Hezekiah was nine years old when his father began to reign, and this being, as he says, the fourth year of his reign, he must be at this time thirteen years of age, silly.
>The Messiah is here meant, who was to be born of a pure virgin; as the word here used signifies in all places where it is mentioned, as Genesis 24:43 and even in Proverbs 30:19 which is the instance the Jews give of the word being used of a woman corrupted.
"And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her:..."-Genesis 24:16
"who was to be born of a pure virgin; as the word here [העלמה haalmah] used signifies in all places where it is mentioned " "And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her:..."-Genesis 24:16
That's false: In Genesis 24:16 the word used for "virgin (here stated explicitly as a woman that has not known a man)" is
"...and the way of a man with a young woman [almah]. So is the way of an adulterous woman; she eateth, and wipeth her mouth, and saith: 'I have done no wickedness."
You can clearly NOT use the word "virgin' in this case as an adulterous woman requires her to be married and marriage required it to have been consummated. Not giving sex to your wife was cause for divorce.
"Proverbs 30:19 uses Almah sure, the text reads."...and the way of a man with a young woman [almah]. So is the way of an adulterous woman; she eateth, and wipeth her mouth, and saith: 'I have done no wickedness."-Draught
>"The way of an eagle in the air; the way of a serpent upon a rock; the way of a ship in the midst of the sea; and the way of a man with a maid."-Proverbs 30:19
or ways "to a maid" who is kept recluse; "ad virginem", Glassius, Gejerus, Noldius, p. 144. No. 678.
Good to get a reference. However that isn't a translation it is an interpretation and comment based on these authors views. And there are many that do not agree with this. You might notice that both the King James version of 1611 and the 1599 version of the Geneva Bible translates "almah" in Proverbs 30:19 as "maid" NOT as "virgin". And that they make no hint of this maid actually being a virgin. Note that 30:20 which speak of an adulteress is connected.
@Draugh39 In Proverbs 30:19 which is the instance the Jews give of the word being used of a woman corrupted; since it does not appear that the maid and the adulterous woman are one and the same person; and if they were, she might, though vitiated, be called a maid or virgin, from her own profession of herself, or as she appeared to others who knew her not, or as she was antecedent to her defilement; which is no unusual thing in Scripture, see Deuteronomy 22:28.
@Draugh39 The same as בתולה bethulah, Genesis 24:16, which, from the explanation there given, incontestably means a virgin in the proper sense of the word - a young woman, not that is covered or kept at home, the common gloss, but who was not uncovered in the delicate sense in which the Scripture uses this word. See this interpretation vindicated on Isaiah 7:14.
Actually, no. The Hebrew bible originates with Judaism, that Christianity and also Islam also adopted the writings (at least in part) doesn't detract from the fact that these writings were part of Judaism long before the later two religions existed. And if you are going to argue what the text states, the original Jewish one trumps a later one which doesn't even hold true to the writing as written.
"Actually, no. The Hebrew bible originates with Judaism, that Christianity and also Islam also adopted the writings (at least in part) doesn't detract from the fact that these writings were part of Judaism long before the later two religions existed."-Draughtof
>Please refrain from the inclination of being obtuse in this matter. Both the Old & New Testaments were His Gift to the World as His Words within contain His guiding instructions and path for the Salvation of Man, silly.
" Both the Old & New Testaments were His Gift to the World as His Words..."
You don't know much about the formation of the Bible do you. The Old Testament was not in the Bible initially, it was finally adopted in a revised form and the number of books differs between Judaism and Christianity. The Bible was revised many times over the first few centuries, as was the Hebrew Bible - which you can see if you look at the Dead Sea Scrolls.
"And if you are going to argue what the text states, the original Jewish one trumps a later one which doesn't even hold true to the writing as written."-Draught
>I do not have a problem with letting you in on some universal truths which may have alluded you for one reason or another, but i have no interest in argument. I trust the Geneva Bible (both editions 1560 & 1599) and the King James AV1611 as they are directly (and honestly) translated from the original Hebrew and Greek texts.
"the King James AV1611 as they are directly (and honestly) translated from the original Hebrew and Greek texts."
That is again false. First the KJV the translation was directed by the King for political reasons. Furthermore it was based on Textus Receptus which in turn was NOT based on the earliest manuscripts we have. That is why you have obvious frauds in it like John 7:53-8:11 which is NOT found in any of the earliest copies we have of that gospel.
@Draugh39 "First the KJV the translation was directed by the King for political reasons."-Draught
>I am full aware of why homo King James commissioned his new translation. First and foremost to suppress and bury the Geneva bible for its few negative verses toward kingship, but mainly due to it exposing the papacy as antichrist in a rather frank manner.
Augustine declares John 7:53-8:11 stricken from many copies of the sacred story because of a prudish fear that it might teach immorality.
you are referring to Augustine of Hippo, (354 -430 CE) yes? Well the "pericope" is not found on any of the earliest manuscripts or the earliest Bibles, "Codex Sinaiticus" and "Vaticanus" which preceded him. But the Codex includes both the apocryphal texts the "Epistle of Barnabas", and portions of "The Shepherd of Hermas". So Augustine doesn't hold, the pericope is an an interpolation and not an original part of the Gospel. and there are more of those.
This narrative is found in some form or other in more than 300 cursive copies, without any note of doubt or distinction, as also in a few lectionaries.
As to versions, it is found (i.) in Cod. Colbertinus and some others of the Old Latin; (ii.) the Vulgate, (iii.) Æthiopic, and (iv.) Jerusalem Syriac Lectionary.
It is mentioned by Jerome as being found in many copies, by Ambrose, Augustine, and other writers since the fourth century.
The Pericope of the Adulteress is NOT found in the earliest manuscripts. This is indicated in more modern translation based on earlier texts. The Bodmer Papyri found 1952 shows: The manuscript P66 dated at 200 CE does not contain John 7:53-8:11, it is also missing from P75 dated 175-225 CE. This is the earliest writing we have from John 7 and 8.
Yet you say that texts NOT based on these writings are correct and the earliest ones are false?
Codex Colbertinus was written 11th and 12 century: more than 900 years after P66!
The Vulgate is 4th century Latin translation.
In many earlier manuscripts where John 7:53-8:11 is present, it is indicated in the text that it is an interpolation. Until you have earlier manuscripts than P66 and P75 you simply can't make the claim that it existed originally in the text. "Absence of evidence" doesn't mean evidence of existence.
>Augustine well aware that the passage was far from universally read in the copies then extant, endeavored to account for the fact by conjecture, "Certain persons of little faith, or rather enemies of the true faith, fearing, I suppose, lest their wives should be given impunity in sinning, removed from their manuscripts the Lord's act of forgiveness toward the adulteress, as if he who had said, Sin no more, had granted permission to sin."
@Draugh39 "That is why you have obvious frauds in it like John 7:53-8:11..."-Draught
>I am curious, besides the fact that these verses are missing from some early manuscripts, what would be your reasoning for labeling them "obvious" frauds?
Simply that they are missing from some MS, does not necessarily make them certainly fraudulent. In fact the opposite could just as much be true - the MS missing them could be the fraudulent texts.
the reason I call them frauds is because they have been added on later and are not listed as that (until much later). The early church had no problems doing things like that. One of the worst was Eusebius of Caesarea. likely the origin of the addition into Josephus of the "Testimonium Flavianum" which again is a fake. Eusebius even admit to "related whatever might redound to the glory, and that he has suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace, of religion."
@Draugh39 I believe that the use of words such as "fraud" and "a fake" are quite harsh, as they imply that the incident described within these verses has no historicity and what i can tell from my studies, the account seems very viable. Now whether or not it is Johannine or even Lucas is indeed a critical matter, and for now i acquiesce to the probability that these verses are not.
However, given this, it does not necessarily mean that their inclusion was not divinely inspired, no?
"However, given this, it does not necessarily mean that their inclusion was not divinely inspired, no?"
There is absolutely no evidence for that! And why would God need to change the original texts, didn't he get it right the first time? No its clear that these texts have been tampered with by humans for human reasons.
Yes. Earlier more original texts (which is something Erasmus didn't have access to) would mean a closer more correct translation. Hand-copied texts becomes distorted by time, I even hinted that with the comparison between Masoretic texts and the Dead Sea Scrolls, revision and changes appears and that is clear from the history of the Bible - which has gone through many such. Now we have access to earlier material and can thus make a better translation based on those.
"Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son..."
So now this was the sign that was to be given, and a miraculous one it was, that the Messiah should be born of a pure and incorrupt virgin; and therefore a "behold" is prefixed to it, as a note of admiration; and what else could be this sign or wonder? not surely that a young married woman, either Ahaz's or Isaiah's wife, should be with child, which is nothing surprising, silly.
As stated this has not ever been seen as prophecy. especially as the later verses clearly spell out that this sign is going to happen very soon.
