Discussion:
World scientists unite to attack creationism
(too old to reply)
Stephen Korsman
2006-06-27 16:36:06 UTC
Permalink
There is no scenario whereby life could have arisen from nonliving
chemicals.
Just curious. How do you know that is true?
Joseph Meehan
We can know it is true that, life could NOT have arisen from nonliving
chemicals, because
that would be contrary to a number of _"established laws of science."
So you assert the "established laws of science" only when it dovetails
with your personal religio-political agenda, but you condemn those same
laws when it doesn't?
The established laws of science prove the world wasn't created
six-thousand years ago.
AND???
Your ignorance of the bible is probably only exceeded by your TOTAL
ignorance of science.
(The bible doesn't say 6000 year old earth)
Adventists, however, do, at least officially. There are a lot of Adventists
who believe in evolution. But since the reply was to an Adventist, the
comment is quite appropriate.

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za
Stephen Korsman
2006-06-27 16:36:35 UTC
Permalink
Given the neural linguistic connection (only 22 elements) how did a
human
brain end up in an animal body?
Or have human brains degraded to an animals?
Or are they a result of amalgamation?

Every species of animal which God had created were preserved in the ark. The
confused species which God did not create, which were the result of
amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood there has been
amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless
varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men.
- Ellen White, Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 3, p. 75.

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za
V
2006-06-27 21:52:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Korsman
Given the neural linguistic connection (only 22 elements) how did a
human
brain end up in an animal body?
Or have human brains degraded to an animals?
Or are they a result of amalgamation?
Every species of animal which God had created were preserved in the ark. The
confused species which God did not create, which were the result of
amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood there has been
amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless
varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men.
- Ellen White, Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 3, p. 75.
God bless,
Stephen
Given the differing chromosomal numbers, what your prophetess describes is
impossible...that and the fact that the flood never happened.
--
"The truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country. The only
verdict is vengeance..a vendetta...what they did to me was monstrous...and they
created a monster"
V for Vendetta
Stephen Korsman
2006-06-28 10:01:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by V
Post by Stephen Korsman
Given the neural linguistic connection (only 22 elements) how did a
human
brain end up in an animal body?
Or have human brains degraded to an animals?
Or are they a result of amalgamation?
Every species of animal which God had created were preserved in the ark. The
confused species which God did not create, which were the result of
amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood there has been
amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless
varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men.
- Ellen White, Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 3, p. 75.
God bless,
Stephen
Given the differing chromosomal numbers, what your prophetess describes is
impossible...that and the fact that the flood never happened.
She's not my prophetess :-) She belongs to Dolf, Jes, Andrew, and I. B.
Wonderin.

The flood was probably a local one - the known world to those people.

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za
Andrew
2006-06-28 19:46:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Korsman
The flood was probably a local one - the known world to those people.
"When Noah was 600 years old, on the seventeenth day of the second month,
the underground waters burst forth on the earth, and the rain fell in mighty tor-
rents from the sky... For forty days the floods prevailed, covering the ground
and lifting the boat high above the earth. As the waters rose higher and higher
above the ground, the boat floated safely on the surface.

Finally, the water covered even the highest mountains on the earth, standing
more than twenty-two feet above the highest peaks. All the living things on
earth died--birds, domestic animals, wild animals, all kinds of small animals,
and all the people. Everything died that breathed and lived on dry land."

Genesis 7:11, 17-22 NLT
Bree
2006-06-28 22:45:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Stephen Korsman
The flood was probably a local one - the known world to those people.
"When Noah was 600 years old, on the seventeenth day of the second month,
the underground waters burst forth on the earth, and the rain fell in mighty tor-
rents from the sky... For forty days the floods prevailed, covering the ground
and lifting the boat high above the earth. As the waters rose higher and higher
above the ground, the boat floated safely on the surface.
Finally, the water covered even the highest mountains on the earth, standing
more than twenty-two feet above the highest peaks. All the living things on
earth died--birds, domestic animals, wild animals, all kinds of small animals,
and all the people. Everything died that breathed and lived on dry land."
Genesis 7:11, 17-22 NLT
The bottom line is that the flood as it appears in legend simply never
happened. It is an impossibility. The amount of water required to create
it has been calculated and it simply isn't there. Everest is 29000 feet
above sea level. It would take five miles of water WORLDWIDE to flood it -
it can't be done. That would require the addition of considerably more
water than is currently on earth in all the seas combined

The ancient world had very little understanding of rain or of what a sea
was. They did not see the quatity of water on the planet as finite and
stable in quantity. Their world was regional, probably flat and
surrounded by water. The idea of God increasing the quantity of water
through constant rain was not one that invoked in them any feeling of -
"that just cannot be true".

We live in a different age, one that has even been able to find sources in
Mesopotamian legend for these Judaic myths. Just as we no longer have a
real historical flood, no Noah , no ark, no animals two by two (the
elephant and the kangeroo) we also no longer have an inerrant Scripture.

All of these concepts are things of the past. The stories are largely
legend, many of the characters almost completely fictitious - what remains
are the growing and evolving understandings of the nature of God and
spirituality. Our history book has ceased to be a history book and has
become what it in fact it always was, a book of collected works of
theology sometimes closely connected sometimes less so.

And a plethora of legends - Genesis Exodus the kingdom of David as the
Bible presents it, and - of course the Atonemnt/substitution.

It is time for Born Again to grow up and put aside childish things.


++++++++++++++
LoneStar
2006-06-28 23:02:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bree
Post by Andrew
Genesis 7:11, 17-22 NLT
The bottom line is that the flood as it appears in legend simply never
happened. It is an impossibility. The amount of water required to create
it has been calculated and it simply isn't there. Everest is 29000 feet
above sea level. It would take five miles of water WORLDWIDE to flood it -
it can't be done.
Dude......... or is it just Shasta...? You can't use logic and facts
against fundamentalists who
thrive on only their agenda. It's a lose-lose scenario: they lose because
they haven't a clue about life, and we lose by debating them, because it's a
waste of time.

EW
Bree
2006-06-29 00:24:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by LoneStar
Post by Bree
Post by Andrew
Genesis 7:11, 17-22 NLT
The bottom line is that the flood as it appears in legend simply never
happened. It is an impossibility. The amount of water required to create
it has been calculated and it simply isn't there. Everest is 29000 feet
above sea level. It would take five miles of water WORLDWIDE to flood it -
it can't be done.
Dude......... or is it just Shasta...? You can't use logic and facts
against fundamentalists who
thrive on only their agenda. It's a lose-lose scenario: they lose because
they haven't a clue about life, and we lose by debating them, because it's a
waste of time.
I absolutely agree

It is far better to expose the real battle which is going on with these people

They are for the most part fascists masquerading as Christians

Prod them a little and they expose themselves

Just got Uniacke Ya'betz by the way - he went off into an antisemitic tirade

Christians need to come to their senses and realise that the true
antichrist is where it was always supposed to be - right within their
churches

It is the Fundamentalists - hiding an anti democratic fascist political
agenda behind the pretence of tradition and piety.
Stephen Korsman
2006-06-29 00:38:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by LoneStar
Post by Bree
Post by Andrew
Genesis 7:11, 17-22 NLT
The bottom line is that the flood as it appears in legend simply never
happened. It is an impossibility. The amount of water required to create
it has been calculated and it simply isn't there. Everest is 29000 feet
above sea level. It would take five miles of water WORLDWIDE to flood it -
it can't be done.
Dude......... or is it just Shasta...? You can't use logic and facts
against fundamentalists who
thrive on only their agenda. It's a lose-lose scenario: they lose because
they haven't a clue about life, and we lose by debating them, because it's a
waste of time.
There we disagree. By constantly opposing every piece of nonsense people
like Andrew spout, we leave behind a record that others can see. If it were
only us here, there would be little point debating him. But there are
people who have even less of a clue than he does, and they might fall for
his claims. This way they'll realise such claims are really contrived.

http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/post/index/148/Andrew

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za
vernon
2006-07-01 16:35:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by LoneStar
Post by Bree
Post by Andrew
Genesis 7:11, 17-22 NLT
The bottom line is that the flood as it appears in legend simply never
happened. It is an impossibility. The amount of water required to create
it has been calculated and it simply isn't there. Everest is 29000 feet
above sea level. It would take five miles of water WORLDWIDE to flood it -
it can't be done.
Dude......... or is it just Shasta...? You can't use logic and facts
against fundamentalists who
thrive on only their agenda. It's a lose-lose scenario: they lose because
they haven't a clue about life, and we lose by debating them, because it's a
waste of time.
EW
1. The entire earth was water enveloped at one time. (or another) including
Mt Everest. Not "necessarily" at the same time.
2. The entire earth underwent, in a geologically short time, a change (past
tropical forests in the artic)
3. At some time in the past, when the earth was complete and animal life
existed, the Americas and Africa were one continent.

Now when anyone can conclusively show what happened and within a thousand
year period, you can try to sound educated with regard to common geologic or
biblical history.
If you think you have an answer, or are even close, go to any oil company
and become a millionaire within one year.

No one who can read makes an assertion that the bible talks of 7, 24 hr.
days, or that "begat" is limited to "son".

You lose because you are not educated in the field you are arguing.

BTW the amount of water required to cover present day earth is a stupid
argument. Just for argument's sake, if all "earth" were evenly distributed,
it would be covered with around 5 to 10 thousand feet of water.
LoneStar
2006-07-02 21:49:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by vernon
1. The entire earth was water enveloped at one time. (or another)
including Mt Everest. Not "necessarily" at the same time.
BTW the amount of water required to cover present day earth is a stupid
argument. Just for argument's sake, if all "earth" were evenly
distributed, it would be covered with around 5 to 10 thousand feet of
water.
OK, look. Your response was not directed toward the Noah's Flood scenario
(obviously), but my original comment was. Your comments are off the map,
hypothetical, and irrelevant to the current discussion. Go away.

EW
vernon
2006-07-02 22:46:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by LoneStar
Post by vernon
1. The entire earth was water enveloped at one time. (or another)
including Mt Everest. Not "necessarily" at the same time.
BTW the amount of water required to cover present day earth is a stupid
argument. Just for argument's sake, if all "earth" were evenly
distributed, it would be covered with around 5 to 10 thousand feet of
water.
OK, look. Your response was not directed toward the Noah's Flood scenario
(obviously), but my original comment was. Your comments are off the map,
hypothetical, and irrelevant to the current discussion. Go away.
EW
Your comment was directed at the sky.
When you have some geologic knowledge come back.

The point, Noah's flood could have happened as described. Of course you
don't really know what was described (You are not alone as most so called
Christians don't know either.)
teresita
2006-07-02 23:53:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by vernon
The point, Noah's flood could have happened as described. Of course you
don't really know what was described (You are not alone as most so called
Christians don't know either.)
The earth is about 200 million square miles, and Mt Everest is about 5.5
miles high. 200 million square miles times 5.5 linear miles equals 1.1
billion cubic miles of water. The atmosphere, at saturation, can hold
about one inch of water. When air masses are in motion they can deliver
more precipitation than one inch, but this is like a man being able to
deliver more weight piecemeal than he can lift at one time.
LoneStar
2006-07-03 21:08:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by vernon
The point, Noah's flood could have happened as described. Of course you
don't really know what was described (You are not alone as most so called
Christians don't know either.)
Uh, as stated before, there was no one around to confirm this "whole Earth"
flood and to report on it. Surely the boat with "all" of Earth's
sole-survivors didn't circumnavigate the earth to confirm the height of
water level at the highest mountain tops, or did they??!

And, being Christian has nothing to do with the subject. However, logic,
physics, and intellect do.

EW
teresita
2006-07-03 21:25:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by LoneStar
Uh, as stated before, there was no one around to confirm this "whole Earth"
flood and to report on it. Surely the boat with "all" of Earth's
sole-survivors didn't circumnavigate the earth to confirm the height of
water level at the highest mountain tops, or did they??!
There are no Egyptian inscriptions about a global flood circa 2250 B.C.
LoneStar
2006-07-04 21:36:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by teresita
Post by LoneStar
Uh, as stated before, there was no one around to confirm this "whole Earth"
flood and to report on it. Surely the boat with "all" of Earth's
sole-survivors didn't circumnavigate the earth to confirm the height of
water level at the highest mountain tops, or did they??!
There are no Egyptian inscriptions about a global flood circa 2250 B.C.
Duh, that's because the Egyptians partied inside the pyramids -- they never
knew it was raining outside. They rode the storm out without a hint!

Anything else?

EW
Yu'betz
2006-07-03 21:54:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by LoneStar
Post by vernon
The point, Noah's flood could have happened as described. Of course you
don't really know what was described (You are not alone as most so
called Christians don't know either.)
Uh, as stated before, there was no one around to confirm this "whole
Earth" flood and to report on it. Surely the boat with "all" of Earth's
sole-survivors didn't circumnavigate the earth to confirm the height of
water level at the highest mountain tops, or did they??!
And, being Christian has nothing to do with the subject. However, logic,
physics, and intellect do.
EW
Noah's flood is a written epic, a myth, to show how powerful, how great YHWH
was. Of course most Fundie/Biblicists will tell you that it happened as
described. LOL
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
vernon
2006-07-03 22:37:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yu'betz
Post by LoneStar
Post by vernon
The point, Noah's flood could have happened as described. Of course you
don't really know what was described (You are not alone as most so
called Christians don't know either.)
Uh, as stated before, there was no one around to confirm this "whole
Earth" flood and to report on it. Surely the boat with "all" of Earth's
sole-survivors didn't circumnavigate the earth to confirm the height of
water level at the highest mountain tops, or did they??!
And, being Christian has nothing to do with the subject. However, logic,
physics, and intellect do.
EW
Noah's flood is a written epic, a myth, to show how powerful, how great
YHWH was. Of course most Fundie/Biblicists will tell you that it happened
as described. LOL
Try to find out WHAT is described, then blab. You may be correct, but then
out of the mouths of babes comes truth, truth misapplied.
Yu'betz
2006-07-04 00:04:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by vernon
Post by Yu'betz
Post by LoneStar
Post by vernon
The point, Noah's flood could have happened as described. Of course
you don't really know what was described (You are not alone as most so
called Christians don't know either.)
Uh, as stated before, there was no one around to confirm this "whole
Earth" flood and to report on it. Surely the boat with "all" of Earth's
sole-survivors didn't circumnavigate the earth to confirm the height of
water level at the highest mountain tops, or did they??!
And, being Christian has nothing to do with the subject. However,
logic, physics, and intellect do.
EW
Noah's flood is a written epic, a myth, to show how powerful, how great
YHWH was. Of course most Fundie/Biblicists will tell you that it happened
as described. LOL
Try to find out WHAT is described, then blab. You may be correct, but
then out of the mouths of babes comes truth, truth misapplied.
Hmmm. Let me try.
"The gods were angry at mankind so they sent a flood to destroy him. The god
Ea, warned Utnapishtim and instructed him to build an enormous boat to save
himself, his family, and "the seed of all living things." He does so, and
the gods brought rain which caused the water to rise for many days. When the
rains subsided, the boat landed on a mountain, and Utnapishtim set loose
first a dove, then a swallow, and finally a raven, which found land. The god
Ishtar, created the rainbow and placed it in the sky, as a reminder to the
gods and a pledge to mankind that there would be no more floods."
That Raven again. Another trickster god. Very greedy, forever seeking food.
Raven stole the sun and the moon from a miser and placed themt in the sky.
He could then travel much farther.
Happy 4th of July.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Andrew
2006-07-03 22:54:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yu'betz
Noah's flood is a written epic, a myth, to show how powerful,
how great YHWH was. Of course most Fundie/Biblicists will
tell you that it happened as described. LOL
**
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers,
walking after their own lusts,

4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the
fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the
beginning of the creation.

