Re: Migrants

[JoeMo]

21 hours ago, B/W Photodude said:

Contextualizing scripture just means you get to believe whatever you want to believe it says.

I would say "proof-texting" rather than using context lets you believe what you wish.

 

[B/W Photodude]

21 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

The Hebrew spies say nephilim in the land - the same human-angel hybrid species that plagued the antedeluvian world.  These mutants, being superior in size and strength to the Israelites

While there may have been giants in the land, I do not buy into that human-angel hybrid thought. I believe that when first created, the average human was much taller than we are today, but lifespan, memory, and physical height all seem to have shrunk quite a bit. So, it appears that the shrinking of the average human happened in Israel better it happened in some of the heathen groups in the surrounding lands. Strangely enough, we don't read about these "nephilim" in Abrahams time which was in the same land area. So, was Abraham much taller than the Israelites who left Egypt? 

[CoAspen]

Bonnie, it isn't about the monies, but rather the efficient use of them.That is why I said 'outside the box'. You gave a good example and a great starting place. But what I have in mind is on a much different level. 

What if we expected of our .gov to be more responsible in their economic aid to other countries who need and receive it.By that, I mean we hold them responsible to put in place ways and methods of ensuring that aid is used in a manner it is intended for. One way to hold them responsible is with our voices and in the voting both. We no longer listen to excuses, after all it is the citizens of this country monies, we don't put them back in office, we initiate some responsiblities in ourselves. Another thought was how we as a country and individuals are more comfortable with throwing money at the issue because the  issue can't come in contact with us personally.  Do we want to go to SA or the Congo or the middle east or to Mexico or anywhere we might be put in danger? No of course not. What if we went to those places and lived, learned, observed on how to best be of help. No, we are not going to change everything, but every little bit helps. Why did I suggest that? God spent thousands of years trying to help the diseased, scum, filthiness that this world had become. Then He said, I will go live among them, look like them, live like them, become one of them with their genetics and even let them kill him. He didn't have to, he choose too. An example of that, here close to home, is a couuple from our church were work with refuges/immigrants in out community. They would travel from their WASP neighborhood to the others neighborhood to be helpful to them in any way they could. Tht was a good thing. Then they had this thought. The sold thier home, went to the refuges/immigrants neighborhood, bouth a home there, and fixed it up while being of service to thier new neighbors/people. Those people then saw them in a totaly new light over that commitment and considered them family. Just a small step, not for everyone, but they are having a greater impact on those peoples lives than they could have other wise. What if we, asked as a country, what is needed and put faces on the ground, yes we have had the peace corp and I think an emphasis on that would be great again. I am sure there are even more ways we as a country/christians can be of help to the needs of the world. That is what I wanted to hear, others ideas. Building walls that cost millions or billions tht can be circumvented, spending more monies on guards/troops/soldiers, is that the only solution? How many will it really stop. They will just keep on dying in the desert crossings to excape the world they have lived in. 

I am not against sane immigration policies, just insane amounts of monies people want to spend on treating the issue rather than trying solve and cure the source. If my ideas are offensive to people, so be it. It is the way I feel about it. 

[8thdaypriest]

11 hours ago, CoAspen said:

I am not against sane immigration policies, just insane amounts of monies people want to spend on treating the issue rather than trying solve and cure the source.

Well, if you can identify all the sources and causes - more power to ya.   I'm think that it would also take insane amount of money to treat the causes.  Haven't heard much from you - suggestions for treating the causes. 

[8thdaypriest]

11 hours ago, CoAspen said:

What if we expected of our .gov to be more responsible in their economic aid to other countries who need and receive it.By that, I mean we hold them responsible to put in place ways and methods of ensuring that aid is used in a manner it is intended for.

Good luck with that.

[bygjymbo]

Christianity demands we help our neighbor. But government redistribution isn't a solution. Do what you can concerning your situation and listen to the Holy Spirit concerning others.

People can be extremely good at manipulating when you have something they want. Governmental programs are the ultimate suckers.

