Printable View
you can say this, and i will take it no further than your personal interpretation. can you show me that this is more than just a personal interpretation?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kephrem
(i am aware of dinosaur's being mentioned, it is in the book of Job, but that verse does not challenge my theory).
Like I said, and to quote you, its all 'mans vain opinion'. There are different ways you can interpret almost every Bible passage so who are you to think that your 'opinion' is the right one?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kephrem
The more you say, the more close minded you reveal yourself to be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koolish
The Adam that I'm referring to here and who everyone thinks they're familiar with was not the first man according to the book of Genesis, and this can be proven first by understanding Genesis 4:14. Here Cain (being a fugitive) feared that ''EVERY ONE that would find him would slay him''. The next verse (Genesis 4:15) we read of the Most High putting prohibitions on people that happen to bump heads with Cain. It says in Genesis 4:15 ''Therefore WHOSOEVER slayeth Cain vengeance shall be taken on HIM''....then it further says that the Most High put a mark on Cain ''lest ANY finding him should kill him''.Quote:
1) Adam wasn't the first man.
If you would continue reading to Genesis 4:17 and then skip to verses 25-26 the whole theory taught for centuries by the churches that Adam, Eve, Cain, and Abel were the only people on earth would be utterly exposed as a LIE.
''And Cain knew his WIFE''..... (Genesis 4:17)
''And to Seth, to him there was also born a son''... (obviously men don't give birth, it's saying he, like Cain, wifed up one of the daughters of the other people and had a son -- Genesis 4:25 &26 )
Gen 1:26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.Quote:
2) Adam was a nation of people.
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
This verse here will prove none of what I said is my interpretation and that you havn't really been taught or have truely studied the Bible.
Gen 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, AND CALLED THEIR NAME ADAM, in the day when they were created.
This is point blank saying that a people were called Adam. None of the bullshit churches are teaching this, only the Black Israelites of 125th street, or those groups which are/were offshoots of them.
The Adam mentioned in Genesis the 2nd chapter was a man that was chosen by God (Genesis 2:7) whose given name was the same name of his nation, the nation that he was a part of -- THE ADAMITES. An example I can give is a descendent of Jacob also being named Jacob after his ancestor, after the progenitor of his nation. In other words this Adam (Genesis 2:19) was named after the nation of Adam. (Genesis 1:26-28 with Genesis 5:1-2)
Your theory is not even in the realm of a challenge. The waters of Genesis 1:2 is talking about the primordial elements of space.Quote:
(i am aware of dinosaur's being mentioned, it is in the book of Job, but that verse does not challenge my theory).
additional scriptures:
The original people, nation of Adam i.e. the Adamites, and the chosen man Adam were dark brown skkined people - Genesis 2:7 ''dust of the ground'', Jeremiah 14:4 ''black unto the ground'', Ecclesiasticus 33:10 ''all men are from the ground''.. (in the Authorized King James 1611 edition Apocrypha) The soil of the ground is what it's referring to, the rich black/dark brown soil of the earth.
The Bible wasn't meant to be read like a novel. It's like a puzzle (Isa 28:10), full of parables (Mat 13:13), dark sayings (Psa 49:4), and symbolism. (Genesis 3:1)
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickyTooch
Nah you fool. Tell me how you can interpret thou shalt not be a faggot, and the faggot shall be put to death. Go ahead and try and interpret that one and condemn yourself.
Im sure there would be people out there who would say death may mean a social death. Some passages, like the one you pseudo-mentioned are what would appear to be to the point. But most of them are not so distinct and straightforward.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kephrem
I completely agree with Kephram on his first two points. And Nicky, the bible was never meant to be read in a straightforward manner. Number one, all the books were written by different people at different times. Number two, after all the translations the original text has gone through do you really think that you can gain understanding of this complex piece of work without looking at it in it's original context? And third, within the very text itself the bible tells us to lean not unto our own understanding. Riddles, imagery and metaphor was (and is still) used to try to explain things that the average person was never meant to understand. Just think about this: today human's use less than fifteen percent of our brain mass. The prophets in those times had to have been operating on a different mental plane than we are now. Things we try to seperate and study were never meant to be seperated, so now we look at an incomplete picture and swear that we're looking at the big one.
And Nicky, how can you dispute the gay thing? I could have sworn that Sodom and Gammorah were destroyed because of men trying to know one another (in the biblical sense). There's no way you can show us anything to validify that kind of behavior.
It's silly to believe that people today don't operate on the same level of the people in ancient Palestine. Speak for yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by .5KutSkeleton
http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j1...tansCloset.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Kephrem
Mormon Jesus Says:
http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j1...26a1a882_o.png
Quote:
Originally Posted by .5KutSkeleton
Is there any way you can show us that Homosexuality is wrong without quoting from the bible or any other book for that matter?
CS: so if we're to advanced, how come we still can't explain Stonehenge or even how the pyramids were constructed? The melted sands in Russia? The natural science that the Chinese and ancient citizens of Kemet practice(d)?
I challenge you to show me another species on this planet that naturally exhibits homosexual behavior. One of the main purposes of sexual activity is the continuation of the species. I fail to see how homosexuality promotes this. The family stucture is MAN, WOMAN, and CHILD. MAN and MAN produces no seed...
Why am I explaining how homosexuality is wrong? Are you advocating it?
You can't explain Stonehenge, pyramids, etc. There is someone out there that can.Quote:
Originally Posted by .5KutSkeleton
Monkeys, dogs, snails, exhibit homosexual behavior-the list goes on.
A family structure is not Man woman, child- it's a group of people caring for each other.
A family can consist of- Man, woman, woman, woman, woman, woman, child, child, child, child child, child, child, child, child child, child, child, child.
or
Man, Man, Woman, child, child, child, child, child, child
or
Man, Man, child, child, child, child child, child, child, child
or
Grandpa, Grandma, Grandpa, Grandma, mom, dad, mom, dad, child.
The family structure isn't the issue- it's producing seeds that don't have a family structure to rely on. With all the orphans in the world, we don't have any right in saying they shouldn't be allowed to have loving family- homosexual or not.
As for advocating homosexuality-
Yes, I don't think there's anything wrong with being Gay. Homosexuals are people too, and I've dated several lesbians in the past. I welcome their lifestyles.
the knowledge parts in the Bible are cool
but anybody that believes in almost everything in it will get straight up slap from me...ok, maybe Jesus existed, but he sure wasn't doing miracules everywhere he went....
plus the bible was one of the tools for enslaving other religions :/
A lot of animals display homosexual conduct - but none more then the Human animal.
Genesis 8 - 14
8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so.
10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so.
12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years,..........
Maybe by the middle of 2009 we can all say that we have read the whole Bible
Not all dogs go to heaven... ;(Quote:
Originally Posted by Humanface Huggah
http://content.answers.com/main/cont...GotoHeaven.jpg