5 For of this they are willingly ignorant, that by the word of God
the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water
and in the water:

6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water,
perished:

7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word
are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment
and perdition of ungodly men.


~ 2 Peter 3:3-7 ~
LoneStar
2006-07-04 21:45:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word
are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment
and perdition of ungodly men.
I really hope you're not implying that debating issues of literal Biblical
interpretations versus figurative prose (which the early Jews were terrific
at) in the Bible causes one to be "ungodly." If there's anyone "ungodly"
around here, it's the one with the sanctimonious arrogance that he plugs
with out-of-the-hat Biblical verses.

EW
vernon
2006-07-03 22:35:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by LoneStar
Post by vernon
The point, Noah's flood could have happened as described. Of course you
don't really know what was described (You are not alone as most so
called Christians don't know either.)
Uh, as stated before, there was no one around to confirm this "whole
Earth" flood and to report on it. Surely the boat with "all" of Earth's
sole-survivors didn't circumnavigate the earth to confirm the height of
water level at the highest mountain tops, or did they??!
And, being Christian has nothing to do with the subject. However, logic,
physics, and intellect do.
EW
IF you wish to discuss the "Noah" flood, you should be more informed what it
says.

Logic, intellect and geology say that the earth was covered and animal life
survived, whether in on boat or a thousand.

You might do a little research on how many "kinds" there are, even today.

Bye bye, You just want to talk to hear yourself pontificate on inconclusive
presentations without ANY knowledge of logic,
physics, and intellect.
LoneStar
2006-07-04 21:49:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by vernon
IF you wish to discuss the "Noah" flood, you should be more informed what
it says.
Logic, intellect and geology say that the earth was covered and animal
life survived, whether in on boat or a thousand.
See your words above!! If you want to debate this issue, or any others,
please go to school first and learn to write (and read). Then we can play.

EW
vernon
2006-07-04 23:07:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by LoneStar
Post by vernon
IF you wish to discuss the "Noah" flood, you should be more informed what
it says.
Logic, intellect and geology say that the earth was covered and animal
life survived, whether in on boat or a thousand.
See your words above!! If you want to debate this issue, or any others,
please go to school first and learn to write (and read). Then we can play.
EW
I'm accustomed to discussing with real people who have a real education.
They understand, a or not a, inferred adjectives or objects, or not.

They stick to the subject and almost NEVER speak in prose.

I'm not playing.

I took this to a friend (also educated) and he giggled at your inability to
follow.
He did see why and how those with limited education might not have a clue
what I said.
He stated that I left out the phrase "tenets of" , a, Implied object. He
stated that I should not converse with your kind as it is a lost cause to
converse with the religiously based pseudo-scientists. I agreed and stated
that I forget there are those kind out there.
Stephen Korsman
2006-06-29 00:19:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Stephen Korsman
The flood was probably a local one - the known world to those people.
"When Noah was 600 years old, on the seventeenth day of the second month,
the underground waters burst forth on the earth, and the rain fell in mighty tor-
rents from the sky... For forty days the floods prevailed, covering the ground
and lifting the boat high above the earth. As the waters rose higher and higher
above the ground, the boat floated safely on the surface.
Finally, the water covered even the highest mountains on the earth, standing
more than twenty-two feet above the highest peaks. All the living things on
earth died--birds, domestic animals, wild animals, all kinds of small animals,
and all the people. Everything died that breathed and lived on dry land."
Genesis 7:11, 17-22 NLT
And I answered, and said to the angel that spoke in me, saying: What are
these things, my lord? (5) And the angel that spoke in me answered, and
said to me: Knowest thou not what these things are? And I said: No, my lord.
(6) And he answered, and spoke to me, saying: This is the word of the Lord
to Zorobabel, saying: Not with an army, nor by might, but by my spirit,
saith the Lord of hosts. (7) Who art thou, O great mountain, before
Zorobabel? thou shalt become a plain: and he shall bring out the chief
stone, and shall give equal grace to the grace thereof. (8) And the word
of the Lord came to me, saying: (9) The hands of Zorobabel have laid the
foundations of this house, and his hands shall finish it: and you shall know
that the Lord of hosts hath sent me to you. (10) For who hath despised
little days? and they shall rejoice, and shall see the tin plummet in the
hand of Zorobabel. These are the seven eyes of the Lord, that run to and fro
through the whole earth.

Zechariah 4:4-10 1899 Challoner
Rheims

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za
Andrew
2006-07-01 02:03:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Andrew
Post by Stephen Korsman
The flood was probably a local one - the known world to those people.
"When Noah was 600 years old, on the seventeenth day of the second month,
the underground waters burst forth on the earth, and the rain fell in mighty tor-
rents from the sky... For forty days the floods prevailed, covering the ground
and lifting the boat high above the earth. As the waters rose higher and higher
above the ground, the boat floated safely on the surface.
Finally, the water covered even the highest mountains on the earth, standing
more than twenty-two feet above the highest peaks. All the living things on
earth died--birds, domestic animals, wild animals, all kinds of small animals,
and all the people. Everything died that breathed and lived on dry land."
Genesis 7:11, 17-22 NLT
And I answered, and said to the angel that spoke in me, saying: What are
these things, my lord? (5) And the angel that spoke in me answered, and
said to me: Knowest thou not what these things are? And I said: No, my lord.
(6) And he answered, and spoke to me, saying: This is the word of the Lord
to Zorobabel, saying: Not with an army, nor by might, but by my spirit,
saith the Lord of hosts. (7) Who art thou, O great mountain, before
Zorobabel? thou shalt become a plain: and he shall bring out the chief
stone, and shall give equal grace to the grace thereof. (8) And the word
of the Lord came to me, saying: (9) The hands of Zorobabel have laid the
foundations of this house, and his hands shall finish it: and you shall know
that the Lord of hosts hath sent me to you. (10) For who hath despised
little days? and they shall rejoice, and shall see the tin plummet in the
hand of Zorobabel. These are the seven eyes of the Lord, that run to and fro
through the whole earth.
Zechariah 4:4-10 1899 Challoner
Rheims
Stephen Korsman
Explain how you think that Zechariah 4:4-10 supports your premise that
the Great Deluge was "probably local"..contradicting the inspired writer
of Genesis.

"The water covered even the highest mountains on the earth, standing
more than twenty-two feet above the highest peaks. All the living things
on earth died--birds, domestic animals, wild animals, all kinds of small
animals, and all the people." v.19-21


Andrew
Ya'betz
2006-07-01 02:40:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Explain how you think that Zechariah 4:4-10 supports your premise that
the Great Deluge was "probably local"..contradicting the inspired writer
of Genesis.
"The water covered even the highest mountains on the earth, standing
more than twenty-two feet above the highest peaks. All the living things
on earth died--birds, domestic animals, wild animals, all kinds of small
animals, and all the people." v.19-21
What's wrong with 'contradicting' what the 'inspired' writer wrote? The
'inspired' writer wrote a narrative, a story, an epic, not a historical
account. Why do you overload your mind with stupid speculations about what
the 'inspired' writers of Genesis wrote. Inspired legends, myths, stories
are not historical accounts.
Read the Gospels, forget the OT. Leave it to the Jews.
Post by Andrew
Andrew
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Andrew
2006-07-01 09:12:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ya'betz
Post by Andrew
Explain how you think that Zechariah 4:4-10 supports your premise that
the Great Deluge was "probably local"..contradicting the inspired writer
of Genesis.
"The water covered even the highest mountains on the earth, standing
more than twenty-two feet above the highest peaks. All the living things
on earth died--birds, domestic animals, wild animals, all kinds of small
animals, and all the people." v.19-21
What's wrong with 'contradicting' what the 'inspired' writer wrote? The
'inspired' writer wrote a narrative, a story, an epic, not a historical account.
Why do you overload your mind with stupid speculations about what the
'inspired' writers of Genesis wrote. Inspired legends, myths, stories are not
historical accounts. Read the Gospels, forget the OT. Leave it to the Jews.
Jesus endorsed the OT, including Moses who wrote Genesis.

"And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets,
neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
2006-07-01 11:35:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Ya'betz
Post by Andrew
Explain how you think that Zechariah 4:4-10 supports your premise that
the Great Deluge was "probably local"..contradicting the inspired writer
of Genesis.
"The water covered even the highest mountains on the earth, standing
more than twenty-two feet above the highest peaks. All the living things
on earth died--birds, domestic animals, wild animals, all kinds of small
animals, and all the people." v.19-21
What's wrong with 'contradicting' what the 'inspired' writer wrote? The
'inspired' writer wrote a narrative, a story, an epic, not a historical account.
Why do you overload your mind with stupid speculations about what the
'inspired' writers of Genesis wrote. Inspired legends, myths, stories are not
historical accounts. Read the Gospels, forget the OT. Leave it to the Jews.
Jesus endorsed the OT, including Moses who wrote Genesis.
"And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets,
neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31
Yeah, but YOU don't know how to read the books Moses wrote, or you would
know that they were written prophetically, that is, multi-linearly, and not
literally.

Again, what is the "earth" in prophecy?

The Semites.

What are "cattle, creeping things, beasts of the field, and fowls of the
air" in prophecy?

The Gentiles.

And that's were the real story begins.

Ike

www.eickleberrybooks.com
Andrew
2006-07-01 15:22:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Post by Andrew
Post by Ya'betz
Post by Andrew
Explain how you think that Zechariah 4:4-10 supports your premise that
the Great Deluge was "probably local"..contradicting the inspired writer
of Genesis.
"The water covered even the highest mountains on the earth, standing
more than twenty-two feet above the highest peaks. All the living things
on earth died--birds, domestic animals, wild animals, all kinds of small
animals, and all the people." v.19-21
What's wrong with 'contradicting' what the 'inspired' writer wrote? The
'inspired' writer wrote a narrative, a story, an epic, not a historical account.
Why do you overload your mind with stupid speculations about what the
'inspired' writers of Genesis wrote. Inspired legends, myths, stories are not
historical accounts. Read the Gospels, forget the OT. Leave it to the Jews.
Jesus endorsed the OT, including Moses who wrote Genesis.
"And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets,
neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31
Yeah, but YOU don't know how to read the books Moses wrote, or you would
know that they were written prophetically, that is, multi-linearly, and not literally.
The problem is, when you try to interpret *everything* in the Scriptures non-literally
such as you have tried to do on this thread. It doesn't work; and any credible Bible
scholar would reject your narrow hermeneutics.
Post by H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Again, what is the "earth" in prophecy?
The Semites.
What are "cattle, creeping things, beasts of the field, and fowls of the air" in
prophecy?
The Gentiles.
And that's were the real story begins.
Ike
www.eickleberrybooks.com
Ya'betz
2006-07-01 16:11:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Ya'betz
Post by Andrew
Explain how you think that Zechariah 4:4-10 supports your premise that
the Great Deluge was "probably local"..contradicting the inspired writer
of Genesis.
"The water covered even the highest mountains on the earth, standing
more than twenty-two feet above the highest peaks. All the living things
on earth died--birds, domestic animals, wild animals, all kinds of small
animals, and all the people." v.19-21
What's wrong with 'contradicting' what the 'inspired' writer wrote? The
'inspired' writer wrote a narrative, a story, an epic, not a historical account.
Why do you overload your mind with stupid speculations about what the
'inspired' writers of Genesis wrote. Inspired legends, myths, stories are not
historical accounts. Read the Gospels, forget the OT. Leave it to the Jews.
Jesus endorsed the OT, including Moses who wrote Genesis.
"And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets,
neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31
Of three possibilities.
1- The author of Luke invented a story in which he attributed that verse to
Jesus.
2- Moses means Torah and the Prophets mean the Books of Prophets.
3- Jesus didn't know Moses never existed, Jesus didn't know Genesis was a
collection of Jewish precepts of the Law enrobed in mythical, legends,
fables, stories and epics.
Jesus could only have known what His Father revealed Him. Jesus had two
natures, a divine nature and a human nature. As a man, He had a human brain
and a human body, a human mind, a human soul and a human spirit.
You need to learn these things before you go peddling your sectarian
adventist stupidities.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
2006-07-05 05:09:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ya'betz
Post by Andrew
Post by Ya'betz
Post by Andrew
Explain how you think that Zechariah 4:4-10 supports your premise that
the Great Deluge was "probably local"..contradicting the inspired writer
of Genesis.
"The water covered even the highest mountains on the earth, standing
more than twenty-two feet above the highest peaks. All the living things
on earth died--birds, domestic animals, wild animals, all kinds of small
animals, and all the people." v.19-21
What's wrong with 'contradicting' what the 'inspired' writer wrote? The
'inspired' writer wrote a narrative, a story, an epic, not a historical account.
Why do you overload your mind with stupid speculations about what the
'inspired' writers of Genesis wrote. Inspired legends, myths, stories are not
historical accounts. Read the Gospels, forget the OT. Leave it to the Jews.
Jesus endorsed the OT, including Moses who wrote Genesis.
"And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets,
neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31
Of three possibilities.
1- The author of Luke invented a story in which he attributed that verse
to Jesus.
Wrong on the first account.
Post by Ya'betz
2- Moses means Torah and the Prophets mean the Books of Prophets.
Wrong again.

"Moses" means the Pentatuch, and the Prophets means the rest of the Old
Testament, ALL of which is "Torah," despite your demonic Sadducee's
re-writing of definitions.
Post by Ya'betz
3- Jesus didn't know Moses never existed, Jesus didn't know Genesis was a
collection of Jewish precepts of the Law enrobed in mythical, legends,
fables, stories and epics.
4 - you don't know what you're talking about.
Post by Ya'betz
Jesus could only have known what His Father revealed Him. Jesus had two
natures, a divine nature and a human nature. As a man, He had a human
brain and a human body, a human mind, a human soul and a human spirit.
Wrong.