"For before the child knows to reject the bad and choose the good, desolation will come upon the land of the two kings the land whose two kings before whom you NOW cower."
So a Jew would then ask. Which were these two kingdoms that became desolate DURING Jesus lifetime, that Ahaz were cowering from?
"For before the child knows to reject the bad and choose the good, desolation will come upon the land of the two kings the land whose two kings before whom you NOW cower."
@Draugh39 "For before the child knows to reject the bad and choose the good, desolation will come upon the land of the two kings the land whose two kings before whom you NOW cower."-Draught
>Again, i ask from where did you retrieve the above?
"For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings." -Isaiah 7:16
"the land" - Israel and Syria."Pekah was slain by Hoshea"
And thus you just killed your own argument. The time you are talking about is around 730 BCE. Yet this child shall be the sign for Azah (who's reign was 735 – 715 BCE) and Isaiah states that "before this child know to refuse evil" the two kings would die.(Which works if the child was born about 735 BCE i.e. the he is 3 when this happens).
However, at the time of Jesus there wasn't even a land called Israel.
@Draugh39 That it refers "exclusively" to some event in the time of the prophet; to the birth of a child then, either of the wife of Ahaz, or of the prophet, or of some other unmarried female. This would, of course, exclude all reference to the Messiah, so therefore a fallible interpretation.
"However, at the time of Jesus there wasn't even a land called Israel."-Draught
>While your busy "straining gnats", call the " House of Joseph", if it makes it more palatable for you, "Israel in Samaria".
"This would, of course, exclude all reference to the Messiah, so therefore a fallible interpretation."
Again Isaiah 7:14 has never been seen as a prophecy of the Messiah by the Jews.
You claim that this verse is about Jesus, the reason being it mentions "ha-almah" giving birth and if we wrongly translate that as "Virgin" it could fit the nativity story. And thus this must be about the Messiah as you claim Jesus was the Messiah.
"Again Isaiah 7:14 has never been seen as a prophecy of the Messiah by the Jews."-Draught
>Not only the Evangelist Matthew renders the word by "a virgin"; but the Septuagint interpreters, who were Jews, so rendered the word hundreds of years before him; and best agrees with the Hebrew word, which comes from the root which signifies to "hide" or "cover"; virgins being covered and unknown to men.
Don't pass up your reserved ticket on the salvation boat, silly. Who are you waiting for?
Not so. The Septuagint (LXX) was only a translation of the Pentateuch this is clear from a 2nd century BCE letter (Letter of Aristeas) this is also confirmed independently by Josephus. Furthermore the Dead sea scrolls include Isaiah 7:14 and that also states "Almah" (= young woman)
h t t p://w w w(dot)messianicjewishtruth(dot)com/Isaiah714.h t m l
Photo of the original scroll here:
h t t p://w w w(dot)ancient-hebrew(dot)org/31_selections(dot)h t m l
@Draugh39 We reject the Greek Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls as utterly corrupt, they containing contradicting variants and omitting whole phrases from the Hebrew Masoretic text underlying the AV1611. We reject Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, the declared “scriptures” of Rome as reiterated in the Counter Reformation’s “ecumenical” Council of Trent. We reject all “bibles” descending from that corrupt line of “bibles” having originated with the Romish heretic Origen and companion in crime Eusebius.
Mate the approved version of the King James Bible was based on the Textus Receptus which in part was translated from the Vulgate. I suggest you look up the textual criticism of that first translation when compared to the Greek originals. This is why you have modern translations now, we actually have more and older manuscripts now than in 1516.
The Masoretic text is also newer than the Dead Sea Scrolls, it has clearly been edited in places when compared to earlier texts.
@Draugh39 Please beware: when it comes to Bibles, "newer" is NEVER "better".
I suggest you look up the manipulations & corruption's of the "ROMISH" Bible Societies & so-called "Translation" Committees of the likes of, Westcott & Hort and Nestle/Aland. All other English Bibles are rejected as Romish heresy proceeding from corrupt Hebrew & Greek texts secretly amassed by the diabolical Jesuit Papacy.
Do you doubt His ability in His Word available to those who've passed these past 2000 years?
when it comes to Bibles, "newer" is NEVER "better".
Really, so are you saying that we should have stuck with the very first Bible, that of Marcion of Sinope? He who rejected the whole of the Old Testament and wanted to remove any references to it from his Bible? All Bibles we have today is based on christian interpretations and editing that came AFTER him. (and the teaching in that Bible was much more in common with Gnosticism than you see today)
"Do you doubt His ability in His Word available to those who've passed these past 2000 years?"
Yes. I don't believe in any god at all! It is a fact that the wording in the Bible has changed. Furthermore, I read the Bible in Swedish as well and those texts can't possibly have been affected by these English Bible Societies. Note that Sweden was protestant decades before England was and the Catholic Church (kicked out in 1523) was less of a power there than ever in England.
>Again, i ask from where did you retrieve the above?" Childs, Brevard S. "Isaiah" (Westminster John Knox Press) (2001) pp.60-61.
But it doesn't really matter, we can take the translation you used (looks like the Old King James version):
"Abhorest" is second-person singular simple present form of "abhor".
I.e. it shows Isaiah is directing his talk to the King ONLY. and that he is referring to something that Azah is PRESENTLY abhorred about.( "views with horror")
The prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 was an event which could be known only to God, and which could be accomplished only by his agency. If it refers to the miraculous conception and birth of the Messiah, then it means that that was an event which none but God could accomplish. I ask you, is He not worthy to perform such a miracle, silly? (Please answer in an audible voice to yourself, "YES" or "NO".
Isaiah 7:14 (which is not seen as a messianic prophecy) it does not talk about a virgin giving birth (in that case the word "bethûlâh" would have been used and it is not in the original Hebrew text.). It clearly speak about a sign that is expected to happen soon and in the lifetime of Ahaz as the text tells that Ahaz will see this sign. Isaiah is speaking TO Azah and states, "Therefore the Lord Himself shall give YOU a sign"
"Isaiah is speaking TO Azah and states, "Therefore the Lord Himself shall give YOU a sign"
-DraughtofPerception39
>Doubtless, however, the word 'you' is designed to include the nation, or the people of the kingdom of Judah. It would be so public a sign, and so clear a demonstration, as to convince them that their city and land must be ultimately safe, silly.
">Doubtless, however, the word 'you' is designed to include the nation, or the people .."
Absolutely not that is obvious if you read the whole chapter. This is a conversation between the prophet Isaiah and King Azah, which is clear in the verses preceding it and in the ones following it. For instance Isaiah 7:17
"The LORD will cause to come upon you, and your people and your ancestral house..."
Here Isaiah clearly show that "you" is directed to the King only.
Behold - הנה hinnêh. This interjection is a very common one in the Old Testament. It is used to arrest attention & indicate the importance of what was about to be said. It serves to designate persons, things, places & actions. It is used in lively descriptions & animated discourse when anything unusual was said, or occurred; or any thing which especially demanded attention & regard of the people - THIS, a FULL DEMONSTRATION that God would protect and save the nation, silly.
@Draugh39 "... but that is not what is written in Isaiah 7:14. Here the word used is "ha-almah" which means "the young woman" -DraughtofWisdom39
> of עלמה ‛almâh is only used in Genesis 24:43 and in Isaiah 7:14. Now go do some bible study on Genesis 24. It's not too late to hop aboard the salvation boat. I would suggest that you followed a pack of lemmings who felt "OUR" Messiah did not meet their expectations in "looks" and appearance and therefore rejected Him.
@Draugh39 "furthermore the name of the son born shall be "Immanu-El". Thus it can't be about Jesus as he is never referred to by that name." -DraughtofCommonSense39
>The design of these words is not so much to relate the name by which Christ should commonly be called, as to describe his nature and office. Keep it simple stupid and it's not all that hard to comprehend.
When you try to fashion truth into an misconstrued ideology in which you seem to have been raised, your bound to have trouble.
Aha! I just checked ranmcsj's channel page. Joined YouTube yesterday, and immediately became an apologetic on this website. I smell a sock puppet, and that sock is dirty.
You creatards cling to magical myths even when the truth is in front of you. Do you actually believe in unicorns? (Numbers 23:22, Numbers 24:8, Deuteronomy 33:17, Job 39:9-10, Isaiah 34:7, Psalm 92:10, Isaiah 34:7 )
Unicorns translated from the original hebrew refers to a wild ox not the unicorn from myth. Notice the Bible says horns not horn Deuteronomy 33:17 and Psalm 22:21. As to giants they have found skeletons of humans that were 12 feet tall. Before the flood the enviroment of the earth was different than it is today. The oxygen content on the earth was much higher than it is today. I give you credit though, it takes more faith to believe that all life we have today came from a rock.
@ranmcsj No evolutionist believes we came from a rock. That shows you haven't learned about evolutionary theory. Your god myth says we came from dust.. Gotta go now. I have grown-ups to talk to.