Here's immigration by the numbers:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE

[JoeMo]

On 5/2/2018 at 11:26 PM, B/W Photodude said:

I do not buy into that human-angel hybrid thought

Most believers don't, basically because they think it's too weird.  The other alternative is the "son's of God" (male descendants of Seth) married the daughters of men (daughters of Cain). Problem is, how could the marriage of two normal-sized humans produce giant offspring?  Didn't some daughters of Seth also marry sons of Cain?  The fallen angel story also agrees with the ancient mythology of over 500 different cultures all over the world.  For example, Roman, Nordic,  and Greek gods marrying human women; and they and their offspring wreak havoc on humanity until they are suddenly destroyed.  Many of these myths state that these gods and their offspring were destroyed by a flood.

I don't think it is a salvational issue.  The fallen angel theory just meshes better with what I think scripture says.  But other interpretations are also plausible.  The issue of who the Nephilim are has been a hot topic of discussion among theologians and believers for a long time.

Just because the story of Abraham doesn't mention giants doesn't mean they weren't around.

[8thdaypriest]

Joe,

Do you think the fallen angels actually felt sex drive, or were they just trying to perpetuate their population, and also dominate humans? 

IF they felt some kind of sex drive - BEFORE they took on human male form -   that would mean there had to be "female" demons too.  Right? 

 That would mean that angels (both good and evil) had been reproducing all along.  If they were, then why use human women to create something inferior to themselves. 

There's no hint of THAT anywhere in Scripture. 

Genesis 6:2 "the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose." (NKJ)

This verse - to me - describes the beginning of the sexual domination of women by male human beings (not fallen angels).   They "took wives" - just like ISIS kidnaps women for sex.  Islam allows temporary "wives" - even for a day.  The Bible and other historical records, contain stories of ruling potentates taking women for sex.   Sarah was taken.  Hadasah (who became Queen Esther) was taken.   Women became SPOILS of war.   Young girls are still SOLD by their fathers, for goats, or money, or political influence.  The domination began very soon after creation.   The relative size of women and their unique anatomy, made it possible.  In Satan's order of things, the stronger use, abuse, and rule over the weaker.  They don't serve them.   

[8thdaypriest]

Re:  height of Adam.

Had a thought about the ark of Noah.  Noah was told to build "decks" (plural) inside the ark. 

Genesis 6:15-16 "This is how you should make it: The ark is to be 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high. Make a roof for the ark and finish it, leaving 18 inches from the top.  Put a door in the side of the ark, and make lower, middle, and upper decks." (NET)

With the boat 45 feet high, how tall could the persons be?  Three decks, plus the wood of the deck (maybe 12 inches x3), plus the 18 inches from the top to the "roof" overhang (for exhaust/ fresh air intake).  Essentially you have 40 feet divided by 3 = about 13 foot height of each deck (unless there was some space under the lowest deck - maybe for refuse disposal).  So maybe 10 or 12 foot height above each deck.  That's plenty tall enough - even if Adam was 9 feet tall.   And there were probably giraffe onboard or some animal species that needed more height than a human.  

But no 20 foot tall humans...

[JoeMo]

1 hour ago, The Wanderer said:

3 hours ago, JoeMo said:

 

Giants or not what evidence from scripture would you use as evidence for your fallen angel theory?

As I've stated in many previous threads, The Hebrew for "sons of God" used in Genesis 6 is bənê hāʼĕlōhîm.  The only other places this Hebrew term is used in the OT are

Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7, and Deut. 32:8, where the English translations are obviously referring to angelic beings.  Why should it mean anything different in Gen. 6:1-4?  I'll tell you why ... it's just plain creepy to think of it in that way. Just cuz it's creepy doesn't mean it ain't true.

[B/W Photodude]

7 hours ago, JoeMo said:

Just because the story of Abraham doesn't mention giants doesn't mean they weren't around.

What I was suggesting is that in the time of Abraham, everyone was a giant and no one would have noticed the ancestors of the ones observed by the 12 spies more than anyone else. I do recall a statement made in SOP that Adam was approx 15ft tall when created and Eve nearly as tall. Some groups just took longer to shrink down in size as mental capabilities and life span also decreased. The amount of time from Abraham to the descendants of Abraham wandering in the desert was certainly long enough and with enough generations to accomplish the shrinking in individual size population

[JoeMo]

4 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

What think ye?

I think that commentary was right on.  I couldn't have said it any better.  I heard a local Bible Answer Man here names Geno Gervace on Christian radio who said almost exactly the same thing.  I think both arguments are backed by logical use of scripture. I lean towards the fallen angel theory; and you lean towards the Sethite theory.  No problem.