Jesus' supposed human nature and divine nature are One, since Jesus is
divine.
Post by Ya'betz
You need to learn these things before you go peddling your sectarian
adventist stupidities.
As you need to learn these things before you go peddling your sectarian
Sadducee stupidities.

Ike
--
www.eickleberrybooks.com

******************************

The Tree of Life (from "The Character Map")


The Beloved
Faith Hope
Righteousness Judgment Compassion
Courage Integrity Diligence Grace
Discipline of Thought Service Desire Decision and Belief
Glory Honor Power Wisdom Riches Blessing Strength w/Thanksgiving
He Who Loves


******************************
Remove X from address to reply
Stephen Korsman
2006-07-01 18:13:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Post by Andrew
Post by Ya'betz
Post by Andrew
Explain how you think that Zechariah 4:4-10 supports your premise that
the Great Deluge was "probably local"..contradicting the inspired writer
of Genesis.
"The water covered even the highest mountains on the earth, standing
more than twenty-two feet above the highest peaks. All the living things
on earth died--birds, domestic animals, wild animals, all kinds of small
animals, and all the people." v.19-21
What's wrong with 'contradicting' what the 'inspired' writer wrote? The
'inspired' writer wrote a narrative, a story, an epic, not a historical account.
Why do you overload your mind with stupid speculations about what the
'inspired' writers of Genesis wrote. Inspired legends, myths, stories are not
historical accounts. Read the Gospels, forget the OT. Leave it to the Jews.
Jesus endorsed the OT, including Moses who wrote Genesis.
"And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets,
neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31
Yeah, but YOU don't know how to read the books Moses wrote, or you would
know that they were written prophetically, that is, multi-linearly, and not literally.
The problem is, when you try to interpret *everything* in the Scriptures non-literally
such as you have tried to do on this thread. It doesn't work; and any credible Bible
scholar would reject your narrow hermeneutics.
Yet you have the authority to pick and choose what is literal and what is
not? Are you as inspired as your prophetess Ellen White?

I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this
bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh,
for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves,
saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
(John 6:51-52 DRB)

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
2006-07-05 05:06:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Post by Andrew
Post by Ya'betz
Post by Andrew
Explain how you think that Zechariah 4:4-10 supports your premise that
the Great Deluge was "probably local"..contradicting the inspired writer
of Genesis.
"The water covered even the highest mountains on the earth, standing
more than twenty-two feet above the highest peaks. All the living things
on earth died--birds, domestic animals, wild animals, all kinds of small
animals, and all the people." v.19-21
What's wrong with 'contradicting' what the 'inspired' writer wrote? The
'inspired' writer wrote a narrative, a story, an epic, not a historical account.
Why do you overload your mind with stupid speculations about what the
'inspired' writers of Genesis wrote. Inspired legends, myths, stories are not
historical accounts. Read the Gospels, forget the OT. Leave it to the Jews.
Jesus endorsed the OT, including Moses who wrote Genesis.
"And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets,
neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31
Yeah, but YOU don't know how to read the books Moses wrote, or you would
know that they were written prophetically, that is, multi-linearly, and not literally.
The problem is, when you try to interpret *everything* in the Scriptures non-literally
such as you have tried to do on this thread. It doesn't work; and any credible Bible
scholar would reject your narrow hermeneutics.
"Credible" and "scholar" are a relative terms--one man's "scholar" is
everyone else's village idiot.

That still doesn't change the fact that Genesis was prophetically written,
as it pertained to the situation at the time, and was not meant to be read
strictly literally, but multi-linearly, and perceptually.

Genesis is prophecy, and has to be read prophetically.

Bottom line: The flood didn't cover the "earth" in the literal sense. All it
did was cover the earth in the prophetic sense, where the "earth" represents
the Semites, as when the prophet says that in Jaktan and Peleg's day, the
"earth was divided," meaning tribes were once again separated from tribes in
the process of getting to Israel, and, eventually, Jesus.

So now, go back and answer the questions.

What is "the earth?"

What are "cattle, creeping things, beasts of the field, and fowls of the
air?"

etc. etc.
Post by Andrew
Post by H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Again, what is the "earth" in prophecy?
The Semites.
What are "cattle, creeping things, beasts of the field, and fowls of the air" in
prophecy?
The Gentiles.
And that's were the real story begins.
Ike
www.eickleberrybooks.com
Andrew
2006-07-05 18:19:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Post by Andrew
Post by H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Post by Andrew
Post by Ya'betz
Post by Andrew
Explain how you think that Zechariah 4:4-10 supports your premise that
the Great Deluge was "probably local"..contradicting the inspired writer
of Genesis.
"The water covered even the highest mountains on the earth, standing
more than twenty-two feet above the highest peaks. All the living things
on earth died--birds, domestic animals, wild animals, all kinds of small
animals, and all the people." v.19-21
What's wrong with 'contradicting' what the 'inspired' writer wrote? The
'inspired' writer wrote a narrative, a story, an epic, not a historical account.
Why do you overload your mind with stupid speculations about what the
'inspired' writers of Genesis wrote. Inspired legends, myths, stories are not
historical accounts. Read the Gospels, forget the OT. Leave it to the Jews.
Jesus endorsed the OT, including Moses who wrote Genesis.
"And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets,
neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31
Yeah, but YOU don't know how to read the books Moses wrote, or you would
know that they were written prophetically, that is, multi-linearly, and not literally.
The problem is, when you try to interpret *everything* in the Scriptures non-literally
such as you have tried to do on this thread. It doesn't work; and any credible Bible
scholar would reject your narrow hermeneutics.
"Credible" and "scholar" are a relative terms--one man's "scholar" is
everyone else's village idiot.
That still doesn't change the fact that Genesis was prophetically written,
as it pertained to the situation at the time, and was not meant to be read
strictly literally, but multi-linearly, and perceptually.
There IS prophecy in Genesis, and the 'Great Deluge' that it records was
literal as well as prophetic, as Jesus..and the inspired writers testify.
Post by H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Genesis is prophecy, and has to be read prophetically.
Bottom line: The flood didn't cover the "earth" in the literal sense. All it
did was cover the earth in the prophetic sense, where the "earth" represents...
The Bible writers refer to it as a literal event. Jesus refers to it as a literal
event. Global geology testifies that it was indeed a literal event. So here
we see a notable fact that, Noah was not believed in his day of the flood
to come, just as there are those today who refuse to acknowledge that it
came.

3:5 For of this they are willfully ignorant: that by the word of God the heavens
were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept
in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of
ungodly men.

~ 2 Peter 3:5-7 ~
Post by H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
the Semites, as when the prophet says that in Jaktan and Peleg's day, the
"earth was divided," meaning tribes were once again separated from tribes in
the process of getting to Israel, and, eventually, Jesus.
So now, go back and answer the questions.
What is "the earth?"
What are "cattle, creeping things, beasts of the field, and fowls of the air?"
etc. etc.
Post by Andrew
Post by H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Again, what is the "earth" in prophecy?
The Semites.
What are "cattle, creeping things, beasts of the field, and fowls of the air" in
prophecy?
The Gentiles.
And that's were the real story begins.
Ike
www.eickleberrybooks.com
Andrew
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
2006-07-06 04:18:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Post by Andrew
Post by H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Post by Andrew
Post by Ya'betz
Post by Andrew
Explain how you think that Zechariah 4:4-10 supports your premise that
the Great Deluge was "probably local"..contradicting the inspired writer
of Genesis.
"The water covered even the highest mountains on the earth, standing
more than twenty-two feet above the highest peaks. All the living things
on earth died--birds, domestic animals, wild animals, all kinds of small
animals, and all the people." v.19-21
What's wrong with 'contradicting' what the 'inspired' writer wrote? The
'inspired' writer wrote a narrative, a story, an epic, not a historical account.
Why do you overload your mind with stupid speculations about what the
'inspired' writers of Genesis wrote. Inspired legends, myths, stories are not
historical accounts. Read the Gospels, forget the OT. Leave it to the Jews.
Jesus endorsed the OT, including Moses who wrote Genesis.
"And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets,
neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31
Yeah, but YOU don't know how to read the books Moses wrote, or you would
know that they were written prophetically, that is, multi-linearly, and
not literally.
The problem is, when you try to interpret *everything* in the Scriptures non-literally
such as you have tried to do on this thread. It doesn't work; and any credible Bible
scholar would reject your narrow hermeneutics.
"Credible" and "scholar" are a relative terms--one man's "scholar" is
everyone else's village idiot.
That still doesn't change the fact that Genesis was prophetically written,
as it pertained to the situation at the time, and was not meant to be read
strictly literally, but multi-linearly, and perceptually.
There IS prophecy in Genesis, and the 'Great Deluge' that it records was
literal as well as prophetic, as Jesus..and the inspired writers testify.
But Jesus never testified that the flood covered the whole physical earth.
Post by Andrew
Post by H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Genesis is prophecy, and has to be read prophetically.
Bottom line: The flood didn't cover the "earth" in the literal sense. All it
did was cover the earth in the prophetic sense, where the "earth" represents...
The Bible writers refer to it as a literal event. Jesus refers to it as a literal
event.
I didn't say there wasn't a literal event.

All I said was it didn't have to cover the whole "earth" physically to get
the job done.

And the point is the "earth" is used throughout Genesis to represent the
Adamic sons (as opposed to "sea" for the Gentiles).

Hence, Peter revises the notion to "the world that then was" rather than the
whole physical earth.

And Jesus says nothing about the extend of the flood.
Post by Andrew
Global geology testifies that it was indeed a literal event.
No it doesn't.

Global geology testifies that there was NO global flood--only a local event
at best.
Post by Andrew
So here
we see a notable fact that, Noah was not believed in his day of the flood
to come, just as there are those today who refuse to acknowledge that it
came.
I don't refuse to acknowledge that something happened.

I simply pointing out the, prophetic understood, it wasn't a world-wide
event, and didn't have to be. It only drowned the people living at the time.

THAT is geologically supported.

A global deluge is not.
Post by Andrew
3:5 For of this they are willfully ignorant: that by the word of God the heavens
3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept
in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of
ungodly men.
~ 2 Peter 3:5-7 ~
And how does Peter state the extent of the event? "The world that then was,"
which is not the whole physical earth, nor did it have to be.
Post by Andrew
Post by H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
the Semites, as when the prophet says that in Jaktan and Peleg's day, the
"earth was divided," meaning tribes were once again separated from tribes in
the process of getting to Israel, and, eventually, Jesus.
So now, go back and answer the questions.
What is "the earth?"
What are "cattle, creeping things, beasts of the field, and fowls of the air?"
etc. etc.
Post by Andrew
Post by H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Again, what is the "earth" in prophecy?
The Semites.
What are "cattle, creeping things, beasts of the field, and fowls of the air" in
prophecy?
The Gentiles.
And you STILL don't answer the questions, knowing they will prove you
fundamentalist notions wrong.

Ike
--
www.eickleberrybooks.com

******************************

The Tree of Life (from "The Character Map")


The Beloved
Faith Hope
Righteousness Judgment Compassion
Courage Integrity Diligence Grace
Discipline of Thought Service Desire Decision and Belief
Glory Honor Power Wisdom Riches Blessing Strength w/Thanksgiving
He Who Loves


******************************
Remove X from address to reply
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
2006-07-01 11:31:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ya'betz
Post by Andrew
Explain how you think that Zechariah 4:4-10 supports your premise that
the Great Deluge was "probably local"..contradicting the inspired writer
of Genesis.
"The water covered even the highest mountains on the earth, standing
more than twenty-two feet above the highest peaks. All the living things
on earth died--birds, domestic animals, wild animals, all kinds of small
animals, and all the people." v.19-21
What's wrong with 'contradicting' what the 'inspired' writer wrote? The
'inspired' writer wrote a narrative, a story, an epic, not a historical
account. Why do you overload your mind with stupid speculations about what
the 'inspired' writers of Genesis wrote. Inspired legends, myths, stories
are not historical accounts.
Read the Gospels, forget the OT. Leave it to the Jews.
Wrong.

The Jews never understood the OT, and still don't.

The Israelites once did, but that knowledge perished with the prophets, that
is, until Jesus revealed these things anew, and they were passed on to the
Gentile beleivers.

Ike

www.eickleberrybooks.com
Stephen Korsman
2006-07-01 18:10:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Andrew
Post by Stephen Korsman
The flood was probably a local one - the known world to those people.
"When Noah was 600 years old, on the seventeenth day of the second month,
the underground waters burst forth on the earth, and the rain fell in mighty tor-
rents from the sky... For forty days the floods prevailed, covering the ground
and lifting the boat high above the earth. As the waters rose higher and higher
above the ground, the boat floated safely on the surface.
Finally, the water covered even the highest mountains on the earth, standing
more than twenty-two feet above the highest peaks. All the living things on
earth died--birds, domestic animals, wild animals, all kinds of small animals,
and all the people. Everything died that breathed and lived on dry land."
Genesis 7:11, 17-22 NLT
And I answered, and said to the angel that spoke in me, saying: What are
these things, my lord? (5) And the angel that spoke in me answered, and
said to me: Knowest thou not what these things are? And I said: No, my lord.
(6) And he answered, and spoke to me, saying: This is the word of the Lord
to Zorobabel, saying: Not with an army, nor by might, but by my spirit,
saith the Lord of hosts. (7) Who art thou, O great mountain, before
Zorobabel? thou shalt become a plain: and he shall bring out the chief
stone, and shall give equal grace to the grace thereof. (8) And the word
of the Lord came to me, saying: (9) The hands of Zorobabel have laid the
foundations of this house, and his hands shall finish it: and you shall know
that the Lord of hosts hath sent me to you. (10) For who hath despised
little days? and they shall rejoice, and shall see the tin plummet in the
hand of Zorobabel. These are the seven eyes of the Lord, that run to and fro
through the whole earth.
Zechariah 4:4-10 1899 Challoner
Rheims
Stephen Korsman
Explain how you think that Zechariah 4:4-10 supports your premise that
the Great Deluge was "probably local"..contradicting the inspired writer
of Genesis.
"The water covered even the highest mountains on the earth, standing
more than twenty-two feet above the highest peaks. All the living things
on earth died--birds, domestic animals, wild animals, all kinds of small
animals, and all the people." v.19-21
And Jonas began to enter into the city one day's journey: and he cried and
said: Yet forty days and Ninive shall be destroyed. And the men of Ninive
believed in God: and they proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth from the
greatest to the least. And the word came to the king of Ninive: and he rose
up out of his throne, and cast away his robe from him, and was clothed in
sackcloth, and sat in ashes.
(Jonah 3:4-6 DRB)

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
2006-06-29 03:12:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Stephen Korsman
The flood was probably a local one - the known world to those people.
"When Noah was 600 years old, on the seventeenth day of the second month,
the underground waters burst forth on the earth, and the rain fell in mighty tor-
rents from the sky... For forty days the floods prevailed, covering the ground
and lifting the boat high above the earth. As the waters rose higher and higher
above the ground, the boat floated safely on the surface.
Finally, the water covered even the highest mountains on the earth, standing
more than twenty-two feet above the highest peaks. All the living things on
earth died--birds, domestic animals, wild animals, all kinds of small animals,
and all the people. Everything died that breathed and lived on dry land."
Genesis 7:11, 17-22 NLT
1) 2Pe 3:6 "Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water,
perished...," hence, the flood didn't have to literally cover the whole
"world," but that portion of the world that was occupied at the time, i.e.
"the world that then was."