@ndrthrdr1 2 Pet 3:3. Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts
Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23. And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
OMG!! that was pathetic.They drank beer and were flooded in a river!!?.Then how do you end up on Mount Ararat in Turkey from a flooded river?God why am i even asking this question?.Apparently these scholars have degrees and figure this out all by themselves lol.
The Bible states that the Ark landed on Ararat, Turkey, and that is where it was discovered. The Jewish people of the day did not use guess work to write the Bible events down, It was handed down from the generations, which is why God called out his people for his Name, To bring back the truth, lost in Eden for the generations, to our time, The Bible is the Word of God, and factual.
@galileegirl The Bible never mentions Mount Ararat. It says "the mountains of Ararat." There have been other mountains by that name earlier, plus other arks on them. Maybe Noah was admiral of the fleet.
The problem with this theory is that it doesn't take into account, that the Bible says, only 8 people survived the flood. and out of those came the peoples we know today. Ham, Shem and Japeth. The Bible says, God regretted man, and wiped out his creation, to start again. with those on the Ark. The flood was not an adventure, it was a historical fact, ratified by the covenant of the Rainbow, that appears in every country of the world.
@InternetDarkLord > Because in Noah's time 8 people the sons of noah and their wife multiply hard. until the people grow in numbers and settled for a right score then they recieved a Command to stop their usual bred. and that is written in the 10 Commandments. i think its the thou shall not covet they neighbors wife. and no more 3rd party relations i.e cousins.
@NikoDemous1 The 10 commandments have nothing to do with inbreeding. The human race was never only 8 people we would all have 6 fingers and 3 eyes from such massive inbreeding.
@InternetDarkLord > you sound very stupid. how old are you 1 yr. old. the inbreeding you talking about is Multiplication right. average woman bear 1 sometimes twins, triplets So if your Brain is not fix like a robot. you can see it even Nowadays there are specific Family had 3,7,8 or 12 kids in one couple alone plus their Seeds,Seeds there is no limit for them to bear childrens, but until God gave them a Law to straight them decently and live according to a Law. talk to my friend He knows
@NikoDemous1 Strawman, inbreeding comes from the fact everyone would descend from 8. Ditto the clean (7 pairs) and unclean (1 pair) animals. I never said numbers were the problem, I said inbreeding is the problem.
@InternetDarkLord > my friend can explain you that Questions. i tell him his a Bible student. tonight or tommorow this is a shared computer. someone wil use this pc. for homework.
I was expecting an explanation on how he got the penguins from the Antarctic, the polar bears from the Arctic, the Cangurus from Australia and the Chupacabras from Mexico. Teleportation?
Did Noah’s ark exist YES it exist as a believe. They can be a thousands of reasons why it did not happen still millions of ppl believe it happened so the answer is DO YOU BELIEVE ? If you do then they is nothing that can change your mind only if GOD told you him self !!!
It's ironic that the Sumerian flood story gives a more realistic timeline of events (days instead of months), since the Sumerian King List gives much more outlandish lifespans than even the Bible (the Bible says ppl lived 900+ years, the SKL gives lifespans of many thousands of years).
@dobste Thanks so much for pointing that out. For some odd reason when I post the url from the source it works, but not from what I've and posted it on to. The video title on youtube is called "The Discovery of Noah's Ark" uploaded by BereanBeacon
Science is helpful but when talking about God and history we can't scientifically prove it. This doesn't make it false but it just shows the limits of science. In order for something to be scientifically proven it must be observable, repeatable and measurable. History cannot be scientifically proven ever. We cannot scientifically prove that George Washington was ever the president of the United States because we cannot do any of those three things. Science is a help, not THE determining factor.
@CenterOfTheFlame Scientist don't have to repeat evolution to know it is a fact. Science uses logic also, we can scientificlly prove George was the first president.
@gregrutz For something to be termed 'scientific', a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning, therefore, history cannot be scientifically proven. I'm sorry, but no matter which way you cut it, 'scientifically', history cannot be proven. We can be certain things historically took place based on what the culture leaves behind such as in archaeology and in the writings of the day.
@gregrutz lol it's because arragance and superstition, as we've just watched, dates back to people who HAD to be right lol just like gossip girls we knew in high school, you know, who HAD to know more than they REALLY did lmao
@CenterOfTheFlame ehm yes you can. If you find a document stating George Washington's births you can measure the age of the paper, you can repeat the measurements on similar papers from the alleged same age. You can make predictions based on the information you find in that paper. Observable doesn't mean you have to see it happen. If they take DNA samples from a crime scene they didn't had to have seen the DNA physically falling on the crime scene to scientifically proof whom's it was.
This video of Noah's Ark is dreadful. Especially with the recent discovery of the Ark 10,000 feet up the mountain of Ararat. Wait till we see more evidence of the recent discovery on Ararat.
I believe there was a global flood. WIth God, anything's possible.
@Immortalsouls this video is based on scientific evidence, not bible fairy tales, if you don't like it stop watching it, and btw stop using medicine, internet and everything that is connected to science, go and read you bible and die fast.
@dumbnetworks hmm, 'based' on scientific evidence. Actually... I'll correct you. It's 'based' on the Bible story of Noah's Ark. And by the way. Science isn't just attributed to Atheists.
In response to dying fast though.. I wish I could so then I will be immediately in Heaven, but then again, God wants me here to do His will.
@Immortalsouls it's not based on the bible, Watch it again, It refutes the bible story from the size of the ark to the whole story location etc, and takes god out of it completely! If you believe in god and bible you shouldn't take anything from the satanic science I guess. why do you use computer? why do yo use medicine? do you know that all modern day medicine is based on evolution science?
@dumbnetworks I've watched it. There's no need to watch it again. I understand very well what they're saying and what you're saying. What's the deal with you bringing up that science is satanic though? So now you believe in Satan? You're one confusing hypocrit.
Medicine is not just based on evolution, or the word 'science'. Science is a good thing, and good things come from God, not Satan. Although Satan manipulates the good things of God and are mis-used.
@Immortalsouls creationists usually think that science comes from satan, if you don't believe thats ok, my bad.
But still i don't understand how you can put science and god together? Science s based on reason and logic, god is based on nonsensical faith. I don't see any reason in believing in a supernatural deity when everything works just fine without puting it there in the first place.
@gregrutz It is likely the "flood" was based on an actual event. There is an impact crater 19km in diameter in the Indian Ocean (Burckle Crater) dated to 2800 BC. The impactor was likely a 1.5km diameter stony asteroid. This would have generated the largest tsunamis seen since civilization began and would have swept hundreds of km through Mesopotamia. It is easy to see how an upper neolithic people would regard such an event as an act of god or gods.
@LonghornPhysicist Yes, the Chinese have a long history with many floods but they didn't all die and Noah's family repopulate the world. There was never a world wide flood like the bible says.
@gregrutz Agreed. It is perfectly understandable for people alive then to regard such a natural disaster as divine vengeance by an angry diety but to believe that now, thats just stupid. :p
lmao ..they said even when the flood was over he was in danger ??? lmao Hahahahahahah they were all dead..No way could anyone live a year without food and fresh water..if they di
WOW moses wrote the Genesis not jewish preists. Interesting how people threw away the flood story for myth of gilgamesh. Even Jesus spoke about Noah's flood. Fact is all civilizations have flood legends, even the incas and indians. This is satans handy work trying to divert people from true worship and the true God. What a waste of time witching this made by people who prefer myth because they cannot understand something.
darkmyzreal 1 month ago
@darkmyzreal Are you a Poe?
InternetDarkLord 1 month ago in playlist Favorite videos 3
I have concluded from this video that the concept of a global flood is, at best, a rather silly idea indeed.
dproctor18 1 month ago
who wants the true story plz go read the story of Noah (Nouh in Arabic) in the holy Quran, 14 centuries ago some jews asked Muhammed PBUH about this story and he told them the real one
ironheaven1 2 months ago
@ironheaven1
The Sumerian and Babylonian texts were written over 2 millennia before that.
Furthermore Mohammed didn't write a single word down, he was analphabetic. The Qur'an was written by many other people and was compiled from these scraps by Uthman over ten years after Mohammed’s death. To claim that it is perfect or undistorted is false.
Draugh39 2 months ago
this is bullshit .
xodiac2020 3 months ago
@xodiac2020 Your brilliant analysis, backed up by reams of hard evidence, has me convinced.
InternetDarkLord 3 months ago
new version: "The Sheep Is Break Down - Noah's Ark in an Ice Cave: Fact or Fiction?" look for it under youtube channel "TravelBeam". Noah's Ark fraud by Parasut and the Chinese NAMI team. Fraud is a felony.
TravelBeam 5 months ago
There's something in the tone of the voice of the narrator, plus the music, that's annoying (similar tone to the Lost Tomb of Jesus series on youtube). Is it just american documentaries that use voices that sound like they should be on some kind of sensational shock horror crime watch program?
