End of Ice Age

[Prince_James]

TheVisitor:

I apreciate the heads up on that one....
I will have to read that again someday.....Thanks.

No problemo.

Whether a Titan or of the children of the Titan's is the same.
They were at war with the Olympians in the fable or legend.
The allegory remains the same.

Several Titans defected, you are aware? Including Prometheus.

As for the Hercules story it is interesting that these generations depicted something just after the flood.
Many have a common reference with their heroes, 2/3 God and 1/3 man.
Gilgamesh of ancient Sumer was described the same.
There is the similarity.....a possible basis for the legends.

The flood was supposed to have killed everyone but Noah's family. How then could Hercules being a half fallen angel/serpent? Moreover, there is no reference to any flood in Hercules' myth.

You will also note, that as a son of an Olympian, it would seem to contradict your views for Hercules to turn upon a fellow "serpent" or whatever you think it is.

The children of Cain were the giants....Carnal, fleshly.
They were at war with the spiritual seed of God...Seth's linage......
They had the nearly 1000 year lifespans.
When these two mixed in the Gen. 6 account.....it was said to be the mighty men, men of old, men of renoun.

Being men of reknown does not make one "giants" in any odd, paranormal sense.

It says all over the bible......about the Serpent and Eve.
It's hidden in the context of the bible taken as a whole between the lines.
Now when I'm speaking about the bible, it's not just my hunches or assumptions.

Verses, please? Bedcause never have I come upon anything in the Bible that speaks of Eve doing it with the snake.

 

[TheVisitor]

The flood was supposed to have killed everyone but Noah's family.
How then could Hercules being a half fallen angel/serpent?

Moreover, there is no reference to any flood in Hercules' myth.
Being men of renown does not make one "giants" in any odd, paranormal sense... Eve doing it with the snake.

This is funny stuff.

Hercules being a half fallen angel/serpent.......what?

You've been hanging out on those UFO sites again haven't you P.J.

 

[guthrie]

P.S.
I know that it's a common game to play "who's a sock puppet", and is often fraught with peril. But, I've had this feeling for quite some time now that IceAge is a sock puppet of Walter.
Just a hunch.

Given the way that frozen head behaves, they may well be a sock puppet of someone. MAybe the mods could check IP adresses.

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

Invert:

Ice Age is no sock puppet of mine. Check out his member information. He's the real deal.

 

[Prince_James]

TheVisitor:

Hercules being a half fallen angel/serpent.......what?

Were you not claiming the entire myth was about "giants" From the "seed of Cain" which come from the serpent?

A "beast of the field" is a common term referring to an animal like an oxen, or a "beast of burden", which could also refer to any creature whose purpose is doing work, and in this case another species entirely, thats not quite human."
A beast is not a reptile.

The term "serpent" however clearly means a snake. It is not Hebrew for "another sort of beast".

Satan chose this creature which was a beast of great size and strength because because it was close enough to Eve to father offspring by her but far enough removed from human he could enter and possess it like an animal.
Thus he would also have access to this entire lineage through Cain.

Interspecies breeding is impossible. Moreover, there is no "beast of the field" which is close enough to humans to mate with - specifically one which is known as a serpent.

Proverbs 30:20 Such is the way of an adulterous woman; she eateth, and wipeth her mouth, and saith, I have done no wickedness.

Completely out of context with the Genesis myth. It is a reference back to Adam and Eve, but it is speaking about sex. The Genesis myth says -nothing- about sex whatsoever.

Jesus said "by their fruit you shall know them...and their fruit is their teachings"....which is contrary to the Word of God, an ominous warning.
So the term fruit is interchangeable with words that the have power to change lives....and plants seeds.

He was referencing how one can tell the quality of a tree by its fruit. If it produces bad fruit, it is a bad tree. So too do the actions of man convict him of inner wickedness.

You are the fruit of your mothers womb......So, here this is also speaking of sex....with this manlike beast..she first listened to that spirit, then it manifested in a physical act resulting in Cain.

They never said "manlike beast" in this? What are you talking about? Fruit of the mother's womb is an metaphor.

Gen. 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.

So it was true when Eve said "I have gotten a man from the Lord" when she bore Cain. All life it can be said to be true comes from the Lord.

Adam knowing his wife and Cain being born are linked. This means that Adam is the father - not a snake.