2) The "earth" is metaphor for the Adamaic sons, not the Gentiles, as per
"and I saw a beast rise from the earth," i.e. the false prophet of the
Semites (Israel and Islam alike).

3) "Cattle, creeping things, beasts of the field, and fowls of the air" are
designations for the Gentiles, as per God's vision to Peter telling him to
preach the Gospel to the Gentiles.

There is no evidence of a global deluge, but there is evidence of a deluge
in ancient history that covered the principle places man existed, i.e. "the
world that then was."

You need to pay more attention to the details when reading the Bible.

Not everything is as it seems.

Ike

www.eickleberrybooks.com
Bree
2006-06-29 04:58:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
There is no evidence of a global deluge, but there is evidence of a deluge
in ancient history that covered the principle places man existed, i.e. "the
world that then was."
What a stunningly racist statement "the principle places that man existed".

If we put the date of the deluge at around nine thousand years ago then
the Aborigines in Australia had already been here for between thirty
thousand years and a hundred and forty thousand years.

The Indonesian archipelago had been occupied by humans or their
predecessors for about one million years and parts of Africa for
considerably longer,

The Americas too had been occupied for tens of thousands and years as had
China.

You write like someone who has hung round the Nazi party and the KuKlux
Klan. Yours is the delusion that there was no real "man" before some sort
of immediately pre Judeo-Christian civilisation. It is almost the Nazi
Aryan myth.

That is what comes from treating a theological collection as a history
book and then proceeding therefrom to find confirming evidence

No doubt there were indeed floods in the Middle Eastern area and indeed
there may even have been a Black Sea breakthrough that underlies the
Mesopotamian and Noah legends but legends are legends and do not
necessarily require such direct connection with real events. The Exodus
is such a myth - it may indicate a Volcano God and the account of a real
exit from

It is rather as if one used the Norse saga as a way of finding actual
historical detail, or made Schliemann's idiotic error of seeking Homeric
Troy. One will stupidly believe one finds what one seeks because one is
equally stupid to look for it in that way

You make a number of quite laughable and appalling errors in particular
points in your post.
Post by H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
1) 2Pe 3:6 "Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water,
perished...," hence, the flood didn't have to literally cover the whole
"world," but that portion of the world that was occupied at the time, i.e.
"the world that then was."
like most Fundamentalists you twist words to distort their meaning and
quote ou of context - The actual passage reads in the ASV:

5 For this they willfully forget, that there were heavens from of old,
and an earth compacted out of water and amidst water, by the word of God;
6 by which means the world that then was, being overflowed with water,
perished:
7 but the heavens that now are, and the earth, by the same word have been
stored up for fire, being reserved against the day of judgment and
destruction of ungodly men.

The writer of the letter attributed to Peter is clearly referring to the
WHOLE Earth and not a part of it but it is an archaic pre-scientific
understanding of the construction of the Earth. The Land in this concept
is entirely surrounded as one mass by water and indeed is itself composed
entirely of water - even the Land is "compacted out of water" we are in a
pre-chemistry age.

We can check this by seeing how the passage was translated in another
translation the Lutheran one:

"5 Aber aus Mutwillen wollen sie nicht wissen, daß der Himmel vorzeiten
auch war, dazu die Erde aus Wasser, und im Wasser bestanden durch Gottes
Wort;
6 dennoch ward zu der Zeit die Welt durch die dieselben mit der Sintflut
verderbt."

The term you are referring to as the world that then was is really only a
statement saying at that time calendar wise the whole earth was flooded

Which of course is a myth.

You then come out with an amazing peace of Anglo Israelism - which places
you very clearly close to the antichristian neofascist Christian Identity
Post by H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
2) The "earth" is metaphor for the Adamaic sons, not the Gentiles, as per
"and I saw a beast rise from the earth," i.e. the false prophet of the
Semites (Israel and Islam alike).
What RUBBISH dear oh dear - what have you been up to! and you get sillier
and sillier - Look at the next piece that had me almoost ROTFLMAO:

3) "Cattle, creeping things, beasts of the field, and fowls of the air" are
Post by H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
designations for the Gentiles, as per God's vision to Peter telling him to
preach the Gospel to the Gentiles.
Designations for the Gentiles -oh dear are we into Anglo Israelism - the
cult of the English Fascist Blackshirts of the thirties . A fowl is a
chicken stupid! C-H-I-C-K-E-N but in the bible it is sometimes used for
birds generally. Beasts of the field are recognised by the fact that they
have a leg at each of four corners (keep it simple for the idiots and
Fundiedopes)

Mate YOU need TREATMENT

And if your wife reads this - for Christ's sake ring Veterans SAffairs and
book him ion

REALLY!!!!!!!

DEAR OH DEAR OH DEAR

Stick to the drums and euphonium mate - When it intellectually passes
Oompah you are intellectually STUFFED.


AAAAAAAAAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!!



+
Andrew
2006-06-29 06:56:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
There is no evidence of a global deluge,
If there was a global deluge, what would we expect to find? ---> Billions of dead
things buried in sedimentary rock layers (rock layers formed by water with thick
sediment) worldwide; which is exactly what we do find everywhere.
Post by H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
but there is evidence of a deluge in ancient history that covered the principle
places man existed, i.e. "the world that then was."
You need to pay more attention to the details when reading the Bible.
That is certainly true, such as this...

"all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of
heaven were opened." Genesis 7:11

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

The mountain tops were covered with water - fifteen cubits. Local deluge? Not!



Andrew
Bree
2006-06-29 07:32:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
There is no evidence of a global deluge,
If there was a global deluge, what would we expect to find? ---> Billions of dead
things buried in sedimentary rock layers (rock layers formed by water with thick
sediment) worldwide; which is exactly what we do find everywhere.
Post by H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
but there is evidence of a deluge in ancient history that covered the principle
places man existed, i.e. "the world that then was."
You need to pay more attention to the details when reading the Bible.
That is certainly true, such as this...
"all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of
heaven were opened." Genesis 7:11
"And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills,
that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did
the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered." v.19,20
The mountain tops were covered with water - fifteen cubits. Local deluge? Not!
Andrew
Which being impossible indicate it as a myth

We know how upheavals take place - there is no mystery relating to sea
fossils etc at high distances above sea level.

But as for fountains in the deep opening up and raising sea levels from
underground water at the same time as Heavenly orifices pouring out the
water needed to raise sea levels FIVE MILES?

Forget it

Its a myth from flat earth days.

Especially Dopey and his boat full of zoological specimens
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
2006-06-29 14:58:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
There is no evidence of a global deluge,
If there was a global deluge, what would we expect to find?
Stop.

What happened to the biblical citations I posted up concerning the
interpretation of these passages?

1) What is "the earth?"

2) What are "Cattle, creeping things, beasts of the field, and fowls of the
air?"

3) Why didn't you mark your snips? Answer: Because they already demonstrated
that you are full of crap, and you didn't want to get caught making a fool
of yourself.

You snipped them without marking the snips, which demonstrates that, as
usual, you have no intention of playing fair or honestly reading the Word of
God.

Conversation over.

The Lord rebuke thee.

Ike
--
www.eickleberrybooks.com

******************************

The Tree of Life (from "The Character Map")


The Beloved
Faith Hope
Righteousness Judgment Compassion
Courage Integrity Diligence Grace
Discipline of Thought Service Desire Decision and Belief
Glory Honor Power Wisdom Riches Blessing Strength w/Thanksgiving
He Who Loves


******************************
Remove X from address to reply
Bree
2006-06-29 23:37:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
The Lord rebuke thee.
Ike
--
No just some silly old wanker who thinks he's found the GREAT KEY to Revelation

Pathetic in the extreme
teresita
2006-06-30 03:40:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bree
No just some silly old wanker who thinks he's found the GREAT KEY to Revelation
And the name of that key is LSD.
LoneStar
2006-06-29 22:07:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
The mountain tops were covered with water - fifteen cubits. Local deluge? Not!
I, uh, wonder who was THERE to actually record, or visually confirm that all
the world's mountain tops were covered with water! Please don't say that it
was NOAH, and that he saw both Everest and McKinley topped!

Incredible.

EW
Bree
2006-06-30 00:13:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by LoneStar
Post by Andrew
The mountain tops were covered with water - fifteen cubits. Local deluge? Not!
I, uh, wonder who was THERE to actually record, or visually confirm that all
the world's mountain tops were covered with water! Please don't say that it
was NOAH, and that he saw both Everest and McKinley topped!
Incredible.
EW
It is staggering

These people are actually quite mad. They are fortunately very much on
the looney fringe of Christianity desperately trying to shape it to fit
their personal neurosis or psychosis. It is the last stand of denial
before psychological counselling or psychiatric treatment. The bluster
because they know they are lying. But they see themselves as secure. In
reality their internal madness is what will destroy them if they do not
regarin sanity and insight

But for the moment unfortunately, American Christianity is feather-bedding
these lunatics in the hope that they can be used as allies to prop up
existing theocratic heirarchies.

I fear that part of the problem is an unintentional effect of drug and
alcohol rehabilitation programs that are Twelve steps based such as AA.
In these the recoverer is encouraged to adopt an acceptance mode of non
anlytical thinking which they take into church (which they are encouraged
to join). This leads them all too easily into Traditionalist and
fundamentalist (non)thinking. The concept that within religion the non
analytical mode of thinking is in fact malevolent is not either recognised
or given as a warning by groups such as AA. It is an appalling error

Once there these people bring the same mental problems that led them into
alcoholism etc or are part of their mental illness. The churches make no
effort to correct them and indeed the evangelical and Born Again rubbish
actively encourage them

Put another way - American society has created a cycle of insanity in
which therapy has become an integral part of the problem

I see no solution but I do see an inevitable implosion - and I don't think
it is far off. I see the likelihood of the Christian Right,
Fundamentalism . political fascism and theocracy all imploding together as
the inherent freedom ethic of American people fights back to preserve its
greatest creation which is a functioning secular democracy based on self
evident truths.

From this implosion may even emerge a rational Christianity - but for that
they will need to come to terms with the errors and fraud of Paul of
Tarsus

If they fail to do that Christianity will die as quickly as Stalinist Communism

I gues the result depends rather on whether there is a God or not. In
Stock Exchange terms what is required in the "Christian theological
"market" is the biggest "market correction" of all time

Kindest regards


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
teresita
2006-06-30 03:39:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by LoneStar
I, uh, wonder who was THERE to actually record, or visually confirm that all
the world's mountain tops were covered with water! Please don't say that it
was NOAH, and that he saw both Everest and McKinley topped!
Well one theory is that Moses was a sort of "reverse prophet" who could
see the past when he wrote Genesis. My theory is that Genesis is a
combination of parts of the J and E and P documents.
Bree
2006-06-30 04:36:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by teresita
Post by LoneStar
I, uh, wonder who was THERE to actually record, or visually confirm that all
the world's mountain tops were covered with water! Please don't say that it
was NOAH, and that he saw both Everest and McKinley topped!
Well one theory is that Moses was a sort of "reverse prophet" who could
see the past when he wrote Genesis. My theory is that Genesis is a
combination of parts of the J and E and P documents.
Absolutely and that is hardly really even a theory when we have such
obvious parallelism in the accounts - such as the two descriptions of the
parting of the Red Sea

On the basis of what we know historically - and that includes genetic
studies, I do not believe we have grounds to claim with any degree of
probability that the Exodus actually occurred or that Moses himself
actually existed. About the only thing that points to some degree of
validity is the continuity of the Passover celebration. But as evidence,
that is rather like saying that the continuation of the Saturnalia
festivities under Christianity somehow "proves the Nativity story"

I think the closest we can come to understanding Exodus and "Moses" is to
see what the story has meant over the millenia. And one of the major
items it has justified is the ownership of the land by the Jews by its
creation of a story claimed to be historically true which in fact stems
from Judaic PRE-history. Its weakest point is, of course that it
supposedly took place in HISTORICAL Egyptian times but is not recorded
there.

Exodus is a story about the origins of a people and its relationship with
its God and with the land it occupies. It is also about the path of the
individual seeking a relationship with God

As such it fits in with the other myths of the Pentateuch to establish a
theology on the firm footing of what once was a supposed history. Judaism
built a stable culture that survived on the firm foundation of these
myths, even to the point of establishing a firm administrative code that
includes both ethics and Law. It was a staggering achievement under near
impossible circumstances

But the world has moved on. What have become RIDICULOUS assertions in this
modern age about historical events have collapsed. Like the Greeks in the
sixth century BC our intellectual world depends on its abilitiy to exist
in a state of flux whilst maintaining a stable society

In such an environment the retreat into absolute truth and "Fundamentals"
is a descent into Fascism because the artificiality of those Fundamentals
continues to exist parallel to any claim of their supposed absolute
validity. Choice of truth enforced by authoritarianist attitudes and
bullying is the very core of Fascist behaviour. It is also the reality of
Fundamentalism and an inerrant Scripture

Thus as soon as one experiences in a discussion with a Fundamentalist the
practice on their part of lying. degrading and bullying (often denoted by
smarmy attempts to sound patronisingly friendly) it is time to refuse to
continue the pretence of a communication that they have in fact already
broken

In the end it always comes down to lying, defamation, threats(even if only
of "loss of salvation") and in the non cyber world outright violence

My policy is - when these people expose themselves - to leave them to stew
in their own juice. Take away from them their delusion that they are
respected and honoured and leave it to God to decide if he chooses to
reduce them to the humility required to build a new psyche for themselves

I guess I just retain too much FAITH for most people - despite leaving the
Church in disgust forty five years ago.

There is an implosion coming in Fundamentalism and Christianity. The
Gospel says that an old religious structure can be torn down and totally
rebuilt in THREE days

Bring them ON!

It's time!

++++++++++
LoneStar
2006-06-30 21:43:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by teresita
Well one theory is that Moses was a sort of "reverse prophet" who could
see the past when he wrote Genesis. My theory is that Genesis is a
combination of parts of the J and E and P documents.
Ah yes, Ruby....... When facts get in the way, make up a theory like
"reverse prophesy" and fly with it! Chill. I know you're smarter than
that, but many here aren't!

And you're right about J, P, and E. But I thought there was one more....

