So since your position about Noah's Flood is in a constant state of flux, what is it today, what do you think it will be tomorrow
you obviously have no understanding, so unless you can stick to the thread topic don't talk to me. let me remind you what that is:
NOAH"S FLOOD
please present your side with links, quotes (other than your own work) references and sources all being credible of course. you and your book plus articles, i do not consider credible.
now i am wondering how you got james kennedy to write something in your book. did you give his church a big donation? or was he temporarily blind?
Whoopsee John, you seem to be little uninformed, modern panspermians theorize that tiny greenies (bacteria) came to earth, to morph into one-celled animals, then into insects, clams, snails, etc., on up to "modern" man, it's typical Darwinian "goo to you" theory, but with tiny alien greenies instead of earthly "primordial soup."
Genesis Veracity wrote:Whoopsee John, you seem to be little uninformed, modern panspermians theorize that tiny greenies (bacteria) came to earth, to morph into one-celled animals, then into insects, clams, snails, etc., on up to "modern" man, it's typical Darwinian "goo to you" theory, but with tiny alien greenies instead of earthly "primordial soup."
so.
archaeology, by your own statement, is not convenient to your argument.
history (anaxagoras, democritus), by your own statement, is not convenient to your argument.
Doctor X wrote:I will note, en passant, that despite the politically correct pussies who would give us "person holes," require "he or she or it or not-sure-but-does-not-want-to-be-pressured," and advocate giving women shoes to make the deities of the Hebrew Bible "neutral," they are not.
YHWH is a male deity--is depicted as such in iconography . . . particularly a coin which I would love to find on-line. More to point, he takes the masculine verb forms.
El is the same.
Elohim is a bit "odd" in that depending on the use he is either a singular or a plural--there is no "Royal We" in Biblical Hebrew. This means that "elohim" can--and does--refer to "gods." However, the E author and P author certainly use Elohim as a singular.
Now, YHWH, in particular does take on female roles. This gets a bit complicated, but it was not at all uncommon for utterly male and female gods to do this while remaining a distinct gender identity.
I do not have my references in front of me, but I believe both Day and Smith discuss this in their books. Smith tends to "down-play" the role of Asherah--a female deity and probable consort to YHWH. Day reminds us of the extra-biblical references--particularly blessings. The biblical texts represent a theological polemic of such, on the one-hand condemning the worship of Asherah while on the utter trying to diminish her significance. Understandable, when you think of it.
However, here is where archaeology is "4 t3h w1n!!1!!!"--as john indicates. There are iconography and blessings and the like recorded.
Right, I return you to your regularly scheduled thread, with original hijack already in progress. . . .
--J.D.
i've got no problem with the theoretical creator of the universe being hermaphroditic. given the original circumstances, it probably makes sense. the world-snake eats its tail.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