But there were two acts and three sons born - Abel, Cain, and Seth.
Cain was of "His father the wicked one"
Adam was not the wicked one....Nor was He Cains father.

Um, apparently you haven't read Genesis 4. Because there are three acts of sex recorded.

1 Adam [a] lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, "With the help of the LORD I have brought forth [c] a man." 2 Later she gave birth to his brother Abel.

25 Adam lay with his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth, saying, "God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him."

http://www.ibs.org/niv/passagesearch.php?passage_request=Genesis+4&niv=yes

Gen. 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee (speaking to the serpent) and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel

This means humans will hate snakes - which they do, because they kill us.

Talking of the war between the spiritual seed of Christ, and the natural, carnal seed of Satan through the serpent...

This is not at all implied in the text.

Satan could not create something from nothing....you must have faith to do that....., "say to this mountain" and not doubt in your heart.

You fail to realize that this is a later conception of Satan not present in the Genesis myth. Satan, throughout the old testament, is the equivalent of God's prosecution lawyer.

Note in JOb that God lets Satan into his presence and has a -bet- with him. He even asks where Satan went, and he just casually replied that he was walking amongst men. Does this sound like the Prince of Hell and a fallen angel to you?

No. Because that is a concept borrowed from the Zoroastrian religion and Jewish folklore, which is neither in the Bible, nor based on anything in the Bible.

Satan's spirit is associated with sin which is unbelief, so since he could not just create a host without God's help, and he couldn't possess Adam or Eve, who were made as hosts for God's Spirit alone in His image, he chose a method to enter the human race by using the serpent who was the animal closest to man he could possess, and it's power in the natural to deceive and seduce Eve in creating Cain.

Satan is never classified as an infidel.

Thus with Eve creating a hybrid race - the "sons of men" that started with Cain, and through him enter into the human race.

You will note that Jesus was also a "son of man".

That's the story behind the fall of man, and why the opposite, God creating a child Jesus, vicariously without the instrumentality of a human male through Mary was necessary to reverse the fall.

God does not possess Joseph to have sex with Mary. It's a -virgin- birth. Virginity requires no sex.

There were then two races of man before the flood.
Adam and Eve's lineage through their second son Seth, born after Cain killed their first son Abel.....which were of the spiritual seed of God, ....."the sons of God", and the serpent's satanic linage "the sons of men" natural carnal brute beasts through Cain's linage.
These two stayed separate until Gen. 6 and that then led to the Earths destruction.

This is not found in the Biblical account.

The burden of the "Beasts of the south".......from a land of "flying serpents"..... interesting expression.The plot thickens.
Mysteries of the kingdom. Jesus said there were some unto which......the understanding had not been given.
So the bible is intentionally written as a mystery novel to hide God from these multitudes.....but it's entirely non-fiction.
There are areas of land in old testament, that is sometimes referred to the place of the "dragons of the wilderness" and also places called the land of the giants.

Ever see old maps? Forboding, unknown lands, used to have "here be dragons" written on them. Same here. It means "a place of no human cultivation and unknown to us".

Wolf and Lamb are a reference to these two groups feeding in the last days together...."a table have I prepared for thee, in the presence of thine enemies"
The bread of God that comes from heaven was Christ and is food in the spiritual sense.

You fail to speak of the Lion and the Serpent. This is a natural metaphor first and foremost. "Everything will be at peace".

Snakes don't eat dust -the dust could be referring symbolically to the lineage from Cain thats left in all of us today, will then not be resurrected with the children of the kingdom, as in when something "bites the dust", it is dead.

Snakes crawl on the ground and are covered in dust. That is what it refers to, not "biting the dust".

The nations left to repopulate will be under the government of God, ruled with a "rod of iron" by Christ.....and this present government under the powers and principalities of the "prince of the power of the air" , and their hosts that were created to dwell in, will be relegated to history like the dust.

The Power and Prince of the Air = A mythic demonic figure that later developed in contact with the pagan peoples. It is utterly alien to Judaism.

We will dig them up someday by accident and think of them like we do today of dinosaurs.....of something that's become extinct and lived long ago.

No we won't, as they do not exist.

Mathew 10:16 Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.

So you are going to claim Jesus is positively affirming Cain's kin here?

Mathew 23:33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

A reference to the power of snakes, nothing more.