EW
teresita
2006-07-02 05:25:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by LoneStar
Post by teresita
Well one theory is that Moses was a sort of "reverse prophet" who could
see the past when he wrote Genesis. My theory is that Genesis is a
combination of parts of the J and E and P documents.
Ah yes, Ruby....... When facts get in the way, make up a theory like
"reverse prophesy" and fly with it! Chill. I know you're smarter than
that, but many here aren't!
And you're right about J, P, and E. But I thought there was one more....
The Deuteronomist or "D" document does not appear until they mysteriously
"find" that scroll laying around in the temple, and its material only
appears from Deuteronomy to 2 Kings.
Stephen Korsman
2006-06-27 16:36:13 UTC
Permalink
The Sun and the remainder of the universe imparts emery into our
system the earth, if you wish me to provide a list of scientific
papers that discuss the energy input from the sun to the earth I will
do, but lets face it, are you really going to deny the sun?
.There is no scenario whereby sunlight shining upon nonliving
.chemicals on the earth can produce life. It would be contrary
.to scientific laws. It never happened. Therefore, what they
.have been teaching the kids is no-thing more than a grand,
.politically correct, but godless *hoax.*
. Andrew
Sunlight is indeed a scenario, so are primative atmospheric
processes, so are deep thermal oceanic vents, so is the
extraterestial origins of primative life in space.
That is four scenarios...
To say these are against the laws of science is to claim
knowledge that does not exist. The truth is we do not yet know.
People like you argued that the laws of science prohibited
heavier than air flying machines and metal ships.
They were wrong... so are you...
His church's prophetess, Ellen White, made the following astounding
statement:

In many cases I have advised out-of-door work for piano tuners, telling them
that unless they changed their business, they would have to deal with
insanity. We are made up of nerves and senses, as well as conscience and
affections. All parts of the living machinery are to be wisely cared for and
considerately treated. The Lord has respect for the body as well as the
soul.
- Letter 104, 1901.

Beware - things were revealed to her that science has not yet discovered -
or so I've been told. Masturbation as the cause of tuberculosis being one
of them.

And the following about the origin of certain races of men (showing that she
believed in some form of evolution):

Every species of animal which God had created were preserved in the ark. The
confused species which God did not create, which were the result of
amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood there has been
amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless
varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men.
- Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 3, p. 75.

Her writings are inspired, not in a different way to the Bible, the Ellen
White Estate says:

"We do not believe that the quality or degree of inspiration in the writings
of Ellen White is different from that of Scripture." -
http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/scripsda.html

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za
Teresita
2006-06-28 01:45:17 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 18:36:13 +0200, "Stephen Korsman"
Post by Stephen Korsman
Every species of animal which God had created were preserved in the ark. The
confused species which God did not create, which were the result of
amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood there has been
amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless
varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men.
- Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 3, p. 75.
Obviously Ellen White had to cook up a theory to explain how the world
could have many thousands more species than could fit as pairs in the
ark.

--
Encyclopedia Teresita

http://home.comcast.net/~rubyredinger
Stephen Korsman
2006-06-28 09:54:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Teresita
On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 18:36:13 +0200, "Stephen Korsman"
Post by Stephen Korsman
Every species of animal which God had created were preserved in the ark. The
confused species which God did not create, which were the result of
amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood there has been
amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless
varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men.
- Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 3, p. 75.
Obviously Ellen White had to cook up a theory to explain how the world
could have many thousands more species than could fit as pairs in the
ark.
She didn't, as far as I am aware, explain why the fish didn't drown in the
flood. Turbulence of that sort would not allow for the survival of many
fish species alive today. Too much mud, violent waters, a disturbed
ecosystem, overgrowth of certain algae etc., lack of food, lack of sunlight
in the water.

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za
teresita
2006-06-29 00:36:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Teresita
On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 18:36:13 +0200, "Stephen Korsman"
Post by Stephen Korsman
Every species of animal which God had created were preserved in the
ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the
result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood
there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the
almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of
men. - Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 3, p. 75.
Obviously Ellen White had to cook up a theory to explain how the world
could have many thousands more species than could fit as pairs in the
ark.
She didn't, as far as I am aware, explain why the fish didn't drown in
the flood. Turbulence of that sort would not allow for the survival of
many fish species alive today. Too much mud, violent waters, a
disturbed ecosystem, overgrowth of certain algae etc., lack of food,
lack of sunlight in the water.
I take it from reading the decree by Mrs. White above, those fish which
were created by God were preserved in the ark, probably by using aquariums.
Stephen Korsman
2006-06-29 01:01:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by teresita
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Teresita
On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 18:36:13 +0200, "Stephen Korsman"
Post by Stephen Korsman
Every species of animal which God had created were preserved in the
ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the
result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood
there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the
almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of
men. - Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 3, p. 75.
Obviously Ellen White had to cook up a theory to explain how the world
could have many thousands more species than could fit as pairs in the
ark.
She didn't, as far as I am aware, explain why the fish didn't drown in
the flood. Turbulence of that sort would not allow for the survival of
many fish species alive today. Too much mud, violent waters, a
disturbed ecosystem, overgrowth of certain algae etc., lack of food,
lack of sunlight in the water.
I take it from reading the decree by Mrs. White above, those fish which
were created by God were preserved in the ark, probably by using aquariums.
Mrs White should have shed some light on that. Instead she miscounted the
moons of Jupiter.

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za
teresita
2006-06-29 02:20:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Korsman
Mrs White should have shed some light on that. Instead she miscounted the
moons of Jupiter.
Gosh, they're still counting them. Wikipedia has it up to 63 moons now.
Stephen Korsman
2006-06-29 11:10:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by teresita
Post by Stephen Korsman
Mrs White should have shed some light on that. Instead she miscounted the
moons of Jupiter.
Gosh, they're still counting them. Wikipedia has it up to 63 moons now.
Either Wikipedia is lying, and God spoke the truth to Ellen White, and, as
with the origin of black people, insanity caused by piano tuning, and
tuberculosis caused by masturbation, science is far behind Ellen's divine
revelation in this matter, or her head injury caused some damage.

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za
Stephen Korsman
2006-06-27 16:36:19 UTC
Permalink
The Sun and the remainder of the universe imparts emery into our
system the earth, if you wish me to provide a list of scientific
papers that discuss the energy input from the sun to the earth I will
do..
.You may have all the energy you desire from the sun
.or the remainder of the universe, but that can never
.produce life - UNLESS that energy is super intelligently
.and purposefully directed to do so.
.Andrew
--
That is an unverifiable metaphysical assertion,
otherwise known as BS.
Reality seems to be just the opposite of
your superstitious magic ghost theory..
It really does look as if under certain conditions
life emerges spontaneously from nature, from
complex chemical processes...
I suggest we keep looking into it until
we find out exactly how.
Life seems to be a natural emergent
property of matter and energy.
No ghosts are needed...
Darwin suggested evolution through natural selection
before Mendel demonstrated how it worked statistically
and Mendel did so before DNA was discovered.
Science develops incrementally from hypotheses
that are tested to theories that are based on
evidence. Then to new or deeper theories.
To say that evolution through natural selection is
"just a theory" shows an ignorance of the terminology
of science. It is like saying that a bullet is just a
lump of metal packed with a few chemicals.
The real question is.. does it work or is it a dud?
Before the bullet is fired it is a hyopthesis
after it hits the target it is a theory. Sometimes
it hits the edge of the target and needs refinement
so it is replaced with a better more accurate theory
(bullet). If it misses the target it is a false hyopthesis.
This is how science works...
Andrew doesn't allow usage of terms other than his own. It's quite scary
the way he makes up teachings of other faiths without understanding their
intent. He'll do the same with science, and ignore any real evidence
provided.

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za
Stephen Korsman
2006-06-27 16:36:37 UTC
Permalink
The Independent - Jun 22, 2006
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article1094699.ece
Scientists .. fear the spread of a theory known as "intelligent
design".
This suggests that species are too complex to have evolved through
natural selection and must therefore be the product of a "designer".
There is no scenario whereby life could have arisen from nonliving
chemicals.
It never happened. Therefore, what they are teaching the kids is nothing
more
than a grand, politically correct *hoax.*
Is there something in process of natural selection and other evolutionary
theories which excludes the possibility of a supreme deity, or are you so
locked in your simplistic, irrational, fundamentalist view of the universe
that only the multiply-translated and politically-amended version of your
bible text is correct?
The latter. The inspired prophetess of Andrew's religion has already spoken
on evolution:

Every species of animal which God had created were preserved in the ark. The
confused species which God did not create, which were the result of
amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood there has been
amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless
varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men.
- Ellen White, Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 3, p. 75.

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za
V
2006-06-27 21:53:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Korsman
The Independent - Jun 22, 2006
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article1094699.ece
Scientists .. fear the spread of a theory known as "intelligent
design".
This suggests that species are too complex to have evolved through
natural selection and must therefore be the product of a "designer".
There is no scenario whereby life could have arisen from nonliving
chemicals.
It never happened. Therefore, what they are teaching the kids is nothing
more
than a grand, politically correct *hoax.*
Is there something in process of natural selection and other evolutionary
theories which excludes the possibility of a supreme deity, or are you so
locked in your simplistic, irrational, fundamentalist view of the universe
that only the multiply-translated and politically-amended version of your
bible text is correct?
The latter. The inspired prophetess of Andrew's religion has already spoken
Every species of animal which God had created were preserved in the ark. The
confused species which God did not create, which were the result of
amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood there has been
amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless
varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men.
- Ellen White, Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 3, p. 75.
God bless,
Stephen
Following a delusion does not make it so.
Even the Catholic Church recognizes evolution.



--
"The truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country. The only
verdict is vengeance..a vendetta...what they did to me was monstrous...and they
created a monster"
V for Vendetta
Stephen Korsman
2006-06-28 10:03:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by V
Post by Stephen Korsman
The Independent - Jun 22, 2006
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article1094699.ece
Post by V
Post by Stephen Korsman
Scientists .. fear the spread of a theory known as "intelligent
design".
This suggests that species are too complex to have evolved through
natural selection and must therefore be the product of a "designer".
There is no scenario whereby life could have arisen from nonliving
chemicals.
It never happened. Therefore, what they are teaching the kids is nothing
more
than a grand, politically correct *hoax.*
Is there something in process of natural selection and other evolutionary
theories which excludes the possibility of a supreme deity, or are you so
locked in your simplistic, irrational, fundamentalist view of the universe
that only the multiply-translated and politically-amended version of your
bible text is correct?
The latter. The inspired prophetess of Andrew's religion has already spoken
Every species of animal which God had created were preserved in the ark. The
confused species which God did not create, which were the result of
amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood there has been
amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless
varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men.
- Ellen White, Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 3, p. 75.
God bless,
Stephen
Following a delusion does not make it so.
Even the Catholic Church recognizes evolution.
The unwillingness to admit that a creating being could work through
evolution is really only limited to a minority of fairly fundamentalist
groups that confuse the rest.

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za
Stephen Korsman
2006-07-11 05:03:43 UTC
Permalink
The whole controversy between creation and evolution is basically a
showdown between those who believe in God and those who don't.
False. A belief in God does not require a belief that God would not
create evolution.
Microevolution has been happening since the day God created life on
this planet.
Indeed, a firm convction that God could not or would not do so seems
to be more than a little presumtuous.
Macroevolution on the other hand, is un unproven pseudoscience
religion.
What is your basis for saying that?
Truth.
Andrew, it has already been established that you and truth are not friends.
Truth is not something useful when it comes to attacking religious beliefs
you don't like. Why would that be different with evolution?

http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/post/index/148/Andrew

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za
Stephen Korsman
2006-07-11 05:04:57 UTC
Permalink
The whole controversy between creation and evolution is basically
a
showdown between those who believe in God and those who don't.
False. A belief in God does not require a belief that God would
not
create evolution.
Microevolution has been happening since the day God created life on
this planet.
Indeed, a firm convction that God could not or would not do so
seems
to be more than a little presumtuous.
Macroevolution on the other hand, is un unproven pseudoscience
religion.
What is your basis for saying that?
Truth.
Are you one of those SDA extremist whackos like McMillan?
SDA, yes. Extremist - partially. Like McMillan - as far as the truth goes,
he doesn't use it in his arguments, and so, yes, he is like McMillan.

http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/post/index/148/Andrew

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za
Maud Gonne
2006-07-11 22:07:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Korsman
The whole controversy between creation and evolution is basically
a
showdown between those who believe in God and those who don't.
False. A belief in God does not require a belief that God would
not
create evolution.
Microevolution has been happening since the day God created life on
this planet.
Indeed, a firm convction that God could not or would not do so
seems
to be more than a little presumtuous.
Macroevolution on the other hand, is un unproven pseudoscience
religion.
What is your basis for saying that?
Truth.
Are you one of those SDA extremist whackos like McMillan?
SDA, yes. Extremist - partially. Like McMillan - as far as the truth goes,
he doesn't use it in his arguments, and so, yes, he is like McMillan.
http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/post/index/148/Andrew
God bless,
Stephen
Stephen;
I was not meaning to be demeaning to the SDA; just to the schismatic
movement within it as exemplified by McMillan.
Post by Stephen Korsman
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/
IC | XC
---------
NI | KA
add an s before .co.za
--
Maud Gonne
One of the Lesbian Immortals
We Never Die
"They may batter us to pieces but they will never extinguish our hope."
Stephen Korsman
2006-07-12 05:07:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maud Gonne
Post by Stephen Korsman
The whole controversy between creation and evolution is basically
a
showdown between those who believe in God and those who don't.
False. A belief in God does not require a belief that God would
not
create evolution.
Microevolution has been happening since the day God created life on
this planet.
Indeed, a firm convction that God could not or would not do so
seems
to be more than a little presumtuous.
Macroevolution on the other hand, is un unproven pseudoscience
religion.
What is your basis for saying that?
Truth.
Are you one of those SDA extremist whackos like McMillan?
SDA, yes. Extremist - partially. Like McMillan - as far as the truth goes,
he doesn't use it in his arguments, and so, yes, he is like McMillan.
http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/post/index/148/Andrew
God bless,
Stephen
Stephen;
I was not meaning to be demeaning to the SDA; just to the schismatic
movement within it as exemplified by McMillan.
There are many normal SDAs. Unfortunately, there are many who use any means
necessary, irrespective of the truth, to promote their agenda. Both within
extremist movements and mainstream Adventism.

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za
Teresita
2006-07-13 00:47:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Korsman
There are many normal SDAs. Unfortunately, there are many who use
any means necessary, irrespective of the truth, to promote their
agenda. Both within extremist movements and mainstream Adventism.
I'm not sure Andrew is "promoting" an "agenda", perhaps he just likes
to talk to like-minded people on the internet after work, like I do.
Stephen Korsman
2006-07-13 05:00:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Teresita
Post by Stephen Korsman
There are many normal SDAs. Unfortunately, there are many who use
any means necessary, irrespective of the truth, to promote their
agenda. Both within extremist movements and mainstream Adventism.
I'm not sure Andrew is "promoting" an "agenda", perhaps he just likes
to talk to like-minded people on the internet after work, like I do.
I think Adventism definitely has an agenda, and Andrew is certainly
promoting it in the course of doing what you describe.