Give me trustworthy Attenborough any day, he pronounces Iraq properly too.
czeshirecat 6 months ago
@czeshirecat "Give me trustworthy Attenborough..."-czeshirecat
David Attenborough is a Freemasonic; wishes for population control; tied to the Optimum Population Trust down in Manchester, England. The same OPT that Knight of Malta Duke Thomas Cruise Mapother IV has donated over five million dollars to so far. What else does Attenborough do? Well he promotes the false theory of Evolution. A idea which originates from Egypt but was forced upon us by a Jesuit soldier by the name of Erasmus Darwin.
SpencerBenedict2nd 5 months ago
This is from the 1828 Webster's Dictionary:U'NICORN,n.[L. unicornis; unus, one, and cornu, horn.]1.an animal with one horn; the monoceros. this name is often applied to the rhinoceros.2.The sea unicorn is a fish of the whale kind, called narwal, remarkable for a horn growing out at his nose.3. A fowl.In the 2010 edition a unicorn is a mythical animal generally depicted with the body and head of a horse the hind legs of a stag the tail of a lion and a single horn in the middle of the forehead
ranmcsj 6 months ago
@ranmcsj Your point being?
InternetDarkLord 6 months ago
@InternetDarkLord It goes to the point that unicorns in the Bible are not from the current definition of today which is a fairytale creature from myth. @ndrthrd1 said we must do gymnastics to defend our book of myth. I'm justing pointing out you need to understand meanings of words in the Bible verses the meanings of the same words today. Its funny that webster changed its definition of the word over the years to accomadate fairy tales.Dinosaur wasn't even a word until 1842. That's all I'm sayin
ranmcsj 6 months ago
@ranmcsj All irrelevant discussing ancient HEBREW.
InternetDarkLord 6 months ago
@InternetDarkLord When words are defined incorrectly it is very relevant.
ranmcsj 6 months ago
@ranmcsj Good, then you know Isaiah said a "young girl" would conceive. The entire virgin birth of Jesus was a translation error in the Greek text.
InternetDarkLord 6 months ago
@InternetDarkLord I see by this reply, you acquiesced to "ranmcsj" concerning the biblical unicorn of an 'oxen' nature. Now maybe you'll remove it from your repertoire of dirty jesuit shit-bag tricks?
Just as you should drop your empty Isaiah "young girl" issue?
"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."-Isaiah 7:14
The word בתולה bethûlâh, denotes a pure virgin / ἡ παρθένος hē parthenos, "a virgin"
SpencerBenedict2nd 5 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd Hogwash, you are citing the translation as proof of itself. You cannot prove Bible claims with the Bible text.
InternetDarkLord 5 months ago
@InternetDarkJESUIT Obviously, i can.
SpencerBenedict2nd 5 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd You can be a deluded jackass, yes.
InternetDarkLord 5 months ago
@InternetDarkLord
SpencerBenedict2nd 5 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd .
InternetDarkLord 5 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd , still spewing vomit I see. Its a shame no one can measure just how much faith you have. Would you say it was as much as a mustard seed?
If there actually was any truth to your nonsense we would all feel it just as we do pain, pleasure, alcohol, drugs, antibiotics, etc. It could be tested and produce the same positive effect, time and time again but it doesn't. You can not produce anything other than an ignorant contradicting book written by fools.
TheMassdistortion 5 months ago
You act like it was the ONLY book written in that era. There were far better books written by men with better education. Books that contributed to the evolution of intelligence, while your book tries to destroy it! Should we lock up all the Galileo's again? Start burning witches?
You christards sure use the science of doctors and hospitals instead of praying don't you. You want to squash science but you sure use it to your benefit dont you.
Idiot
TheMassdistortion 5 months ago
@TheMassdistortion "Books that contributed to the evolution of intelligence,..."-TheMassDistorted
>Since the Jesuit control of "education" in Academia, there has been nothing less than DEVOlution of intelligence over the past 400+ years.
"Should we lock up all the Galileo's again?"-TheMassDelusion
>The supposed "inquisition" of Galileo was nothing but a false front Vatican ruse, as both Copernicus & Galileo were popish Rome pawns shilling the Jesuit Heliocentricity Hoax upon mankind, "idiot".
SpencerBenedict2nd 5 months ago
@penisBentedick2nd Hoax You say? Are you denying the virgin births that predate your beloved Jesus?
Roman/Greek: Demeter and Persephone, Rhea and Zeus, Apollo
In Egypt, virgin mother Isis begat Horus
In Phrygia, Attis was born of the virgin Nama.
A nymph bathing in a river in China is touched by a lotus plant, and the divine Fohi is born.
In Siam, a wandering sunbeam caresses a girl in her teens, and the great and wonderful deliverer, Codom, is born.
But yours is the real deal...right...
TheMassdistortion 5 months ago
@TheMassdistortion Right. Very good. You get a cookie.
SpencerBenedict2nd 5 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd I wouldn't normally push the subject but you did say you had the truth, did you not?
TheMassdistortion 5 months ago
@TheMassdistortion "Universal truth" would be a more apt description of what i have been imbued.
I hope this helps. peace
SpencerBenedict2nd 5 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd No it doesn't help, it only exacerbates your statement. "Universal truth" is An absolute truth, is an unalterable and permanent fact, no matter where you go you get the same answer, that is a universal truth. I'm willing to bet that your "truth" is far from that definition. This is where i have a problem with the ilks of your kind. You offer something that can NOT be tested. Whats next a square dance?
Grab yer' partner and round' we go...
TheMassdistortion 5 months ago
@TheMassdistortion I matter-of-factly stated that i supply truth. I never said anything about you having to like it.
Hope this helps. peace
SpencerBenedict2nd 5 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd :
"I matter-of-factly stated that i supply truth"
""Universal truth" would be a more apt description of what i have been imbued."
Truth can be tested, so no this doesn't help. The next step would be to present the truth, as I have not seen you "supply" anything other than lip service. You can keep the words, i want to "see" the truth.
TheMassdistortion 5 months ago
@TheMassdistortion "You can keep the words, i want to "see" the truth."-MassivelyDistorted&Deluded
>I only deal in and supply truth to those searching for it. "Truth" is not up for debate. That would be like beating a dead horse. Stupid.
Considering the medium, i can only give you the truth in the form of words and quotes from encyclopedic documented history. If you want to "see" truth, get up off your ass, go outside, open up your fucking eyes and look around.
Hope this helps. peace
SpencerBenedict2nd 5 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd The truth is not up for debate. You are paranoid, maybe schizophrenic.
InternetDarkLord 5 months ago
@TheMassdistortion I provide truth to those searching for it.
Some of the universal truths which i supply are at times unacceptable and inconvenient for many.
What folks decide to do with Truth once confronted with it, is of course completely up to the individual and matters not to me.
Hope this helps. peace
SpencerBenedict2nd 5 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd You do NOT provide the truth. There is no way you can know the truth, as you were not there. You dont even have a Theory, You don't even have a hypothesis. You dont know the difference between faith and blind faith.
Please provide me with any "truth" that can be taken to a court of law. The only thing you have to be observed is your behavior and it is just a bunch of nonsense that equates to a square dance.
Show me the truth, then prove it.
TheMassdistortion 5 months ago
@TheMassdistortion I only said that i provide truth. I didn't say anything about you or anyone having to like it.
"Please provide me with any "truth" that can be taken to a court of law."-TheMassivelyDistortedTruthDenier
>"According to the laws of legal evidence used in courts of law, there is more evidence for the historical fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ than for just about any other event in history."
-Dr. Simon Greenleaf (a Harvard University professor of Law)
SpencerBenedict2nd 5 months ago
@PenisPufferBenedict2nd Greenleaf is an important figure in the development of that Christian school of thought known as legal or juridical apologetics. This school of thought is typified by legally trained scholars applying the canons of proof and argument to the defense of Christian belief.
So? Is this where I introduce Steven Hawking? Richard Dawkins? I'm talking to you directly.
TheMassdistortion 5 months ago
@TheMassdistortion Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system to suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible in order for the Papacy to attain a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt'.
SpencerBenedict2nd 5 months ago
@TheMassdistortion This pathetic Stephen Hawkings is nothing more than the new front farse Papal puppet for the Vatican like their other puppet who was a dunce, Albert Einstein. Used of course to help destroy the Bible tied in with Evolution.
The Church of Rome wishes you to be uneducated & certainly not following the Bible which they want destroyed once & for all in order to reign in their despotic one world Godless tyranny.
Please don't fall for false Jesuit fronts like Hawkings & Einstein.
SpencerBenedict2nd 5 months ago
@PenisSmokinBenedict2nd
I can see that you have issues, so this conversation is over-with. I just wish for once that a christard could debate here but I know thats impossible.
TheMassdistortion 5 months ago
@TheMassdistortion
"I just wish for once that a christard could debate here but I know thats impossible."-TheMassivelydistorted
>Are you really so daft not to realize that debating truth is vain? Being futile, i ask, what sense is there in that?
