Noah's Flood - Fact or Fiction?

[rdunk]

rdunk,

I've been pondering what you said and this is my take on it:

ancient texts actually defend each other.  they are not as opposite as we've been lead to believe.  for example, the sumerian-akkadian texts tell the same or similar stories to those told in the bible, as do some of the Babylonian texts, Assyrian texts, ugaritic texts (<---have you read the ugaritic texts?) and definitely, Egyptian texts. 

if Jehovah was only one god, how do we end up with three?  and if those three are one, then how do we end up with three parts all claiming to be the same individual.  Jesus was praying to himself?   we've just gotten stuck in a singular way of reading ancient texts, either as myth or as half truth or as full truth but, in only one way and one way only, even if there's oodles of texts that suggest otherwise in the same book. that's an incorrect approach, i do believe.   

there's a reason for everything in the text and to ignore one part because it doesn't fit another, suggests making excuses for it and it doesn't need us to make excuses for it.  it needs us to learn it and find out why it says what it says.   cause generational layering can screw things up mightily.   let me give you an example:

how many animals got on the ark with Noah? 

take your time.

Hi undo1 I will comment on your question about "how many animals got on the ark with Noah" first. Of course, as you likely know, God told Noah in two different places how many of each kind to bring on the ark. In Genesis 6, God specified  "two of all living creatures, male and female". Then in Genesis 7, God specifies "2 - Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 - and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female".

To me, I do not see God's instructions as contradictory. I rather see them as the same basic instruction, with Genesis 7 being complimentary to the instructions in Genesis 6, with broadened specific detail. For me, I accept that God did it that way for very specific reason, which very well may have been for, as stated in Isaiah 25:7"

"25[I am the Lord] Who frustrates the signs and confounds the omens [upon which the false prophets' forecasts of the future are based] of the [boasting] liars and makes fools of diviners, Who turns the wise backward and makes their knowledge foolishness".

Who can discern (or know) the mind of God?? IMO, anyone that does does try may very well find disappointment.

Now, for me, my comments on your "animal question" pretty much encompass my thoughts on your other comments, made relative to your "pondering" and "take" on what I had said. 

I accept what is termed the "Word of God", as is consolidated in a book called the Bible. But God's word is not confined to the written page, because it is termed in the Bible scripture, "to be alive, and sharper than a two edged sword". Thus, as God is everywhere (omnipresent), so is his Word!!

So, for me, I have no interest in trying to prove what must be accepted on the basis of "faith". I am confident there is much to be found, if searched out, to bring to question various elements of God's Word. But then the bible itself is full of such actions on the parts of those who believed otherwise, ie, contrary to God's word. On that point, I suppose the next similar thread we could title, "Was The Parting of The Red Sea, and the Death of Pharaoh's Army, Fact of fiction"?? 

Undo, there is probably no acceptable/complete simple answer on your seeming points of paradox regarding what you understand from the Bible.  Just getting something written down, by man (as the Spirit guided), that all men (includes women) could somewhat understand was probably a monumental task, maybe even for God.

Relative to the "Trinity", God is God! He had a plan from the beginning, and that plan had to include making a way for overcoming man's drastic act of disobedience in the Garden. That "way" had to include a "risen Savior", and God's promise of that Holy Spirit (Comforter) which is the "earnest" of our inheritance until the redemption (Eph. 1:13-14). I just accept that "God's way is God's way". Sure does make it sweet and simple!!!

One other thing on the animals - have you noticed the New International translation describes the animals by saying pairs of all creatures that have the breath of life in them "came to Noah"? That would indicate that somehow the animals were told by God to go to Noah. In earlier Genesis scripture, God did speak to the animals, so there is no reason to conclude otherwise here. An interesting thought, I think! Would have been a bit hard for Noah to do the roundup himself, since he was working on the ark for 120 years, a period of time which would equal several generations of all of the animals.

[undo11]

Hi undo1 I will comment on your question about "how many animals got on the ark with Noah" first. Of course, as you likely know, God told Noah in two different places how many of each kind to bring on the ark. In Genesis 6, God specified  "two of all living creatures, male and female". Then in Genesis 7, God specifies "2 - Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 - and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female".

To me, I do not see God's instructions as contradictory. I rather see them as the same basic instruction, with Genesis 7 being complimentary to the instructions in Genesis 6, with broadened specific detail. For me, I accept that god did it that way for very specific reason, which very well may have been for, as stated in Isaiah 25:7"

"25[I am the Lord] Who frustrates the signs and confounds the omens [upon which the false prophets' forecasts of the future are based] of the [boasting] liars and makes fools of diviners, Who turns the wise backward and makes their knowledge foolishness".

Who can discern (or know) the mind of God?? IMO, anyone that does does try may very well find disappointment.

Now, for me, my comments on your "animal question" pretty much encompass my thoughts on your other comments, made relative to your "pondering" and "take" on what I had said. 