Luke 10:19 Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you

This means to not worry about physical harm.

The original U.S.A. flag had a serpent on it and the words "Don't tread on me."

Okay. So? It was a reference to cutting up a snake - the colonies - to try to break them. What? Are you claiming the United States is Cain's satanic spirit son?

The revelation of the "Serpents seed linage mixed with man" is a key that unlocks the very mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, straightens out the "so-called" contradictions and exposes the man of sin, which if you'll remember had to be uncovered before Christ who is the Word...and the the glory of revelation to our souls...could return to Earth.
Speaking in a mixed multitude thats why Jesus alway spoke in parables....
The wheat and the tares......... the children of the kingdom and the children of th world.......and many more can be understood if you take into account these two groups.

Your exegesis takes remarkable liberty with the text and does not take into consideration the historical progression of the beliefs. It also assumes, rather than affirms from valid textual reasoning.

In essence: You are making it up as you go along.

"There is nothing better for the sons of men to do than to enjoy the fruits of their labor and the works of their hands all their days"

Actually, no. He was talking pragmatically. Solomon actually did affirm the fruit of a life just lived. The Jews never have been about the afterlife. You will note they have no proper conception of Heaven or Hell.

 

[TheVisitor]

That's one thing my post also explains.... how someone can not see a bit of this.

 

[Prince_James]

TheVisitor:

I have no problem with mythology. It was not a term of denigration. It is, however, a myth - a poetic story usually meant to illustrate a point. The majority of it is ahistorical.

 

[Prince_James]

THeVisitor:

If the Jews wanted to say that Eve had sex with the serpent, they could havee spoken about such every explicitly. Hell, they'd even be able to claim Cain as the serpent's son. They had all the time in the world to do this, but did not. There is no mentioning of "knowing" or "laying". There is not even an "uncovering of the foot", or the "tail and stones" of behemoth.

 

[TheVisitor]

THeVisitor:

If the Jews wanted to say that Eve had sex with the serpent, they could have spoken about such every explicitly. Hell, they'd even be able to claim Cain as the serpent's son.

Matthew 13:11 (King James Version)
He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to
them it is not given.

 

[Prince_James]

TheVisitor:

You do realize the necessary absurdity of claiming that it can only be understood by people that accept it and believe it before it is even spoken, yes?

"The disbelievers think the toilet seat isn't God. But we know better, because we all ready know it."

 

[Prince_James]

TheVisitor:

I do not claim to be always right. However, I do believe I have a superior grasp of the issue here. Specifically because my main premises do not rest on what seems to be a misunderstanding of the text. I would gladly concede some of my points being wrong if I thought they were, if you could say, point out a few flaws.

Also, the Bible might use analogies and vague language to discuss sex, but it does not dance around it. In fact, the Bible is -obsessed- with sex. The main premise that that you put forth is that the knowledge of serpentine children is only "between the lines".

Consider adopting this form of exegesis: A special meaning of a phrase should only be ascribed when the text warrants it. When the phase is obviously meant to draw common metaphors and connections, don't give it an "esoteric" meaning that requires extensive context-raping to get.

 

[Prince_James]

TheVisitor:

You are not an expert in the Bible, that much is clear, but you seem to feel your broad knowledge makes you an expert at everything....it does not.
That goes with common sense.

I only argue forcefully and with a belief that I am right. But I assure you, if I find myself faced with evidence of my wrongness, I'd gladly concede. I do not argue things I know that I am wrong with. Ego is secondary to truth.

But as to your revised thing...

So exactly where do you pretend to be standing on the issue.

My stance on the Bible is this: It is a heterogenous Jewish text, with unknown authorship, which relates mythic tales of an amalgamation of Gods which were eventually subsumed into one composite God, specifically El, Yah, Elohim, Adonai, and Shaddai. Several of the figures have great embelishments in their lives, and whereas some of the Bible has historical foundations, others do not. It is a religion most closely related to Semitic paganism, specifically Babylonian and Caananite beliefs, with later influences from Zoroastrianism, and finally Greco-Roman religion and philosophy, wedded to a heavy dose of Jewish folklore and non-canonical concepts. The teachings of Jesus have largely been replaced by Pauline theology, who was from a very dubious source, considering Paul's life and other such things. Moreover, Jesus is of limited historicity, and the events of the New Testament did not happen miraculously, specifically in regards to the absurdity of the dead rising up in Jerusalem in great numbers, but this being mentioned -no where- else but the Bible.