You can come to me anytime and ask to know the truth in something. If you want debate, go play with someone bogged down with "ideas", "theories", "speculations", "hypothesis" and "conjectures" which you are full of.
I only deal in universal truth.
SpencerBenedict2nd 5 months ago
@PenisSmokinBenedict2nd
I can see that you have issues, so this conversation is over-with. I just wish for once that a christard could debate here but I know thats impossible.
TheMassdistortion 5 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd
@SpencerBenedict2nd
"The word בתולה bethûlâh, denotes a pure virgin..."
Sure it does, but that is not what is written in Isaiah 7:14. Here the word used is "ha-almah" which means "the young woman", furthermore the name of the son born shall be "Immanu-El". Thus it can't be about Jesus as he is never referred to by that name.
h t tp://en(dot)wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/Isaiah_7:14#Article_in_.E2.80.9Cha-almah.E2.80.99.E2.80.9D
Draugh39 3 months ago 2
@Draugh39 Do you not know any better than to avoid the jesuitically controlled wikipedia website when it comes to such topics as Religion, Politics and any World History which involves either of the former?
Do you also fall prey to the delusion of the "Free Press" illusion? This is 2011 my friend, not 1811. On top of that we are over 400 years into Rome's Council of Trent Counter Reformation, so wake up to the reality of the world your currently living in & whose in control of its machinations.
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd
The Hebrew language isn't "Jesuit controlled" and neither is Wikipedia. But if you want another viewpoint about that passage (Isaiah 7:14), why don't you ask a Rabbi? Or do you think they are Jesuit controlled too? As a matter of fact the Roman Catholic Church didn't at all like the Jews pointing out what is so clearly spelled out in the Torah, Or are you now arguing that the Jews somehow don't know what is in the Hebrew Bible?
Draugh39 3 months ago
@Draugh39 POINT ONE
"The Hebrew language isn't "Jesuit controlled" and neither is Wikipedia."-DraughtofComprehension39
>The Hebrew language is indeed NOT "jesuit controlled", but they have had a certain pointed control of information for over 400 years. The past 100 yrs of this control has been quite exceptional and brilliant.
With the Knights of Malta as their compatriots, the major mass media system is not one designed to inform, but is in place to misinform. Wikipedia is extremely corrupt.
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
@Draugh39 POINT TWO
"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." -Isaiah 7:14
"The Lord himself" (Hebrew, 'Adonai) shall give a "SIGN". A"SIGN"!! Now tell me, if she were NOT a virgin, what sort of "SIGN" would bearing a child be? Not one at all, as child bearing by natural means happens everyday, silly.
Hence the reason for saying, "BEHOLD"!! Behold-arresting attention to the extraordinary prophecy.
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd
That is already addressed in the link I gave. Yes it is from Wikipedia but the link has references to other works you can check. The objections is by the Jews, who's book this is and the Jews have NEVER considered this as prophecy, it is a later christian view.
The word in the text is NOT "bethûlâh" as you have claimed but "ha-almah" which should be translated as "the young woman", (and also is in later translations of the Bible, also in the protestant ones).
Draugh39 3 months ago
@Draugh39 "The objections is by the Jews, who's book this is and the Jews have NEVER considered this as prophecy,..."-DraughtofKnowledge39
>This verse is not to be understood of Hezekiah, the son of Ahaz, by his wife, as some Jewish writers interpret it; which interpretation Jarchi refutes, by observing that Hezekiah was nine years old when his father began to reign, and this being, as he says, the fourth year of his reign, he must be at this time thirteen years of age, silly.
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd
Here is the whole of Isaiah 7:14 in Hebrew:
לָכֵן יִתֵּן אֲדֹנָי הוּא לָכֶם אוֹת הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה הָרָה וְיֹלֶדֶת בֵּן וְקָרָאת שְׁמוֹ עִמָּנוּאֵל
Kindly state exactly where the word " bethûlâh " is in this text or admit that it is NOT present here (which is what you have claimed).
Here is a link to the Hebrew with an accompaning english translation.
h t t p://w w w(dot)mechon-mamre(dot)org/p/pt/pt1007(dot)htm
Draugh39 3 months ago
@Draugh39 העלמה haalmah, from עלם alam
>The Messiah is here meant, who was to be born of a pure virgin; as the word here used signifies in all places where it is mentioned, as Genesis 24:43 and even in Proverbs 30:19 which is the instance the Jews give of the word being used of a woman corrupted.
"And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her:..."-Genesis 24:16
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SpencerBenedict2nd
"who was to be born of a pure virgin; as the word here [העלמה haalmah] used signifies in all places where it is mentioned " "And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her:..."-Genesis 24:16
That's false: In Genesis 24:16 the word used for "virgin (here stated explicitly as a woman that has not known a man)" is
" בְּתוּלָה " = " bethûlâh "
וְהַנַּעֲרָ, טֹבַת מַרְאֶה מְאֹד--בְּתוּלָה, וְאִישׁ לֹא יְדָעָהּ; וַתֵּרֶד
Draugh39 3 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd
Proverbs 30:19 uses Almah sure, the text reads.
"...and the way of a man with a young woman [almah]. So is the way of an adulterous woman; she eateth, and wipeth her mouth, and saith: 'I have done no wickedness."
You can clearly NOT use the word "virgin' in this case as an adulterous woman requires her to be married and marriage required it to have been consummated. Not giving sex to your wife was cause for divorce.
Draugh39 3 months ago
@Draugh39
"Proverbs 30:19 uses Almah sure, the text reads."...and the way of a man with a young woman [almah]. So is the way of an adulterous woman; she eateth, and wipeth her mouth, and saith: 'I have done no wickedness."-Draught
>"The way of an eagle in the air; the way of a serpent upon a rock; the way of a ship in the midst of the sea; and the way of a man with a maid."-Proverbs 30:19
or ways "to a maid" who is kept recluse; "ad virginem", Glassius, Gejerus, Noldius, p. 144. No. 678.
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd
Good to get a reference. However that isn't a translation it is an interpretation and comment based on these authors views. And there are many that do not agree with this. You might notice that both the King James version of 1611 and the 1599 version of the Geneva Bible translates "almah" in Proverbs 30:19 as "maid" NOT as "virgin". And that they make no hint of this maid actually being a virgin. Note that 30:20 which speak of an adulteress is connected.
Draugh39 3 months ago
@Draugh39 In Proverbs 30:19 which is the instance the Jews give of the word being used of a woman corrupted; since it does not appear that the maid and the adulterous woman are one and the same person; and if they were, she might, though vitiated, be called a maid or virgin, from her own profession of herself, or as she appeared to others who knew her not, or as she was antecedent to her defilement; which is no unusual thing in Scripture, see Deuteronomy 22:28.
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
@Draugh39 The same as בתולה bethulah, Genesis 24:16, which, from the explanation there given, incontestably means a virgin in the proper sense of the word - a young woman, not that is covered or kept at home, the common gloss, but who was not uncovered in the delicate sense in which the Scripture uses this word. See this interpretation vindicated on Isaiah 7:14.
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
@Draugh39 "The objections is by the Jews, who's book this is... " -DraughtofInsight39
>Excuse me, but it is "OUR" Good Book.
Peace, silly.
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd
>Excuse me, but it is "OUR" Good Book.
Actually, no. The Hebrew bible originates with Judaism, that Christianity and also Islam also adopted the writings (at least in part) doesn't detract from the fact that these writings were part of Judaism long before the later two religions existed. And if you are going to argue what the text states, the original Jewish one trumps a later one which doesn't even hold true to the writing as written.
Draugh39 3 months ago
@Draugh39
"Actually, no. The Hebrew bible originates with Judaism, that Christianity and also Islam also adopted the writings (at least in part) doesn't detract from the fact that these writings were part of Judaism long before the later two religions existed."-Draughtof
>Please refrain from the inclination of being obtuse in this matter. Both the Old & New Testaments were His Gift to the World as His Words within contain His guiding instructions and path for the Salvation of Man, silly.
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SpencerBenedict2nd
" Both the Old & New Testaments were His Gift to the World as His Words..."
You don't know much about the formation of the Bible do you. The Old Testament was not in the Bible initially, it was finally adopted in a revised form and the number of books differs between Judaism and Christianity. The Bible was revised many times over the first few centuries, as was the Hebrew Bible - which you can see if you look at the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Draugh39 3 months ago
@Draugh39
"And if you are going to argue what the text states, the original Jewish one trumps a later one which doesn't even hold true to the writing as written."-Draught
>I do not have a problem with letting you in on some universal truths which may have alluded you for one reason or another, but i have no interest in argument. I trust the Geneva Bible (both editions 1560 & 1599) and the King James AV1611 as they are directly (and honestly) translated from the original Hebrew and Greek texts.
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd
"the King James AV1611 as they are directly (and honestly) translated from the original Hebrew and Greek texts."