As far as relating this to migrants, I'm sure that the native people of Canaan were highly concerned about over a million people and all their herds moving into "their" land; especially as the Israelites were totally annihilating all those who resisted them - giants or not.  The same fight goes on today.

[JoeMo]

2 hours ago, B/W Photodude said:

I do recall a statement made in SOP that Adam was approx 15ft tall

This is an Ellen White-ism with absolutely no Biblical evidence to back it up.

[B/W Photodude]

14 hours ago, JoeMo said:

This is an Ellen White-ism with absolutely no Biblical evidence to back it up.

My apologies. I thought this was a Seventh-day Adventist forum where quotes or thoughts from EGW would be relevant to any discussion. But her comments are a E Whitism?! I am sorry you think so little of her, but many SDAs consider the church to be blessed that God actually spoke thru EGW and brought important information for the end times. 

Going to the specific thought ... it is interesting that Adam was in the neighborhood of 15ft tall and even helps to understand why the Israelites were troubled by giants. And EGW wrote many other things that make things a little plainer when reading Scripture, but I did not put it out there as a salvational issue.

I guess to some people, following wild theories about evil angels copulating with humans would be more exciting than a simpler explanation that humans became shorter, had failing minds and memories, and lived significantly shorter lives due to sin.

[JoeMo]

47 minutes ago, B/W Photodude said:

My apologies. I thought this was a Seventh-day Adventist forum where quotes or thoughts from EGW would be relevant to any discussion. But her comments are a E Whitism?! I am sorry you think so little of her, but many SDAs consider the church to be blessed that God actually spoke thru EGW and brought important information for the end times.

I never said I think "little" of EGW; I said I don't believe everything she said if I can't find backup in the Bible.  If you choose to believe everything she said, then believe this(Verbatim report of remarks by Mrs. E. G. White, at a meeting held in Battle Creek College library, April 1, at the General Conference of 1901; SpM 162.3 - 174.1) :

"I feel intensely in this matter. I do not want to talk here but I dare not hold my peace...Lay Sister White right to one side: lay her to one side. Don't you never quote my words again as long as you live, until you can obey the Bible. When you take the Bible and make that your food, and your meat, and your drink, and make that the elements of your character, when you can do that you will know better how to receive some counsel from God. But here is the Word, the precious Word, exalted before you today. And don't you give a rap any more what “Sister White said”—“Sister White said this,” and “Sister White said that,” and “Sister White said the other thing.” But say, “Thus saith the Lord God of Israel,” and then you do just what the Lord God of Israel does, and what he says... Oh my soul, how it has hurt me to have the blocks thrown in the way in regard to myself. They will tell you that Sister White did this, or Sister White did that,—for instance, “Sister White ate cheese, and so we are all at liberty to eat cheese.” Who told them that I ate cheese? I never have cheese on my table. There was one time when I was at Minneapolis, one or two times I tasted it, but that is a different thing from making it a diet, entirely a different thing... Now for instance some one may tell you that Sister White don't eat meat. “Now I want you not to eat it, because Sister White doesn't eat it.” Well, I wouldn't care a farthing for anything like that. If you haven't got a better conviction, that you won't eat meat just because Sister White don't eat it, I would not give one farthing for your health reform. But I want that every one of you shall stand on your individual dignity, in your individual consecration to God, that the soul temple shall be dedicated to God. Whosoever defileth the temple of God, him will God destroy. Now I want you to see these things, and not to make any human being your criterion... But don't you quote Sister White. I don't want you ever to quote Sister White until you get your vantage ground where you know where you are. Quote the Bible. Talk the Bible. It is full of meat, full of fatness. Carry it right out in your life, and you will know more Bible than you know now. You will have fresh matter - O, you will have precious matter; you won't be going over and over the same ground, and you will see a world saved. You will see souls for whom Christ has died. And I ask you to put on the armor, every piece of it, and be sure that your feet are shod with the preparation of the gospel."

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

lol ....am amused at quoting EGW regarding quoting EGW...   

[JoeMo]

1 hour ago, rudywoofs (Pam) said:

lol ....am amused at quoting EGW regarding quoting EGW.

I couldn't resist myself.  It is ironic that I used EGW to explain why I don't buy everything she says ...

[Gerr]

I wish you guys who have hijacked this thread would  get back to the original topic.  Thanks.