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za
Stephen Korsman
2006-07-12 05:09:51 UTC
Permalink
The rate of eustatic sea level rise from 1910 to 1990 ranged from
-0.8 to 2.2 mm/yr, with a central value of 0.7 mm/yr which is about
the width of seven human hairs per year. I think we can handle it.
"Studies by EPA and others have estimated that along the Gulf and
Atlantic coasts, a one foot (30 cm) rise in sea level is likely by
2050. In the next century, a two foot rise is most likely, but a
four foot rise is possible.
I posted actual observational evidence of the rate of sea level rise
over 80 years, with a variability range of 3 millimeters, and you
posted a guess about the rate of sea level rise over an indeterminant
time that terminates sometime "in the next century" with a figure that
is "most likely" and another figure that is "possible". That's
wunnerful, Andrew.
If you think linear rather than exponential, your conclusion will be
skewed.
I was citing an official EPA website.
Why can't you cite official Catholic teaching in context when telling us
what we believe?

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za
Andrew
2006-07-12 05:44:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Korsman
Why can't you cite official Catholic teaching in context when telling us
what we believe?
God bless,
Stephen
Why are you looking to me to tell you what you believe?
Stephen Korsman
2006-07-12 17:54:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Stephen Korsman
The rate of eustatic sea level rise from 1910 to 1990 ranged from
-0.8 to 2.2 mm/yr, with a central value of 0.7 mm/yr which is about
the width of seven human hairs per year. I think we can handle it.
"Studies by EPA and others have estimated that along the Gulf and
Atlantic coasts, a one foot (30 cm) rise in sea level is likely by
2050. In the next century, a two foot rise is most likely, but a
four foot rise is possible.
I posted actual observational evidence of the rate of sea level rise
over 80 years, with a variability range of 3 millimeters, and you
posted a guess about the rate of sea level rise over an
indeterminant
Post by Andrew
Post by Stephen Korsman
time that terminates sometime "in the next century" with a figure that
is "most likely" and another figure that is "possible". That's
wunnerful, Andrew.
If you think linear rather than exponential, your conclusion will be
skewed.
I was citing an official EPA website.
Why can't you cite official Catholic teaching in context when telling us
what we believe?
God bless,
Stephen
Why are you looking to me to tell you what you believe?
I'm not. You try anyway, and then tell me I don't know what Catholicism
teaches. When I give proof that I do, you ignore it, and later you repeat
the same old propaganda over again. You prefer to cite newspaper clippings,
or you cite official teaching out of context, or make up a meaning for it in
spite of explanations and evidence presented to the contrary.

Facts clearly don't fit into your world view. To you, facts are whatever is
convenient to tell people in order to convince them of your opinion. Why is
that, Andrew? Why do you continue to proclaim things that are untrue, when
you've been shown evidence that what you say is untrue, evidence which you
refuse to discuss? Why do you not wish to discuss the facts?

http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/post/index/148/Andrew

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za
Teresita
2006-07-13 00:48:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Korsman
Why can't you cite official Catholic teaching in context when telling
us what we believe?
Because that dang Catechism doesn't fit prejudices sometimes. The
thing about "changing the 10 commandments" comes to my mind here.
Andrew
2006-07-13 02:42:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Teresita
Post by Stephen Korsman
Why can't you cite official Catholic teaching in context when telling
us what we believe?
Because that dang Catechism doesn't fit prejudices sometimes. The
thing about "changing the 10 commandments" comes to my mind here.
****

------------------- Ten Commandments as changed by Catholicism ------------------------

1. I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.

2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.

3. Remember thou keep the Sabbath Day.

4. Honor thy Father and thy Mother.

5. Thou shalt not kill.

6. Thou shalt not commit adultery.

7. Thou shalt not steal.

8. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife.

10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods.

-- Catholic Catechism by Peter Cardinal Gasparri,
"published with Ecclesiastical approval"
imprimatur of Patrick Cardinal Hayes, Archbishop,
New York. P. J. Kenedy & Sons, 1932.

Catholicism says we need to obey the TC, except that they deleted the 2nd of the 10
so they could use statues & images in worship. Then they split the 10th on coveting
into two commandments so they could still have ten. Refer to the above Catholic list
of the ten, and note how they changed it.

--------------------------- The Actual # 2 of the Ten Commandments ----------------------
"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is
in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God
am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third
and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of
them that love me, and keep my commandments."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

..and THEN they changed the fourth commandment from the seventh day of the week
to the first day of the week. However, the Creator of the heavens and the earth made no
such change in His law.

------------------------------ The Actual # 4 of the Ten Commandments ---------------------
"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy
work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do
any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant,
nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made
heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore
the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Andrew
•R L Measures
2006-07-13 03:38:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Teresita
Post by Stephen Korsman
Why can't you cite official Catholic teaching in context when telling
us what we believe?
Because that dang Catechism doesn't fit prejudices sometimes. The
thing about "changing the 10 commandments" comes to my mind here.
****
------------------- Ten Commandments as changed by Catholicism
------------------------
Post by Andrew
1. I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
3. Remember thou keep the Sabbath Day.
4. Honor thy Father and thy Mother.
5. Thou shalt not kill.
6. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
7. Thou shalt not steal.
8. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods.
-- Catholic Catechism by Peter Cardinal Gasparri,
"published with Ecclesiastical approval"
imprimatur of Patrick Cardinal Hayes, Archbishop,
New York. P. J. Kenedy & Sons, 1932.
Catholicism says we need to obey the TC, except that they deleted the 2nd of the 10
so they could use statues & images in worship. Then they split the 10th on coveting
into two commandments so they could still have ten. Refer to the above Catholic list
of the ten, and note how they changed it.
• RCism also added something interesting to Commandment #8 (bearing false
witness), and that was the "sin of detraction". For example, if an
altar-boy were to disclose something scandalous about an important person
in the local parish, it would supposedly be a violation of #8 even though
it was the god awful truth.
cheers, Andrew
Teresita
2006-07-13 04:40:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by •R L Measures
RCism also added something interesting to Commandment #8 (bearing
false witness), and that was the "sin of detraction". For example,
if an altar-boy were to disclose something scandalous about an
important person in the local parish, it would supposedly be a
violation of #8 even though it was the god awful truth.
Indeed, Andrew, that whole shuffling-the-pedo-priests-around thing (and
also the way lesbians are treated in the Church) is perhaps why my
faith is almost not detectable right now. As a matter of fact, I even
changed my Wikipedia profile to indicate "deism" as my religion at this
time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Endomion
Andrew
2006-07-13 05:04:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Teresita
Post by •R L Measures
RCism also added something interesting to Commandment #8 (bearing
false witness), and that was the "sin of detraction". For example,
if an altar-boy were to disclose something scandalous about an
important person in the local parish, it would supposedly be a
violation of #8 even though it was the god awful truth.
Indeed, Andrew, that whole shuffling-the-pedo-priests-around thing (and
also the way lesbians are treated in the Church) is perhaps why my
faith is almost not detectable right now. As a matter of fact, I even
changed my Wikipedia profile to indicate "deism" as my religion at this
time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Endomion
Regardless of issues in your church (or former church), there is a
God who actually loves you. You may have a direct connection
with Him anytime and all the time.
bam
2006-07-13 14:46:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Teresita
Post by •R L Measures
RCism also added something interesting to Commandment #8 (bearing
false witness), and that was the "sin of detraction". For example,
if an altar-boy were to disclose something scandalous about an
important person in the local parish, it would supposedly be a
violation of #8 even though it was the god awful truth.
Indeed, Andrew, that whole shuffling-the-pedo-priests-around thing (and
also the way lesbians are treated in the Church) is perhaps why my
faith is almost not detectable right now. As a matter of fact, I even
changed my Wikipedia profile to indicate "deism" as my religion at this
time.
Perhaps you should try Degenerate Moderns or Libido Dominandi.

http://www.culturewars.com

BAM
Teresita
2006-07-14 01:13:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by bam
Post by Teresita
Indeed, Andrew, that whole shuffling-the-pedo-priests-around thing
(and also the way lesbians are treated in the Church) is perhaps
why my faith is almost not detectable right now. As a matter of
fact, I even changed my Wikipedia profile to indicate "deism" as my
religion at this time.
Perhaps you should try Degenerate Moderns or Libido Dominandi.
I forgive you BAM because you are good at what you do otherwise.
bam
2006-07-14 02:37:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Teresita
Post by bam
Post by Teresita
Indeed, Andrew, that whole shuffling-the-pedo-priests-around thing
(and also the way lesbians are treated in the Church) is perhaps
why my faith is almost not detectable right now. As a matter of
fact, I even changed my Wikipedia profile to indicate "deism" as my
religion at this time.
Perhaps you should try Degenerate Moderns or Libido Dominandi.
I forgive you BAM because you are good at what you do otherwise.
Oh well - you can lead a horse to water............

BAM
Andrew
2006-07-13 05:31:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Teresita
Post by Stephen Korsman
Why can't you cite official Catholic teaching in context when telling
us what we believe?
Because that dang Catechism doesn't fit prejudices sometimes. The
thing about "changing the 10 commandments" comes to my mind here.
****
----------- Ten Commandments as changed by Catholicism -------------
1. I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
3. Remember thou keep the Sabbath Day.
4. Honor thy Father and thy Mother.
5. Thou shalt not kill.
6. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
7. Thou shalt not steal.
8. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods.
-- Catholic Catechism by Peter Cardinal Gasparri,
"published with Ecclesiastical approval"
imprimatur of Patrick Cardinal Hayes, Archbishop,
New York. P. J. Kenedy & Sons, 1932.
Catholicism says we need to obey the TC, except that they deleted the 2nd of the 10
so they could use statues & images in worship. Then they split the 10th on coveting
into two commandments so they could still have ten. Refer to the above Catholic list
of the ten, and note how they changed it.
. RCism also added something interesting to Commandment #8 (bearing false
witness), and that was the "sin of detraction". For example, if an
altar-boy were to disclose something scandalous about an important person
in the local parish, it would supposedly be a violation of #8 even though
it was the god awful truth.
cheers, Andrew
"The sin of detraction is injuring the good name of another by revealing
true faults." http://www.dioceseoflincoln.org/purple/sin/index.htm

Perhaps they invented this one in attempt to keep a lid on the scandals.
•R L Measures
2006-07-13 10:55:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Andrew
Post by Teresita
Post by Stephen Korsman
Why can't you cite official Catholic teaching in context when telling
us what we believe?
Because that dang Catechism doesn't fit prejudices sometimes. The
thing about "changing the 10 commandments" comes to my mind here.
****
----------- Ten Commandments as changed by Catholicism -------------
1. I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
3. Remember thou keep the Sabbath Day.
4. Honor thy Father and thy Mother.
5. Thou shalt not kill.
6. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
7. Thou shalt not steal.
8. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods.
-- Catholic Catechism by Peter Cardinal Gasparri,
"published with Ecclesiastical approval"
imprimatur of Patrick Cardinal Hayes, Archbishop,
New York. P. J. Kenedy & Sons, 1932.
Catholicism says we need to obey the TC, except that they deleted the 2nd of the 10
so they could use statues & images in worship. Then they split the 10th on coveting
into two commandments so they could still have ten. Refer to the above Catholic list
of the ten, and note how they changed it.
. RCism also added something interesting to Commandment #8 (bearing false
witness), and that was the "sin of detraction". For example, if an
altar-boy were to disclose something scandalous about an important person
in the local parish, it would supposedly be a violation of #8 even though
it was the god awful truth.
cheers, Andrew
"The sin of detraction is injuring the good name of another by revealing
true faults." http://www.dioceseoflincoln.org/purple/sin/index.htm
Perhaps they invented this one in attempt to keep a lid on the scandals.
*** Indeed. The CCD manual that contained the "sin of detraction" add-on
was published in 1958, decades before the altar-boy buggery scandal hit
the fan, but my guess is that God's Holy Church realized what was
sometimes going on during altar-boy stay-overs in the RECTory.
bam
2006-07-13 14:48:34 UTC
Permalink
How come your Ten Commandments doesn't agree with the Jewish Ten
Commandments?

BAM
Post by Andrew
Post by Andrew
Post by Teresita
Post by Stephen Korsman
Why can't you cite official Catholic teaching in context when telling
us what we believe?
Because that dang Catechism doesn't fit prejudices sometimes. The
thing about "changing the 10 commandments" comes to my mind here.
****
----------- Ten Commandments as changed by Catholicism -------------
1. I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
3. Remember thou keep the Sabbath Day.
4. Honor thy Father and thy Mother.
5. Thou shalt not kill.
6. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
7. Thou shalt not steal.
8. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods.
-- Catholic Catechism by Peter Cardinal Gasparri,
"published with Ecclesiastical approval"
imprimatur of Patrick Cardinal Hayes, Archbishop,
New York. P. J. Kenedy & Sons, 1932.
Catholicism says we need to obey the TC, except that they deleted the 2nd of the 10
so they could use statues & images in worship. Then they split the 10th on coveting
into two commandments so they could still have ten. Refer to the above Catholic list
of the ten, and note how they changed it.
. RCism also added something interesting to Commandment #8 (bearing false
witness), and that was the "sin of detraction". For example, if an
altar-boy were to disclose something scandalous about an important person
in the local parish, it would supposedly be a violation of #8 even though
it was the god awful truth.
cheers, Andrew
"The sin of detraction is injuring the good name of another by revealing
true faults." http://www.dioceseoflincoln.org/purple/sin/index.htm
Perhaps they invented this one in attempt to keep a lid on the scandals.
Stephen Korsman
2006-07-13 17:53:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by bam
How come your Ten Commandments doesn't agree with the Jewish Ten
Commandments?
Andrew knows the following:

1. Catholicism has the full version of the 10 Commandments in her Bible
2. Catholicism has the full version of the 10 Commandments in the CCC
3. Catholicism abbreviates the 10 Commandments for easy memorisation
4. We consider idols to be false gods, and therefore classify that as one
commandment
5. The Bible does not give the numbering
6. Adventism does not consider the numbering to be important
7. The Jews number the commandments on idols and false gods as one
commandment, like Catholics
8. Nothing has been deleted from the full versions
9. The Bible shows that bowing is a sign of respect that is not limited to
God alone
10. The Bible shows that God commanded certain statues to be made
11. English words can have different meanings, and different degrees of
meaning (love, Sabbath, etc)

Andrew refuses to discuss the following:

1. All 11 of the above points
2. Whether or not summarising is acceptable or seen by God as something bad
3. The fact that Catholics do not worship statues
4. The fact that Catholics do not worship Mary and the angels and the saints
5. The fact that worship is a mental and spiritual act, not a function of
body posture

Instead he continues to claim that Catholics worship Mary - he uses a text
that uses the word in an archaic way, and pretends it is used in the sense
of worship given to a divinity, even though he knows he is misrepresenting
what it means by interpreting it his way.