The curious similarity of Jesus with many pagan figures also places him firmly in a mythic aspect in part, but I do not doubt that he had at least partial historicity. I would not be surprised to find someone named Yeshua bar Yosef in 1st century Palestine.

I am also personally a fan of king Solomon's writings.

I seem to remember someone here about five years ago who did that, and His name wasn't Prince_James

I smell a snake.

I was never here 5 years ago. However, I used to post on a few other websites. I used to be on Beliefnet.com. Were you ever there?

 

[(Q)]

You are not an expert in the Bible

You can't be an expert at everything without sacrificing somewhere.

How is one an expert on a book of myths? What exactly does one sacrifice?

 

[IceAgeCivilizations]

Q, your unusaul notion that the Bible is supposedly a book of myths is belied by the fact that the Bible has been the primary roadmap for archaeological endeavors in the Middle East, didn't you know that?

 

[Laika]

Hi IceAgeCivilizations. At the risk of being predictable, I'm going to resubmit what I previously posted, in the hope of receiving a cogent reply.

So you think the mountain ranges were twice as big, lots o' luck.

I don't quite understand how you came to that conclusion. I have a nagging suspicion that it's one of the strawmen that you seem to employ habitually, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and put it down to poor communication. I don't think that the Himalayas were twice as big. Because of isostasy and erosion the Himalayas may well be about as high as any mountain range can attain on Earth.

So what that granites take time to cool?

Here's what: the fact that granite crystallizes slowly means that it forms deep underground. If it was extruded, or intruded at shallower depth, it wouldn't be granite. Therefore, the granite which is today exposed in the Himalayas cooled slowly, at depth. This inescapable fact appears to contradict your claim that the Himalayas formed within human history.

I never said the trees go back 3500 years, and tree rings are not necessarily annual, and multiple laminae per year, or weeks, or days, yes, depends on the environment.

Indeed you did not. That is why I asked you to clarify your position on the matter. I assumed this was your belief because if tree ring records do go back further than 3500 years then we would expect to see evidence of the sudden climate change you claim.

 

[SkinWalker]

Q, your unusaul notion that the Bible is supposedly a book of myths is belied by the fact that the Bible has been the primary roadmap for archaeological endeavors in the Middle East, didn't you know that?

Which "archaeological endeavors" have turned up any validation for biblical myth, ice? Indeed, the form of archaeological 'endeavor' once referred to as "biblical" is now, appropriately called Syro-Palestinian Archaeology.

If anything, archaeology has debunked much of the bible's mythology from Exodus to Jericho to the very origin of the Jewish people.

 

[IceAgeCivilizations]

Granitic plutons cooled with much associated water, from country rock and from below, so the cooled edges of the plutons cracked, allowing water penetration into the pluton for deeper cooling, and the heated country rock with water caused steam pressure to crack the country rock, hence the rapid emplacement and cooling of granites.

 

[IceAgeCivilizations]

What do you think is the origin of the Jewish people?

And the Jericho ruins do corrobarate the Bible, and the early modern archaeologists used the Bible extensively in their searches, still do today, the material in the Bible is always confirmed with more and more archaeological discoveries, known fact.

 

[(Q)]

Q, your unusaul notion that the Bible is supposedly a book of myths is belied by the fact that the Bible has been the primary roadmap for archaeological endeavors in the Middle East, didn't you know that?

So, you're propping up a book of myths with another myth, didn't you know that?

 

[Laika]

Granitic plutons cooled with much associated water, from country rock and from below, so the cooled edges of the plutons cracked, allowing water penetration into the pluton for deeper cooling, and the heated country rock with water caused steam pressure to crack the country rock, hence the rapid emplacement and cooling of granites.

You appear to have misunderstood me. I am not asking 'how did the granite cool so fast?'. If the magma had cooled rapidly, it would not be granite. It would be rhyolite. I am telling you plainly that slow crystallization at depth - which undoubtedly occurred - is incompatible with the notion that the Himalayas formed within human history.

Additionally: I am still keen to read about the evidence for the intense volcanism which occurred around 3500 years ago. I am also very interested to know your thoughts about how unconsolidated sediments became lithified in less than 3500 years of subaerial exposure.