That is again false. First the KJV the translation was directed by the King for political reasons. Furthermore it was based on Textus Receptus which in turn was NOT based on the earliest manuscripts we have. That is why you have obvious frauds in it like John 7:53-8:11 which is NOT found in any of the earliest copies we have of that gospel.
Draugh39 3 months ago
@Draugh39 "First the KJV the translation was directed by the King for political reasons."-Draught
>I am full aware of why homo King James commissioned his new translation. First and foremost to suppress and bury the Geneva bible for its few negative verses toward kingship, but mainly due to it exposing the papacy as antichrist in a rather frank manner.
Augustine declares John 7:53-8:11 stricken from many copies of the sacred story because of a prudish fear that it might teach immorality.
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd
you are referring to Augustine of Hippo, (354 -430 CE) yes? Well the "pericope" is not found on any of the earliest manuscripts or the earliest Bibles, "Codex Sinaiticus" and "Vaticanus" which preceded him. But the Codex includes both the apocryphal texts the "Epistle of Barnabas", and portions of "The Shepherd of Hermas". So Augustine doesn't hold, the pericope is an an interpolation and not an original part of the Gospel. and there are more of those.
Draugh39 3 months ago
@Draugh39 Yes.
This narrative is found in some form or other in more than 300 cursive copies, without any note of doubt or distinction, as also in a few lectionaries.
As to versions, it is found (i.) in Cod. Colbertinus and some others of the Old Latin; (ii.) the Vulgate, (iii.) Æthiopic, and (iv.) Jerusalem Syriac Lectionary.
It is mentioned by Jerome as being found in many copies, by Ambrose, Augustine, and other writers since the fourth century.
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd
The Pericope of the Adulteress is NOT found in the earliest manuscripts. This is indicated in more modern translation based on earlier texts. The Bodmer Papyri found 1952 shows: The manuscript P66 dated at 200 CE does not contain John 7:53-8:11, it is also missing from P75 dated 175-225 CE. This is the earliest writing we have from John 7 and 8.
Yet you say that texts NOT based on these writings are correct and the earliest ones are false?
Based on what!!
Draugh39 3 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd
Codex Colbertinus was written 11th and 12 century: more than 900 years after P66!
The Vulgate is 4th century Latin translation.
In many earlier manuscripts where John 7:53-8:11 is present, it is indicated in the text that it is an interpolation. Until you have earlier manuscripts than P66 and P75 you simply can't make the claim that it existed originally in the text. "Absence of evidence" doesn't mean evidence of existence.
Draugh39 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Draugh39 "So Augustine doesn't hold..."-Draught
>Augustine well aware that the passage was far from universally read in the copies then extant, endeavored to account for the fact by conjecture, "Certain persons of little faith, or rather enemies of the true faith, fearing, I suppose, lest their wives should be given impunity in sinning, removed from their manuscripts the Lord's act of forgiveness toward the adulteress, as if he who had said, Sin no more, had granted permission to sin."
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
@Draugh39 "That is why you have obvious frauds in it like John 7:53-8:11..."-Draught
>I am curious, besides the fact that these verses are missing from some early manuscripts, what would be your reasoning for labeling them "obvious" frauds?
Simply that they are missing from some MS, does not necessarily make them certainly fraudulent. In fact the opposite could just as much be true - the MS missing them could be the fraudulent texts.
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd
the reason I call them frauds is because they have been added on later and are not listed as that (until much later). The early church had no problems doing things like that. One of the worst was Eusebius of Caesarea. likely the origin of the addition into Josephus of the "Testimonium Flavianum" which again is a fake. Eusebius even admit to "related whatever might redound to the glory, and that he has suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace, of religion."
Draugh39 3 months ago
@Draugh39 I believe that the use of words such as "fraud" and "a fake" are quite harsh, as they imply that the incident described within these verses has no historicity and what i can tell from my studies, the account seems very viable. Now whether or not it is Johannine or even Lucas is indeed a critical matter, and for now i acquiesce to the probability that these verses are not.
However, given this, it does not necessarily mean that their inclusion was not divinely inspired, no?
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd
"However, given this, it does not necessarily mean that their inclusion was not divinely inspired, no?"
There is absolutely no evidence for that! And why would God need to change the original texts, didn't he get it right the first time? No its clear that these texts have been tampered with by humans for human reasons.
Draugh39 3 months ago
@Draugh39
"And why would God need to change the original texts, didn't he get it right the first time?" -Draught
"This is why you have modern translations now, we actually have more and older manuscripts now than in 1516."-LogicalDraught
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd
Yes. Earlier more original texts (which is something Erasmus didn't have access to) would mean a closer more correct translation. Hand-copied texts becomes distorted by time, I even hinted that with the comparison between Masoretic texts and the Dead Sea Scrolls, revision and changes appears and that is clear from the history of the Bible - which has gone through many such. Now we have access to earlier material and can thus make a better translation based on those.
Draugh39 3 months ago 2
@Draugh39 POINT THREE
"Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son..."
So now this was the sign that was to be given, and a miraculous one it was, that the Messiah should be born of a pure and incorrupt virgin; and therefore a "behold" is prefixed to it, as a note of admiration; and what else could be this sign or wonder? not surely that a young married woman, either Ahaz's or Isaiah's wife, should be with child, which is nothing surprising, silly.
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd
As stated this has not ever been seen as prophecy. especially as the later verses clearly spell out that this sign is going to happen very soon.
"For before the child knows to reject the bad and choose the good, desolation will come upon the land of the two kings the land whose two kings before whom you NOW cower."
So a Jew would then ask. Which were these two kingdoms that became desolate DURING Jesus lifetime, that Ahaz were cowering from?
Draugh39 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Draugh39
"For before the child knows to reject the bad and choose the good, desolation will come upon the land of the two kings the land whose two kings before whom you NOW cower."
>Where from, is this verse?
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
@Draugh39 "For before the child knows to reject the bad and choose the good, desolation will come upon the land of the two kings the land whose two kings before whom you NOW cower."-Draught
>Again, i ask from where did you retrieve the above?
"For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings." -Isaiah 7:16
"the land" - Israel and Syria
Pekah was slain by Hoshea
Rezin was slain by the king of Assyria
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd
"the land" - Israel and Syria."Pekah was slain by Hoshea"
And thus you just killed your own argument. The time you are talking about is around 730 BCE. Yet this child shall be the sign for Azah (who's reign was 735 – 715 BCE) and Isaiah states that "before this child know to refuse evil" the two kings would die.(Which works if the child was born about 735 BCE i.e. the he is 3 when this happens).
However, at the time of Jesus there wasn't even a land called Israel.
Draugh39 3 months ago
@Draugh39 That it refers "exclusively" to some event in the time of the prophet; to the birth of a child then, either of the wife of Ahaz, or of the prophet, or of some other unmarried female. This would, of course, exclude all reference to the Messiah, so therefore a fallible interpretation.
"However, at the time of Jesus there wasn't even a land called Israel."-Draught
>While your busy "straining gnats", call the " House of Joseph", if it makes it more palatable for you, "Israel in Samaria".
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd
"This would, of course, exclude all reference to the Messiah, so therefore a fallible interpretation."
Again Isaiah 7:14 has never been seen as a prophecy of the Messiah by the Jews.
You claim that this verse is about Jesus, the reason being it mentions "ha-almah" giving birth and if we wrongly translate that as "Virgin" it could fit the nativity story. And thus this must be about the Messiah as you claim Jesus was the Messiah.
That is circular reasoning!!!
Draugh39 3 months ago
@Draugh39
"Again Isaiah 7:14 has never been seen as a prophecy of the Messiah by the Jews."-Draught
>Not only the Evangelist Matthew renders the word by "a virgin"; but the Septuagint interpreters, who were Jews, so rendered the word hundreds of years before him; and best agrees with the Hebrew word, which comes from the root which signifies to "hide" or "cover"; virgins being covered and unknown to men.
Don't pass up your reserved ticket on the salvation boat, silly. Who are you waiting for?
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd
Not so. The Septuagint (LXX) was only a translation of the Pentateuch this is clear from a 2nd century BCE letter (Letter of Aristeas) this is also confirmed independently by Josephus. Furthermore the Dead sea scrolls include Isaiah 7:14 and that also states "Almah" (= young woman)
h t t p://w w w(dot)messianicjewishtruth(dot)com/Isaiah714.h t m l
Photo of the original scroll here:
h t t p://w w w(dot)ancient-hebrew(dot)org/31_selections(dot)h t m l
Draugh39 3 months ago
@Draugh39 We reject the Greek Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls as utterly corrupt, they containing contradicting variants and omitting whole phrases from the Hebrew Masoretic text underlying the AV1611. We reject Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, the declared “scriptures” of Rome as reiterated in the Counter Reformation’s “ecumenical” Council of Trent. We reject all “bibles” descending from that corrupt line of “bibles” having originated with the Romish heretic Origen and companion in crime Eusebius.