Instead he continues to claim that Catholicism has changed the commandments,
and deleted one, in spite of being shown where in the Catechism and where in
the Bible the full texts are, and how other denominations abbreviate the
commandments.

Instead he continues to say that bowing is forbidden as a body posture,
because that's the only way he can criticise Catholic practice. One would
think his own religion had a legalistic code of body posture prohibition and
recommendation.

Andrew won't discuss these issues because discussing Catholicism rationally
and honestly would leave him without an avenue to attack the Catholic faith.
So instead he continues to make such claims, and avoids all discussion with
those who are able to show him why he is wrong.

His attack on the Catholic faith is not based on truth, or on facts.

If he is going to continue to fight dirty, his propaganda needs to be
continuously shown to be just that - propaganda, and not fact.

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za
Post by bam
BAM
Post by Andrew
Post by Andrew
Post by Teresita
Post by Stephen Korsman
Why can't you cite official Catholic teaching in context when telling
us what we believe?
Because that dang Catechism doesn't fit prejudices sometimes. The
thing about "changing the 10 commandments" comes to my mind here.
****
----------- Ten Commandments as changed by Catholicism -------------
1. I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
3. Remember thou keep the Sabbath Day.
4. Honor thy Father and thy Mother.
5. Thou shalt not kill.
6. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
7. Thou shalt not steal.
8. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods.
-- Catholic Catechism by Peter Cardinal Gasparri,
"published with Ecclesiastical approval"
imprimatur of Patrick Cardinal Hayes, Archbishop,
New York. P. J. Kenedy & Sons, 1932.
Catholicism says we need to obey the TC, except that they deleted the 2nd of the 10
so they could use statues & images in worship. Then they split the
10th
Post by bam
Post by Andrew
Post by Andrew
on coveting
into two commandments so they could still have ten. Refer to the above
Catholic list
of the ten, and note how they changed it.
. RCism also added something interesting to Commandment #8 (bearing false
witness), and that was the "sin of detraction". For example, if an
altar-boy were to disclose something scandalous about an important person
in the local parish, it would supposedly be a violation of #8 even though
it was the god awful truth.
cheers, Andrew
"The sin of detraction is injuring the good name of another by revealing
true faults." http://www.dioceseoflincoln.org/purple/sin/index.htm
Perhaps they invented this one in attempt to keep a lid on the scandals.
bam
2006-07-13 19:17:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by bam
How come your Ten Commandments doesn't agree with the Jewish Ten
Commandments?
1. Catholicism has the full version of the 10 Commandments in her Bible
2. Catholicism has the full version of the 10 Commandments in the CCC
3. Catholicism abbreviates the 10 Commandments for easy memorisation
4. We consider idols to be false gods, and therefore classify that as one
commandment
5. The Bible does not give the numbering
6. Adventism does not consider the numbering to be important
7. The Jews number the commandments on idols and false gods as one
commandment, like Catholics
8. Nothing has been deleted from the full versions
9. The Bible shows that bowing is a sign of respect that is not limited to
God alone
10. The Bible shows that God commanded certain statues to be made
11. English words can have different meanings, and different degrees of
meaning (love, Sabbath, etc)
1. All 11 of the above points
2. Whether or not summarising is acceptable or seen by God as something bad
3. The fact that Catholics do not worship statues
4. The fact that Catholics do not worship Mary and the angels and the saints
5. The fact that worship is a mental and spiritual act, not a function of
body posture
Instead he continues to claim that Catholics worship Mary - he uses a text
that uses the word in an archaic way, and pretends it is used in the sense
of worship given to a divinity, even though he knows he is misrepresenting
what it means by interpreting it his way.
Instead he continues to claim that Catholicism has changed the
commandments,
and deleted one, in spite of being shown where in the Catechism and where in
the Bible the full texts are, and how other denominations abbreviate the
commandments.
Instead he continues to say that bowing is forbidden as a body posture,
because that's the only way he can criticise Catholic practice. One would
think his own religion had a legalistic code of body posture prohibition and
recommendation.
Andrew won't discuss these issues because discussing Catholicism rationally
and honestly would leave him without an avenue to attack the Catholic faith.
So instead he continues to make such claims, and avoids all discussion with
those who are able to show him why he is wrong.
His attack on the Catholic faith is not based on truth, or on facts.
If he is going to continue to fight dirty, his propaganda needs to be
continuously shown to be just that - propaganda, and not fact.
Yes - or as the russkies used to call it - agitprop.

BAM
Andrew
2006-07-13 19:16:56 UTC
Permalink
How come your Ten Commandments doesn't agree with the Jewish Ten Commandments?
BAM
Does your?
Stephen Korsman
2006-07-13 21:03:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
How come your Ten Commandments doesn't agree with the Jewish Ten Commandments?
BAM
Does your?
You tell us, Andrew. And give your reasons why. Please address the
following:

Andrew knows the following:

1. Catholicism has the full version of the 10 Commandments in her Bible
2. Catholicism has the full version of the 10 Commandments in the CCC
3. Catholicism abbreviates the 10 Commandments for easy memorisation
4. We consider idols to be false gods, and therefore classify that as one
commandment
5. The Bible does not give the numbering
6. Adventism does not consider the numbering to be important
7. The Jews number the commandments on idols and false gods as one
commandment, like Catholics
8. Nothing has been deleted from the full versions
9. The Bible shows that bowing is a sign of respect that is not limited to
God alone
10. The Bible shows that God commanded certain statues to be made
11. English words can have different meanings, and different degrees of
meaning (love, Sabbath, etc)

Andrew refuses to discuss the following:

1. All 11 of the above points
2. Whether or not summarising is acceptable or seen by God as something bad
3. The fact that Catholics do not worship statues
4. The fact that Catholics do not worship Mary and the angels and the saints
5. The fact that worship is a mental and spiritual act, not a function of
body posture

Instead he continues to claim that Catholics worship Mary - he uses a text
that uses the word in an archaic way, and pretends it is used in the sense
of worship given to a divinity, even though he knows he is misrepresenting
what it means by interpreting it his way.

Instead he continues to claim that Catholicism has changed the commandments,
and deleted one, in spite of being shown where in the Catechism and where in
the Bible the full texts are, and how other denominations abbreviate the
commandments.

Instead he continues to say that bowing is forbidden as a body posture,
because that's the only way he can criticise Catholic practice. One would
think his own religion had a legalistic code of body posture prohibition and
recommendation.

Andrew won't discuss these issues because discussing Catholicism rationally
and honestly would leave him without an avenue to attack the Catholic faith.
So instead he continues to make such claims, and avoids all discussion with
those who are able to show him why he is wrong.

His attack on the Catholic faith is not based on truth, or on facts.

If he is going to continue to fight dirty, his propaganda needs to be
continuously shown to be just that - propaganda, and not fact.

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za
Andrew
2006-07-14 01:59:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by bam
How come your Ten Commandments doesn't
agree with the Jewish Ten Commandments?
BAM
Does yours?
You tell us, Andrew.
OK. This site has the Jewish understanding of the Ten Commandments
in column # 1. Column # 3 lists the Ten Commandments as have been
~CHANGED~ by the RCC.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/command.htm



Andrew
bam
2006-07-14 02:38:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
How come your Ten Commandments doesn't agree with the Jewish Ten Commandments?
BAM
Does your?
Ours doesn't have to. Jesus gave us infallibility.

BAM
Stephen Korsman
2006-07-13 14:48:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Andrew
Post by Teresita
Post by Stephen Korsman
Why can't you cite official Catholic teaching in context when telling
us what we believe?
Because that dang Catechism doesn't fit prejudices sometimes. The
thing about "changing the 10 commandments" comes to my mind here.
****
----------- Ten Commandments as changed by Catholicism -------------
1. I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
3. Remember thou keep the Sabbath Day.
4. Honor thy Father and thy Mother.
5. Thou shalt not kill.
6. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
7. Thou shalt not steal.
8. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods.
-- Catholic Catechism by Peter Cardinal Gasparri,
"published with Ecclesiastical approval"
imprimatur of Patrick Cardinal Hayes, Archbishop,
New York. P. J. Kenedy & Sons, 1932.
Catholicism says we need to obey the TC, except that they deleted the 2nd of the 10
so they could use statues & images in worship. Then they split the 10th on coveting
into two commandments so they could still have ten. Refer to the above Catholic list
of the ten, and note how they changed it.
. RCism also added something interesting to Commandment #8 (bearing false
witness), and that was the "sin of detraction". For example, if an
altar-boy were to disclose something scandalous about an important person
in the local parish, it would supposedly be a violation of #8 even though
it was the god awful truth.
cheers, Andrew
"The sin of detraction is injuring the good name of another by revealing
true faults." http://www.dioceseoflincoln.org/purple/sin/index.htm
Perhaps they invented this one in attempt to keep a lid on the scandals.
It's called gossip. To think that the Catholic faith supports such scandals
is absurd. Individual Catholics, just like individual Adventists, do not
always do the right thing. But the faith doesn't claim it's right.

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za
Teresita
2006-07-13 04:36:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
------------------- Ten Commandments as changed by Catholicism
I was going to jump on this one, but then I said, no, I already covered
this.
Stephen Korsman
2006-07-13 05:14:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Teresita
Post by Stephen Korsman
Why can't you cite official Catholic teaching in context when telling
us what we believe?
Because that dang Catechism doesn't fit prejudices sometimes. The
thing about "changing the 10 commandments" comes to my mind here.
****
------------------- Ten Commandments as changed by
Catholicism ------------------------
Post by Andrew
1. I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
3. Remember thou keep the Sabbath Day.
4. Honor thy Father and thy Mother.
5. Thou shalt not kill.
6. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
7. Thou shalt not steal.
8. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods.
-- Catholic Catechism by Peter Cardinal Gasparri,
"published with Ecclesiastical approval"
imprimatur of Patrick Cardinal Hayes, Archbishop,
New York. P. J. Kenedy & Sons, 1932.
Catholicism says we need to obey the TC, except that they deleted the 2nd of the 10
so they could use statues & images in worship. Then they split the 10th on coveting
into two commandments so they could still have ten. Refer to the above Catholic list
of the ten, and note how they changed it.
--------------------------- The Actual # 2 of the Ten
Commandments ----------------------
Post by Andrew
"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is
Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God
am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third
and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of
them that love me, and keep my commandments."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------
Post by Andrew
..and THEN they changed the fourth commandment from the seventh day of the week
to the first day of the week. However, the Creator of the heavens and the earth made no
such change in His law.
------------------------------ The Actual # 4 of the Ten
Commandments ---------------------
Post by Andrew
"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy
work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do
any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant,
nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made
heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore
the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------

Nobody has changed anything, Andrew. You've been shown the evidence that
the commandments are quoted in FULL in the CCC. You've had it explained to
you that for easy memorisation, they get abbreviated by all denominations,
including yours.

Which way you number them is irrelevant, because the Bible does not number
them.

You have refused to discuss each of these points, because by being
reasonable and honest with the facts, you can no longer attack the Catholic
Church.

Why is your numbering system the only correct one, Andrew? Even your own
denomination tells us that it's not -
http://biblicalresearch.gc.adventist.org/Biblequestions/countingcommand.htm

Why can people not abbreviate them for easy reference, Andrew?

I don't think you can answer those.

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za
Stephen Korsman
2006-07-13 05:14:55 UTC
Permalink
The use of statues, pictures, and other icons in worship

To me this is a fairly simple issue, and the problem lies in Protestant
misinterpretation of the second commandment and of what the Bible says. It
can be solved using the Bible alone, therefore I will deal with it first.
The way I see it, the second commandment is conditional - we may make
statues, pictures, etc., but we may not worship them. And since Catholics do
not worship the images in their churches and homes, they are not breaking
any of God's commandments by using those images.

For convenience, I will quote Exodus 20:4-5a (RSV) here: You shall not make
for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven
above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the
earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the LORD your God
am a jealous God ...

This verse has been interpreted in two ways - no images may be made at all,
and images may be made but not worshipped.

Common sense and experience tells us that it is the second interpretation
that is the correct one - we may make images that are not worshipped. If the
second commandment were absolute, it would be a sin to make photographs, put
pictures in books, make statues of non-religious people. Most people (there
are exceptions) do not go to that extreme.

Some people say, okay, but religious statues, pictures and icons are not
allowed. Once again, most Protestants will disagree with that, at least in
practice. Most Protestant Churches allow illustrated Bibles - these contain
pictures of the prophets, saints, and even depictions of God like those
found in Daniel 7:9, and of course pictures of Jesus, the icon (eikwn) of
God in flesh - see I Cor 11:7. The Bible is also clear about the making of
such graven images - it is permissible. In fact God himself commanded it -
see Exodus 25:18-22, 26:1,31 (God commands statues and images of cherubim to
be made), Num. 21:8-9 (God commands a statue of a snake to be made for
religious purposes), I Kings 6:23-29,35, 7:25,29,36, I Chron 28:18-19, Ezek
41:15 (graven images of the sea, oxen, palm trees, cherubim, lions).

So all I can conclude from the above passages is that images are allowed,
even in a religious context such as the Temple, as long as they are not
worshipped.

Some objections can be made - the cherubim over the Ark would not be seen by
many people, and therefore would not be worshipped. But this ignores the
fact that while the ark was being carried around on the journeys of the
people of Israel before it came to rest in the Temple, many people would see
it. The images of oxen, lions, etc. would be seen by the average Israelite.
And finally, the image of the snake was an image that God said the general
public had to go to and look at in order to be healed of snake bite. The
common Protestant objection to that today would be that it is only an image,
it has no special powers, no faith in the image can save you, not even from
snake bite, and that to have such faith that looking to the image can indeed
save you would constitute idolatry. However, God believed differently. He
used this image to test the people's faith in him, not the image. Likewise
today, when we look to an image, it is not the image of Christ on the cross
we rely on or pray to or worship, but Christ himself. Same as with the
snake, the same sort of respect.

The fact is that the people of Israel at that time were very much tempted to
worship a piece of wood or brass that represented something, especially
calves. The commandment was designed to stop them replacing their true God
with false gods, and was not designed to keep their religious art forms
limited to abstract painting. That sort of temptation is no longer an issue
in modern culture - people don't want to worship a statue, they are aware
that it is just a piece of plaster or wood. They worship in front of the
statue, as the ancient Israelites showed their faith to God in front of a
statue.

An objection that still often comes up is that we bow in front of this
statue, and this appears to be forbidden by the second commandment. However,
a look into what the Bible says about bowing gives a different picture.

