sheya joie

Wow, thread resurrection (from 2005)!

By the way, whatever became of the children?

Chess piece - you know, a Black Knight?

Why waste your breath telling them when kicking works so much faster? Certified crazy ol' cat lady here sez:

I was hoping man would come back and explain this, because if I'm seeing what he's talking about in the passage, I sure don't know it. I've been heckled in the past for bringing this up, but I'll do it again because you asked me too. These are the key verses I am referring to. 1 Corinthians 11 3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. 14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? 15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering. Notice how Paul starts verse 3...."I want you to know". He's telling us here to pay attention to what he's saying. Now check out what he says at the end of that verse...."the head of Christ is God". Keep that in mind as we move to the next verse. In verse 4, what is the outcome when a man is praying or prophesying with his head covered?....He dishonors his head. Now verse 14. What is it to a man who has long hair?........It's a dishonor to him. Now look at the end of verse 15. Long hair was given to woman as a means of covering her head. Ok, here's where I usually get shouted down. I think we can all agree that Christ was a man. Flesh and blood, human being. And I think we can also agree that in the time He spent here on earth, He did alot of praying and prophesying. Now here's a question. I don't need any answers to it, I just want you to think about it and do what you feel is right. Would Christ ever do anything to dishonor God, His Father? If He had long hair, that's exactly what He would be doing. That image we all recognize as Christ is a pagan image. It's not a true physical depiction of who He is. People may believe it doesn't matter, but I'm here to tell you, it does. It's not as harmless as people are lead to believe. I know this is off topic but the question was asked. I won't say anything more about this because it's all been said before. I put this up here for your consideration. It can be rejected or accepted, it doesn't matter to me. I know where I stand on this issue. Anyway, thanks for asking. Ah, thank you for explaining. I just was not understanding what you were getting at.

Oh, that's interesting - so are you saying that when John says he was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day, that perhaps he meant that the Holy Spirit had taken him to see the period of time that the OT prophets spoke of as the Day of the Lord? Hmmm...

I was hoping man would come back and explain this, because if I'm seeing what he's talking about in the passage, I sure don't know it.

in reading the Old Testament, one can see that the Lord often used invasion and oppression from another nation in order to bring His judgment. So why wouldn't or why might not the Lord be using the jihadists to spank us? He could very well be but that was not my point to yod.....I asked if we treated Israel better if the Jihadis would cease wanting to kill us. This was in response to his assertion that we are being attacked because of our treatment of Israel. We were attacked nine years ago too. I'm of the belief that they are going to try to attack us no matter what we do. I got the impression that yod was saying that, because of our poor treatment of Israel (and getting poorer), the Lord is letting more of these attacks get through - in other words, He is lifting His protection of us, and if we treated Israel better, He would not let the attacks get through to us.

I saved that pic last week and used it for my wallpaper for a couple of days. I didn't think of it as maybe having a spiritual meaning till I saw your thread here just now. Did you happen to notice that it's a right hand? Think of the connotations the right hand has in Scripture!

Ok, neb, here we go. What got me thinking about how the Flood came about, was reading this passage a few years back: Gen 7:17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth. 18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. 20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. And I thought, fifteen cubits and the mountains were covered? A cubit is roughly half a yard, so fifteen cubits is just 7.5 yards or 22.5 feet - not very high at all. And then I thought, fifteen cubits upward from where? From ground level? The verse just previous says all the high hills were covered. Fifteen cubits upwards from that point? Must not have been very tall mountains! (Not to even get into the question of who measured? I suppose Noah could have taken soundings with a long rope...) Anyway... In this passage, 2Peter 3:3 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 this they willingly are ignorant of, 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. Peter seems (to me, at least) to be saying that the antediluvian world (don't you love that word antediluvian?) was very different from the world we see now - in that he says that those who scoff, saying everything continues as it has from the beginning of creation are willingly ignorant of how the heavens and the earth were of old, before the Flood. Now, this is one way the world of old was different: Gen 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. I can remember when I was quite small wondering what was that? Waters above the firmament? 'Cause I knew that didn't exist now. And another antediluvian difference: Gen 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. So maybe, I thought, another difference was that the mountains in the original world weren't as tall as they are now? Up until about a century or two ago, no one would have thought that the continents had been anywhere other than where they are now. But the theory of plate tectonics changed all that. You look at a simulation of the supercontinent of Pangaea and how it broke up and shifted around - wow! And India slamming into Asia - and up go the Himalayas! My youngest son, who loves science (he would spell it, 'Science!') likes to point out that many of the world's great mountains chains are on the spines of where plates crash together. (Btw, ever notice this? Gen 10:25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan. Could this be a reference to the breaking up of Pangaea? I think so.) Ok, so this is how I think the scenario played out: All the land was one continent together. Something happened that triggered this: Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. Since the fountains under the earth broke up at the same time that the first rain occurred - and I believe that to be the collapse of the 'firmament' so that the water above it rained down - it seems likely to me that the trigger event was a great meteor punching through the water canopy above the firmament, causing it to precipitate - then slamming into the ocean, violently breaking open whatever is meant by the fountains of the great deep. This led not only to forty days of rain, but the beginning of the movement of the continental plates, leading to the configuration of the earth as we see it today. (As well as the loss of the waters above the firmament, allowing much more solar radiation through, leading to a vast shortening of life spans of both man and animals.) Hope that wasn't too long! As for the title question, this passage certainly sounds global to me: Gen 7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: 22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. 23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