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd
Mate the approved version of the King James Bible was based on the Textus Receptus which in part was translated from the Vulgate. I suggest you look up the textual criticism of that first translation when compared to the Greek originals. This is why you have modern translations now, we actually have more and older manuscripts now than in 1516.
The Masoretic text is also newer than the Dead Sea Scrolls, it has clearly been edited in places when compared to earlier texts.
Draugh39 3 months ago
@Draugh39 Please beware: when it comes to Bibles, "newer" is NEVER "better".
I suggest you look up the manipulations & corruption's of the "ROMISH" Bible Societies & so-called "Translation" Committees of the likes of, Westcott & Hort and Nestle/Aland. All other English Bibles are rejected as Romish heresy proceeding from corrupt Hebrew & Greek texts secretly amassed by the diabolical Jesuit Papacy.
Do you doubt His ability in His Word available to those who've passed these past 2000 years?
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd
when it comes to Bibles, "newer" is NEVER "better".
Really, so are you saying that we should have stuck with the very first Bible, that of Marcion of Sinope? He who rejected the whole of the Old Testament and wanted to remove any references to it from his Bible? All Bibles we have today is based on christian interpretations and editing that came AFTER him. (and the teaching in that Bible was much more in common with Gnosticism than you see today)
Draugh39 3 months ago 2
@SpencerBenedict2nd
"Do you doubt His ability in His Word available to those who've passed these past 2000 years?"
Yes. I don't believe in any god at all! It is a fact that the wording in the Bible has changed. Furthermore, I read the Bible in Swedish as well and those texts can't possibly have been affected by these English Bible Societies. Note that Sweden was protestant decades before England was and the Catholic Church (kicked out in 1523) was less of a power there than ever in England.
Draugh39 3 months ago 2
@SpencerBenedict2nd
>Again, i ask from where did you retrieve the above?" Childs, Brevard S. "Isaiah" (Westminster John Knox Press) (2001) pp.60-61.
But it doesn't really matter, we can take the translation you used (looks like the Old King James version):
"Abhorest" is second-person singular simple present form of "abhor".
I.e. it shows Isaiah is directing his talk to the King ONLY. and that he is referring to something that Azah is PRESENTLY abhorred about.( "views with horror")
Draugh39 3 months ago
@Draugh39 POINT FOUR
The prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 was an event which could be known only to God, and which could be accomplished only by his agency. If it refers to the miraculous conception and birth of the Messiah, then it means that that was an event which none but God could accomplish. I ask you, is He not worthy to perform such a miracle, silly? (Please answer in an audible voice to yourself, "YES" or "NO".
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd
Isaiah 7:14 (which is not seen as a messianic prophecy) it does not talk about a virgin giving birth (in that case the word "bethûlâh" would have been used and it is not in the original Hebrew text.). It clearly speak about a sign that is expected to happen soon and in the lifetime of Ahaz as the text tells that Ahaz will see this sign. Isaiah is speaking TO Azah and states, "Therefore the Lord Himself shall give YOU a sign"
(Read the whole chapter instead of quote mining)
Draugh39 3 months ago
@Draugh39
"Isaiah is speaking TO Azah and states, "Therefore the Lord Himself shall give YOU a sign"
-DraughtofPerception39
>Doubtless, however, the word 'you' is designed to include the nation, or the people of the kingdom of Judah. It would be so public a sign, and so clear a demonstration, as to convince them that their city and land must be ultimately safe, silly.
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd
">Doubtless, however, the word 'you' is designed to include the nation, or the people .."
Absolutely not that is obvious if you read the whole chapter. This is a conversation between the prophet Isaiah and King Azah, which is clear in the verses preceding it and in the ones following it. For instance Isaiah 7:17
"The LORD will cause to come upon you, and your people and your ancestral house..."
Here Isaiah clearly show that "you" is directed to the King only.
Draugh39 3 months ago
@Draugh39 POINT FIVE
Behold - הנה hinnêh. This interjection is a very common one in the Old Testament. It is used to arrest attention & indicate the importance of what was about to be said. It serves to designate persons, things, places & actions. It is used in lively descriptions & animated discourse when anything unusual was said, or occurred; or any thing which especially demanded attention & regard of the people - THIS, a FULL DEMONSTRATION that God would protect and save the nation, silly.
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Draugh39 "... but that is not what is written in Isaiah 7:14. Here the word used is "ha-almah" which means "the young woman" -DraughtofWisdom39
> of עלמה ‛almâh is only used in Genesis 24:43 and in Isaiah 7:14. Now go do some bible study on Genesis 24. It's not too late to hop aboard the salvation boat. I would suggest that you followed a pack of lemmings who felt "OUR" Messiah did not meet their expectations in "looks" and appearance and therefore rejected Him.
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
@Draugh39 "furthermore the name of the son born shall be "Immanu-El". Thus it can't be about Jesus as he is never referred to by that name." -DraughtofCommonSense39
>The design of these words is not so much to relate the name by which Christ should commonly be called, as to describe his nature and office. Keep it simple stupid and it's not all that hard to comprehend.
When you try to fashion truth into an misconstrued ideology in which you seem to have been raised, your bound to have trouble.
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
Comment removed
SpencerBenedict2nd 5 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd Conspiracy mania
InternetDarkLord 5 months ago
Aha! I just checked ranmcsj's channel page. Joined YouTube yesterday, and immediately became an apologetic on this website. I smell a sock puppet, and that sock is dirty.
ndrthrdr1 6 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 I have no apologies for my beliefs, and you can believe what you want.
ranmcsj 6 months ago
You creatards cling to magical myths even when the truth is in front of you. Do you actually believe in unicorns? (Numbers 23:22, Numbers 24:8, Deuteronomy 33:17, Job 39:9-10, Isaiah 34:7, Psalm 92:10, Isaiah 34:7 )
Giants? (Deuteronomy 3:11, Isaiah 17:4, 2 Samuel 21:20, 1 Chronicles 20:6)
Notice how you have to start doing mental gymnastics to defend your book of myths.
gods are imaginary.
ndrthrdr1 7 months ago
@ndrthrdr1
Unicorns translated from the original hebrew refers to a wild ox not the unicorn from myth. Notice the Bible says horns not horn Deuteronomy 33:17 and Psalm 22:21. As to giants they have found skeletons of humans that were 12 feet tall. Before the flood the enviroment of the earth was different than it is today. The oxygen content on the earth was much higher than it is today. I give you credit though, it takes more faith to believe that all life we have today came from a rock.
ranmcsj 6 months ago
@ranmcsj
uni = one, as in 1
corn = horn, as in cornucopia (horn of plenty)
Those "giant" skeletons are Photoshop fakes. Ask any college anthropology professor who isn't from Liberty "University"
ndrthrdr1 6 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 That doesn't change the original hebrew (wild ox).
ranmcsj 6 months ago
@ranmcsj No evolutionist believes we came from a rock. That shows you haven't learned about evolutionary theory. Your god myth says we came from dust.. Gotta go now. I have grown-ups to talk to.
ndrthrdr1 6 months ago 2
@ndrthrdr1 2 Pet 3:3. Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts
Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23. And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Have fun talking to your grown-ups
ranmcsj 6 months ago
Where did we come from then?
ranmcsj 6 months ago
@ranmcsj Water
InternetDarkLord 6 months ago
@ranmcsj Water?, they will just make up more stories to support their flood stories.
'God did it' makes more sense.
gregrutz 6 months ago 2
@gregrutz Yeah, but some sedimentary rock is formed by deserts, like the Coconino Sandstone. Still has not stopped any creationists.
InternetDarkLord 6 months ago
OMG!! that was pathetic.They drank beer and were flooded in a river!!?.Then how do you end up on Mount Ararat in Turkey from a flooded river?God why am i even asking this question?.Apparently these scholars have degrees and figure this out all by themselves lol.
MrSojunn 7 months ago
Discovery Channel.... I am very disappointed with you! You created your own story, you group of idiots!
mylab2 7 months ago
@mylab2 Google Confirmation Bias to see why you remain superstitious.
ndrthrdr1 7 months ago
These story is a false accusations of the moron pagans that doesnt know about the Torah and the Biblos.
NikoDemous1 8 months ago
The Bible states that the Ark landed on Ararat, Turkey, and that is where it was discovered. The Jewish people of the day did not use guess work to write the Bible events down, It was handed down from the generations, which is why God called out his people for his Name, To bring back the truth, lost in Eden for the generations, to our time, The Bible is the Word of God, and factual.
galileegirl 8 months ago
@galileegirl The Bible never mentions Mount Ararat. It says "the mountains of Ararat." There have been other mountains by that name earlier, plus other arks on them. Maybe Noah was admiral of the fleet.