There are certain verses that show people bowing down to other people or
angels, and the person being honoured in this way stops the action, e.g. Rev
22:8-9. This is because the person realised that this person bowing down was
doing so in an unfit way - he was worshipping him, which was wrong. That is
why the action was stopped and corrected.

However, when bowing down to a person and not intending it as worship, but
only out of respect, one is not sinning at all. I Sam 25:41 shows a woman
bowing to David, and nowhere is this condemned. The LXX uses the Greek word
proskuneo (proskunho) for both this action of respect as well as worship of
God. See also the angels in Gen. 18:2-3 (LXX), and the master in Matt 18:26.

So we have concluded the following:
- The Bible condemns worship of images, but not the making of images
- The Bible condemns worship of angels and people, but not the honouring of
them by bowing to them

That leaves us with the fact that it is not a sin to bow to an angel or
saint in honour of him/her. And if we do not bow to their statue, but rather
to them, that is not sinful. In fact it is something the Bible is completely
silent on - i.e. bowing to saints in front of images of them. If the image
is not sinful, the bowing is not sinful, then what is the problem with what
Catholics do ?

One further thing to note is that Catholics often seem to think of certain
statues or other items as holy, to give them respect. Most notable of these
is the Turin Shroud, which some claim is the burial shroud of Jesus.
Protestants seem to think that honouring the bones of a holy man is wrong,
or that honouring the tomb or belongings or relics of a holy man is wrong.
To be more correct, Catholics worship God and honour the saints in the
presence of these holy items, and do not honour them directly - that would
be pointless. But Protestants still think it is as pointless to worship in
the presence of a saint's bones as it is to worship in the presence of a
sack of flour. However, that is where Catholics and the Bible see
differently to the Protestants.

The Protestants have fallen prey to the heresy of the 1st century Gnostics.
They believed that all that was physical was evil, and that good was found
only in the spiritual. Hence they rejected the use of icons and symbols -
physical, tangible means of worship (note: not objects of worship.) The
consequence of this was that they rejected the idea that Jesus the physical
man was actually God - the main heresy for which the Apostle John scolds
them in his epistles, found in the Bible.

Look at scriptures like II Kings 13:20-21 (Elisha's bones perform a
miracle), Matt 9:20-22 (the woman believed if she just touched Jesus'
clothes she would be cured - and was cured), Acts 5:15-16 (Peter's shadow is
seen as holy and miraculous), and Acts 19:11-12 (Paul's handkerchiefs are
sent around to perform miracles on their own). Here we can see cases where
physical objects carry with them miraculous power. Nowhere does the Bible
tell us that such events are wrong, that the use of miraculous bones or
objects is sacrilegious - in fact Acts 19:11-12 tells us that the miracles
were organised by God himself. So it is quite understandable why Catholics,
like the early Christians, see holiness on physical objects, and think it
appropriate to give thanks to God for letting such holiness touch their
lives by giving such items respect, and even a place to be seen and used in
the churches and homes of the faithful.
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za
Stephen Korsman
2006-07-13 05:14:55 UTC
Permalink
Has anyone really removed anything from the 10 Commandments ?

Here is an actual question I received, written by a Seventh Day Adventist:
"NIV, KJV, NKJV, RSV etc. have all Gods Commandments intact. HOWEVER, the
Catholic Catechism has totally deleted the 2nd commandment, and split the
10th into 2 to make up 10 commandments. They CHANGED Gods Law!!!!"

Actually, that is far from true. The 2nd commandment was not deleted - it's
still very much there. The words that the Protestants call the 2nd
commandment, are found in the first commandment of the Catholics. Let me go
into a bit more detail here. A quick word before that - go and look at your
1st commandment - it says "I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other
gods before me." That command to have no other gods includes, obviously,
carved gods, painted gods. Why must Protestants split this up into 2
commandments ? I'll tell you why.

If you want to split up the commandments into the smallest commandments
possible, there are 11 commandments:

1. No other gods.
2. No idols.
3. No blasphemy.
4. Keep the Sabbath holy.
5. Honour your parents.
6. Do not kill.
7. Do not commit adultery.
8. Do not steal.
9. Do not lie.
10. Do not covet your neighbour's wife.
11. Do not cover your neighbour's goods.

Logically 10 and 11 can be fused into one commandment - "Do not covet."
Logically 1 and 2 can be fused into one commantment - "no false gods,
including idol gods which are also false gods."

(10 and 11 are one mixed together in Exodus, but listed separately in
Deuteronomy.)

Here is a quotation from the KJV showing exactly how Catholics divide up the
commandments:

Commandment #1
Exod 20:2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of
Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
Exod 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Exod 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of
any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that
is in the water under the earth:
Exod 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the
LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the
children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
Exod 20:6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my
commandments.

Commandment #2
Exod 20:7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the
LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

Commandment #3
Exod 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

So we can also have 11 commandments, or 9 commandments. It is interesting to
note that the number 10 was given in the Bible, but not precisely which
words went with each number. The Jews used a version of the commandments
that listed 10 and 11 together, while the early Christians chose to use a
different list used by another Jewish minority. Both lists came from
Judaism, the one was just more popular than the other. Both, however,
contained the full text of the commandments, not leaving any out.

Later the Catholic Church was divided on the issue. Origen used the
"Protestant" set, while Augustine favoured the "Catholic" set. Mainstream
Judaism adopted the Protestant set. Everyone kept the same commandments,
though.

Later, the Catholic Church decided to adopt BOTH versions as official
versions, and that is still the case today ... something not many people
know, but which can be verified by doing research into the Eastern Rite
Catholic Churches. To simplify things, it is the western (latin) part of the
Catholic Church that uses the "Catholic" or "Western" ten commandments, and
the eastern part of the Catholic Church that uses the "Protestant" or
"Eastern" ten commandments ... long before any Protestants came along. Both
parts of the Catholic Church - east and west - fall under the authority of
the pope - they are one denomination, although different patriarchates. It
is thus only in the west that Protestants have become upset by the different
order of the ten commandments. In the east, Catholics and Protestants and
Orthodox use exactly the same sequence of commandments !!!

So, no, we did not change God's law, we just list the wording differently to
what you do. And also, not all Catholics do that. Many Catholics use EXACTLY
the same ten commandments as you Adventists and Protestants do !

Not one of the ten commandments has been edited, rejected, or changed by the
Catholic Church. However, for the sake of making memorisation of the crux of
the commandment easier, the longer ones have been abbreviated. I have seen
SDA listings of the 10 commandments, including the 4th one - most of them
read "Keep the Sabbath day holy" or something like that. They do NOT list
the full 4th commandment, so it is very unfair and hypocritical to expect
the RCC to do what is not expected of the SDA Church.
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za
N***@no.spam
2006-07-13 19:30:28 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 07:14:55 +0200, "Stephen Korsman"
Post by Stephen Korsman
Has anyone really removed anything from the 10 Commandments ?
Yes -- you romanists- you changed two and three in order to make false
allowances for your IDOLS.

Don't even think of bothering to deny it.
Andrew
2006-07-13 23:36:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by N***@no.spam
Post by Stephen Korsman
Has anyone really removed anything from the 10 Commandments ?
Yes -- you romanists- you changed two and three in order to make false
allowances for your IDOLS.
Don't even think of bothering to deny it.
This official Catholic site lists the TC as recorded in Exodus 20 in column 1. The
list from Deut 5 is in column 2. And column # 3 lists the Ten Commandments as
have been audaciously ~CHANGED~ by the RCC.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/command.htm

In this list it is glaringly obvious that the ENTIRE SECOND COMMANDMENT
pertaining to the making of images and **bowing down to them in worship** has
been DELETED in the third column! All honest Catholics will want to investigate
this matter and meditate on it.....before they bow dow to any more graven images.


"You shall have no other gods before me.
You shall not make for yourself a graven image,
or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above,
or that is in the earth beneath,
or that is in the water under the earth;
you shall not bow down to them or serve them; <-------- All of this has been deletet.
for I the LORD your God am a jealous God,
visiting the iniquity of the fathers
upon the children to the third and the fourth
generation of those who hate me,
but showing steadfast love to thousands of those
who love me and keep my commandments."




Andrew
CB
2006-07-14 02:40:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by N***@no.spam
Post by Stephen Korsman
Has anyone really removed anything from the 10 Commandments ?
Yes -- you romanists- you changed two and three in order to make false
allowances for your IDOLS.
Don't even think of bothering to deny it.
This official Catholic site lists the TC as recorded in Exodus 20 in column 1. The
list from Deut 5 is in column 2. And column # 3 lists the Ten Commandments as
have been audaciously ~CHANGED~ by the RCC.
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/command.htm
In this list it is glaringly obvious that the ENTIRE SECOND COMMANDMENT
pertaining to the making of images and **bowing down to them in worship** has
been DELETED in the third column! All honest Catholics will want to investigate
this matter and meditate on it.....before they bow dow to any more graven images.
HONEST CATHOLICS?
Sounds like an oxymoron to me.
Post by Andrew
"You shall have no other gods before me.
You shall not make for yourself a graven image,
or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above,
or that is in the earth beneath,
or that is in the water under the earth;
you shall not bow down to them or serve them; <-------- All of this has been deletet.
for I the LORD your God am a jealous God,
visiting the iniquity of the fathers
upon the children to the third and the fourth
generation of those who hate me,
but showing steadfast love to thousands of those
who love me and keep my commandments."
Andrew
Acts 26:8 "Why is it considered incredible among you
people if God does raise the dead?
Monte Cassino
2006-07-14 02:47:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by CB
Post by Andrew
Post by N***@no.spam
Post by Stephen Korsman
Has anyone really removed anything from the 10 Commandments ?
Yes -- you romanists- you changed two and three in order to make false
allowances for your IDOLS.
Don't even think of bothering to deny it.
This official Catholic site lists the TC as recorded in Exodus 20 in column 1. The
list from Deut 5 is in column 2. And column # 3 lists the Ten Commandments as
have been audaciously ~CHANGED~ by the RCC.
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/command.htm
In this list it is glaringly obvious that the ENTIRE SECOND COMMANDMENT
pertaining to the making of images and **bowing down to them in worship** has
been DELETED in the third column! All honest Catholics will want to investigate
this matter and meditate on it.....before they bow dow to any more graven images.
HONEST CATHOLICS?
Sounds like an oxymoron to me.
...written, no doubt, in the spirit of true Christian charity.

MC

bam
2006-07-14 02:39:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by N***@no.spam
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 07:14:55 +0200, "Stephen Korsman"
Post by Stephen Korsman
Has anyone really removed anything from the 10 Commandments ?
Yes -- you romanists- you changed two and three in order to make false
allowances for your IDOLS.
Don't even think of bothering to deny it.
Then how come the Protestant Ten Commandments doesn't agree with the Jews'?

BAM
duke
2006-07-13 18:25:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
------------------- Ten Commandments as changed by Catholicism ------------------------
1. I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
3. Remember thou keep the Sabbath Day.
4. Honor thy Father and thy Mother.
5. Thou shalt not kill.
6. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
7. Thou shalt not steal.
8. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods.
Catholicism says we need to obey the TC, except that they deleted the 2nd of the 10
so they could use statues & images in worship.
Sorry, they are not numbered, and the first above covers that.

Exodus 20 (New International Version)

The Ten Commandments
1 And God spoke all these words:
2 "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of
slavery.
3 "You shall have no other gods before [a] me.
4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven
above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down
to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing
the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of
those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who
love me and keep my commandments.
7 "You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not
hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.
8 "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and
do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On
it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your
manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. 11
For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that
is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the
Sabbath day and made it holy.
12 "Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land
the LORD your God is giving you.
13 "You shall not murder.
14 "You shall not commit adultery.
15 "You shall not steal.
16 "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.
17 "You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your
neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything
that belongs to your neighbor."

Better luck next time.







duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Stephen Korsman
2006-07-13 21:03:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Andrew
------------------- Ten Commandments as changed by
Catholicism ------------------------
Post by duke
Post by Andrew
1. I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
3. Remember thou keep the Sabbath Day.
4. Honor thy Father and thy Mother.
5. Thou shalt not kill.
6. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
7. Thou shalt not steal.
8. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods.
Catholicism says we need to obey the TC, except that they deleted the 2nd of the 10
so they could use statues & images in worship.
Sorry, they are not numbered, and the first above covers that.
Exodus 20 (New International Version)
The Ten Commandments
2 "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of
slavery.
3 "You shall have no other gods before [a] me.
4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven
above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down
to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing
the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of
those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who
love me and keep my commandments.
7 "You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not
hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.
8 "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and
do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On
it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor y
our
Post by duke
manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. 11
For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that
is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the
Sabbath day and made it holy.
12 "Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land
the LORD your God is giving you.
13 "You shall not murder.
14 "You shall not commit adultery.
15 "You shall not steal.
16 "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.
17 "You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your
neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything
that belongs to your neighbor."
Better luck next time.
Andrew knows the following:

1. Catholicism has the full version of the 10 Commandments in her Bible
2. Catholicism has the full version of the 10 Commandments in the CCC
3. Catholicism abbreviates the 10 Commandments for easy memorisation
4. We consider idols to be false gods, and therefore classify that as one
commandment
5. The Bible does not give the numbering
6. Adventism does not consider the numbering to be important
7. The Jews number the commandments on idols and false gods as one
commandment, like Catholics
8. Nothing has been deleted from the full versions
9. The Bible shows that bowing is a sign of respect that is not limited to
God alone
10. The Bible shows that God commanded certain statues to be made
11. English words can have different meanings, and different degrees of
meaning (love, Sabbath, etc)

Andrew refuses to discuss the following:

1. All 11 of the above points
2. Whether or not summarising is acceptable or seen by God as something bad
3. The fact that Catholics do not worship statues
4. The fact that Catholics do not worship Mary and the angels and the saints
5. The fact that worship is a mental and spiritual act, not a function of
body posture

Instead he continues to claim that Catholics worship Mary - he uses a text
that uses the word in an archaic way, and pretends it is used in the sense
of worship given to a divinity, even though he knows he is misrepresenting
what it means by interpreting it his way.

Instead he continues to claim that Catholicism has changed the commandments,
and deleted one, in spite of being shown where in the Catechism and where in
the Bible the full texts are, and how other denominations abbreviate the
commandments.

Instead he continues to say that bowing is forbidden as a body posture,
because that's the only way he can criticise Catholic practice. One would
think his own religion had a legalistic code of body posture prohibition and
recommendation.

Andrew won't discuss these issues because discussing Catholicism rationally
and honestly would leave him without an avenue to attack the Catholic faith.
So instead he continues to make such claims, and avoids all discussion with
those who are able to show him why he is wrong.

His attack on the Catholic faith is not based on truth, or on facts.

If he is going to continue to fight dirty, his propaganda needs to be
continuously shown to be just that - propaganda, and not fact.

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za
Loading...