These scriptures are speaking of spouses that are not Christians who choose to leave the Christians spouse, probably because of Christianity, and if they choose to leave let them, but Christians are not under this type of thinking. We can't just choose to leave one another as we are married. You have to remember that Paul chose to stay unmarried and his views on it is that the unmarried can serve God better because he is not distracted by his spouse and can devote all of their attention to God, but if people want to get married they can and don't sin. This is NOT saying that if my unbelieving spouse leaves me I can remarry because that contradicts this - Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. Romans 7:1-3 If you have been married before and marry somebody else while your ex is still alive you are living in adultery. They only two things that let us out of being married are the death of our spouse and infidelity. You have to live by these scriptures - "Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband" If you use the scriptures you quoted for the purpose you suggest then you create a contradiction. And yet the verses are Scripture, and Paul wrote them for a reason. It's not like I wrote them and tried to slip them into the Bible. What could they mean except what they plainly say?

Btw, I vaguely remember a TV show hosted by Darren McGavin that was about Noah's Flood. I checked IMDB and found a listing for The Incredible Discovery of Noah's Ark (1993). The main thing I remember from that show, besides who the host was, is a computer graphic showing water spewing up out of the ground to an incredible height.

neb, I want to give you my thoughts on this topic, but I just don't have the time today. I'll try to type up something as soon as I get the opportunity.

Just to clarify...I respect your reasons for believing your version. I'm not certain that this thread is the appropriate place to discuss the various opinions and theories on the flood. this thread is about the discovery of a wooden structure on a mountain. I was more responding because in successive posts a member was called a CINO (not by you), then the next post was you making the case against a localized flood. I was more tossing out the idea that just because people have differing ways of viewing it...doesn't necessarily make them wrong or a CINO. In hindsight, I should have responded to the other post. Sorry if you thought I was picking a fight with you, or offended you. Ok. I wondered why you quoted my post without really addressing my reasoning.

1 Corinthians 7 goes on after verse 13 to say: 1Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. 1Co 7:15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. Still later in the same chapter: 1Co 7:27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. 1Co 7:28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.

The story of the Flood is a perfect example of when "all" doesn't always mean "all"...and "earth" doesn't mean the whole globe. I don't blame people for taking a literal English version translation of the flood...they are within their rights to have faith in that. (Just like I don't blame people for believing that man lived for hundreds of years, by taking a literal english view of the bible.) However, others shouldn't be blamed for taking a more academic and realistic view of the passages. You quoted my post, yet I fail to see how your post addresses mine? I'm sorry.. I was just saying that you have a version of the flood in which you believe "all' the world was flooded, and "all" the animals were taken...and that is fine and understandable. But for some of us, we have a different view based on our studies that "all" doesn't always mean everything in the world. Then, as I stated in my post, why the need to build a boat and gather animals? Noah was given plenty of advance warning about the Flood; if it was less than worldwide, he would have only needed to leave the area that would be affected by the Flood. The fact that he needed a boat to escape and needed to protect the animals tells me this was no ordinary flood. Besides, if it was less than a worldwide Flood, then God lied here: Gen 9:11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

Btw, I agree with Fez here.

Jesus seemed to think the Flood really happened: Matthew 24:37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

The story of the Flood is a perfect example of when "all" doesn't always mean "all"...and "earth" doesn't mean the whole globe. I don't blame people for taking a literal English version translation of the flood...they are within their rights to have faith in that. (Just like I don't blame people for believing that man lived for hundreds of years, by taking a literal english view of the bible.) However, others shouldn't be blamed for taking a more academic and realistic view of the passages. You quoted my post, yet I fail to see how your post addresses mine?

If the Flood was localized only (as opposed to worldwide), there would have been no need to gather animals to keep the various kinds alive, nor even a need to build an ark for refuge from the Flood - they could have simply walked out of the area that was going to be flooded and go to high ground elsewhere. The fact that they had to build the ark and gather the animals shows that there wasn't going to be any high ground left anywhere.

Read the article. Ah - the link said video, so I didn't bother.

Steve Saint - related to Nate Saint, I'm guessing?

Believer, thank you for your reply to nebula - I had had the same concern as she did over that post you made at first, so I was glad to read your explanation.

The fact that this thread exist proves many here are looking in the WRONG DIRECTION. We run this race with patience LOOKING TO JESUS...stay focused. if you're talking to me, friend, I'm focused like a laser. Looking to Jesus does not mean we are blind to place He has placed us. Every moment is a test of our faithfulness. I don't intend to act like nothing is wrong while the wicked prevail. I will sound the alarm and I'm sorry if it hurts anyone's ears. Psalm 97: 10 Let those who love the LORD hate evil, for he guards the lives of his faithful ones and delivers them from the hand of the wicked. Eph 5:15 See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, 16 Redeeming the time, because the days are evil. That word circumspectly means 'looking all around.'

Source and more information here I don't see how the translation of 'impale' fits with the descriptions given in the Gospels of the death of the LORD - particularly the spear in the side (why spear Him in the side when they already impaled Him?) and Thomas later saying that he wouldn't believe unless he could put his finger into the holes in the LORD's hands and feet - holes in the hands and feet don't gibe with impalement.