InternetDarkLord 8 months ago
The problem with this theory is that it doesn't take into account, that the Bible says, only 8 people survived the flood. and out of those came the peoples we know today. Ham, Shem and Japeth. The Bible says, God regretted man, and wiped out his creation, to start again. with those on the Ark. The flood was not an adventure, it was a historical fact, ratified by the covenant of the Rainbow, that appears in every country of the world.
galileegirl 8 months ago
@galileegirl If everyone descends from 8 people, why aren't we massively inbred?
InternetDarkLord 8 months ago
@InternetDarkLord > Because in Noah's time 8 people the sons of noah and their wife multiply hard. until the people grow in numbers and settled for a right score then they recieved a Command to stop their usual bred. and that is written in the 10 Commandments. i think its the thou shall not covet they neighbors wife. and no more 3rd party relations i.e cousins.
NikoDemous1 8 months ago
@NikoDemous1 The 10 commandments have nothing to do with inbreeding. The human race was never only 8 people we would all have 6 fingers and 3 eyes from such massive inbreeding.
InternetDarkLord 8 months ago
@InternetDarkLord > you sound very stupid. how old are you 1 yr. old. the inbreeding you talking about is Multiplication right. average woman bear 1 sometimes twins, triplets So if your Brain is not fix like a robot. you can see it even Nowadays there are specific Family had 3,7,8 or 12 kids in one couple alone plus their Seeds,Seeds there is no limit for them to bear childrens, but until God gave them a Law to straight them decently and live according to a Law. talk to my friend He knows
NikoDemous1 8 months ago
@NikoDemous1 Strawman, inbreeding comes from the fact everyone would descend from 8. Ditto the clean (7 pairs) and unclean (1 pair) animals. I never said numbers were the problem, I said inbreeding is the problem.
InternetDarkLord 8 months ago
@InternetDarkLord > my friend can explain you that Questions. i tell him his a Bible student. tonight or tommorow this is a shared computer. someone wil use this pc. for homework.
NikoDemous1 8 months ago
@InternetDarkLord > and try Leviticus read it about the laws and command.
NikoDemous1 8 months ago
@NikoDemous1 Leviticus says nothing about inbreeding. It does offer sage advice like executing bad kids.
InternetDarkLord 8 months ago
I was expecting an explanation on how he got the penguins from the Antarctic, the polar bears from the Arctic, the Cangurus from Australia and the Chupacabras from Mexico. Teleportation?
ZZzzzzzWhat 9 months ago
By the way, standing water does not form strata, it merely sorts sediment gradually from largest at the bottom, to smallest on top.
InternetDarkLord 9 months ago
Did Noah’s ark exist YES it exist as a believe. They can be a thousands of reasons why it did not happen still millions of ppl believe it happened so the answer is DO YOU BELIEVE ? If you do then they is nothing that can change your mind only if GOD told you him self !!!
shanebradforduk 9 months ago
It's ironic that the Sumerian flood story gives a more realistic timeline of events (days instead of months), since the Sumerian King List gives much more outlandish lifespans than even the Bible (the Bible says ppl lived 900+ years, the SKL gives lifespans of many thousands of years).
tekbarrier 9 months ago
Noah's ark has already been found. Look for yourself: youtube.com/watch?v=QVCvzGr7h1g
SnowBunnieSqueakyToy 10 months ago
@SnowBunnieSqueakyToy this link is futile. doesen't work.
dobste 10 months ago
@dobste Thanks so much for pointing that out. For some odd reason when I post the url from the source it works, but not from what I've and posted it on to. The video title on youtube is called "The Discovery of Noah's Ark" uploaded by BereanBeacon
SnowBunnieSqueakyToy 9 months ago
nice doc !!
Chakdegirl 10 months ago
Science is helpful but when talking about God and history we can't scientifically prove it. This doesn't make it false but it just shows the limits of science. In order for something to be scientifically proven it must be observable, repeatable and measurable. History cannot be scientifically proven ever. We cannot scientifically prove that George Washington was ever the president of the United States because we cannot do any of those three things. Science is a help, not THE determining factor.
CenterOfTheFlame 11 months ago
@CenterOfTheFlame Scientist don't have to repeat evolution to know it is a fact. Science uses logic also, we can scientificlly prove George was the first president.
gregrutz 11 months ago
@gregrutz For something to be termed 'scientific', a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning, therefore, history cannot be scientifically proven. I'm sorry, but no matter which way you cut it, 'scientifically', history cannot be proven. We can be certain things historically took place based on what the culture leaves behind such as in archaeology and in the writings of the day.
CenterOfTheFlame 11 months ago 2
@CenterOfTheFlame Is the fact that the Dinosaurs ruled the earth for 160 million years History? That is a scientific fact and it is history, the past.
Why do creationists and people who have never opened a science book think they are experts of 'Science' and how it works.
gregrutz 11 months ago
@gregrutz lol it's because arragance and superstition, as we've just watched, dates back to people who HAD to be right lol just like gossip girls we knew in high school, you know, who HAD to know more than they REALLY did lmao
raguilar6330 11 months ago
@CenterOfTheFlame ehm yes you can. If you find a document stating George Washington's births you can measure the age of the paper, you can repeat the measurements on similar papers from the alleged same age. You can make predictions based on the information you find in that paper. Observable doesn't mean you have to see it happen. If they take DNA samples from a crime scene they didn't had to have seen the DNA physically falling on the crime scene to scientifically proof whom's it was.
philateliceun 10 months ago
This video of Noah's Ark is dreadful. Especially with the recent discovery of the Ark 10,000 feet up the mountain of Ararat. Wait till we see more evidence of the recent discovery on Ararat.
I believe there was a global flood. WIth God, anything's possible.
Immortalsouls 11 months ago
@Immortalsouls this video is based on scientific evidence, not bible fairy tales, if you don't like it stop watching it, and btw stop using medicine, internet and everything that is connected to science, go and read you bible and die fast.
dumbnetworks 11 months ago
@dumbnetworks hmm, 'based' on scientific evidence. Actually... I'll correct you. It's 'based' on the Bible story of Noah's Ark. And by the way. Science isn't just attributed to Atheists.
In response to dying fast though.. I wish I could so then I will be immediately in Heaven, but then again, God wants me here to do His will.
Immortalsouls 11 months ago
@Immortalsouls it's not based on the bible, Watch it again, It refutes the bible story from the size of the ark to the whole story location etc, and takes god out of it completely! If you believe in god and bible you shouldn't take anything from the satanic science I guess. why do you use computer? why do yo use medicine? do you know that all modern day medicine is based on evolution science?
dumbnetworks 11 months ago
@dumbnetworks I've watched it. There's no need to watch it again. I understand very well what they're saying and what you're saying. What's the deal with you bringing up that science is satanic though? So now you believe in Satan? You're one confusing hypocrit.
Medicine is not just based on evolution, or the word 'science'. Science is a good thing, and good things come from God, not Satan. Although Satan manipulates the good things of God and are mis-used.
Immortalsouls 11 months ago
@Immortalsouls creationists usually think that science comes from satan, if you don't believe thats ok, my bad.
But still i don't understand how you can put science and god together? Science s based on reason and logic, god is based on nonsensical faith. I don't see any reason in believing in a supernatural deity when everything works just fine without puting it there in the first place.
dumbnetworks 11 months ago
@Immortalsouls Then you need to watch the ''dreadful'' video again. There was no flood.
Not ''WIth God, anything's possible'' There was no global flood, THE BIBLE STORY IS JUST A STORY.
gregrutz 11 months ago
@gregrutz It is likely the "flood" was based on an actual event. There is an impact crater 19km in diameter in the Indian Ocean (Burckle Crater) dated to 2800 BC. The impactor was likely a 1.5km diameter stony asteroid. This would have generated the largest tsunamis seen since civilization began and would have swept hundreds of km through Mesopotamia. It is easy to see how an upper neolithic people would regard such an event as an act of god or gods.
LonghornPhysicist 11 months ago
@LonghornPhysicist Yes, the Chinese have a long history with many floods but they didn't all die and Noah's family repopulate the world. There was never a world wide flood like the bible says.
gregrutz 11 months ago
@gregrutz Agreed. It is perfectly understandable for people alive then to regard such a natural disaster as divine vengeance by an angry diety but to believe that now, thats just stupid. :p
LonghornPhysicist 11 months ago
@LonghornPhysicist the whole program is a load of ballderdash
SuperPatrick777 10 months ago 2
scientist and their overgrown brain.
lavenderparfume1 1 year ago
What is this bullshit... really?
Davidbasque15 1 year ago
@Davidbasque15 lol it makes more sesnce then the bible story
gtsgtsgt 11 months ago
@gtsgtsgt Yeah I know, lol no doubt about it.
Davidbasque15 11 months ago
It's Story Time, children. What should I read tonight? Brothers Grimm? Stephen King? Greek Mythology? The Bible?
YourGodsAreImaginary 1 year ago
lmao ..they said even when the flood was over he was in danger ??? lmao Hahahahahahah they were all dead..No way could anyone live a year without food and fresh water..if they di