I accept what is termed the "Word of God", as is consolidated in a book called the Bible. But God's word is not confined to the written page, because it is termed in the Bible scripture, "to be alive, and sharper than a two edged sword". Thus, as God is everywhere (omnipresent), so is his Word!!

So, for me, I have no interest in trying to prove what must be accepted on the basis of "faith". I am confident there is much to be found, if searched out, to bring to question various elements of God's Word. But then the bible itself is full of such actions on the parts of those who believed otherwise, ie, contrary to God's word. On that point, I suppose the next similar thread we could title, "Was The Parting of The Red Sea, and the Death of Pharaoh's Army, Fact of fiction"?? 

Undo, there is probably no acceptable/complete simple answer on you seeming points of paradox regarding what you understand from the Bible.  Just getting something written down, by man (as the Spirit guided), that all men (includes women) could somewhat understand was probably a monumental task, maybe even for God.

Relative to the "Trinity", God is God! He had a plan form the beginning, and that plan had to include making a way for overcoming man's drastic act of disobedience in the Garden. That "way" had to include a "risen savior", and God's promise of that Holy Spirit (Comforter) which is the "earnest" of our inheritance until the redemption (Eph. 1:13-14). I just accept that "God's way is God's way". Sure does make it sweet and simple!!!

One other thing on the animals - have you noticed the New International translation describes the animals by saying pairs of all creatures that have the breath of life in them "came to Noah"? That would indicate that somehow the animals were told by God to go to Noah. In earlier Genesis scripture, God did speak to the animals, so there is no reason to conclude otherwise here. An interesting thought, I think! Would have been a bit hard for Noah to do the roundup himself, since he was working on the ark for 120 years, a period of time which would equal several generations of all of the animals.

it isn't contradictory. the word all wasn't in the original language of the text there.  my theory is, somebody added it into one of the translations as a result of not understanding the context of "earth" being "soil" not "earth" being the name of the planet at the time.  also, since earth is the soil, and not the planet, when it says the earth was flooded, it just means the land, as far as they could see, and that is now proven to be a scientifically validated event, called the black sea flood.  bugger buried ancient sumer under 8 feet of flood silt. would've been catastrophic.

[The Matrix Traveller]

yeah you are sort of onto it.   

Note the writings refer to "The Return of The Son of MAN" NOT the Son of A' DAM.

Note we have MAN & WO-MAN..

In A' DAM's case it is different.

Note; how A' DAM is written  A'    DAM.

NOT Adam.

I write these "Titles" in upper Caps as this is how they were originally written, and later on
Lower caps were introduced.

The Structure of the Words came from and using the Original ZION Glyphs which were used
in a much different way than the Languages we write in today.

The Change came about from BABYLON.

Which originally came From "The House of David" Nothing at all to do with King David later
on in the writings.

"The ROOT of DAVID" is actually "The Bright and Early Morning Star" mentioned In
"The Revelation of Jesus Christ", in the last Chapter of the Roman bible Ch. 22 verse 16.

Today some claim "The Bright and Early Morning Star" as being Venus, which plainly NOT True.

The First "Star", (Nothing at all to do with Stars in any Universe.) was a "6 Pointed Star"
that was used to access Libraries of LIFE in the Beginning of "The ALL".

2 ION Greek "Delta" one inverted over the other gives a 6 Pointed Star, which is the ZION "Delta".
The ION Greek "Delta" is 1/2 of the original ZION language "Delta Star".
The First of the Angels also mentioned in Chapters 1 & 2 of "The Revelation of Jesus Christ",
who were told to repent i.e. Change.

Please do NOT confuse "Angels" with "Watchers" as they are Totally Different from each other...

The "Alpha" came out of this "Delta Star".

So the "Delta" and "Alpha" Stars are actually the Same, because of the Marriage between these 2.

This is why the "Alpha" Star is known also as "The Bride" and "The Bride Groom".
They are truly ONE.

If we take the ancient ION Greek "Alpha" laying on its side, i.e laying down to Sup,
and take a copy of this, invert the same image, and lay it over the first "Alpha",
we get that 6 Pointed Star again... 

In the ZION Language which I will show how this is obtained displaying the Fonts in an "Animation",
Which I will make up shortly for you, showing where they Came from, ZION into ION Greek,
where also "Demotic Egyptian" writing came from (Different than what is taught today.)

The 2 Titles are A' DAM & EVE are different.

But in the Case of WO-MAN & MAN they both incorporate the title MAN.

The Latter is Married where the Former (Flesh is NOT married but instead these 2 cleave to each other)

The descendants of A' DAM and EVE have coveted the "Title", MAN & WO-MAN.

This is why the "Carpenter/Builder" Jesus, referred to "The Return of the Son of MAN"
and NOT The Return of The Son of A' DAM.

Clear as Mud ?   

My writing is very, very, poor, so please excuse my poor communication, but I have tried my best for you.   

Perhaps this will be easier to understand in "Animation" Form ?   

[undo11]

the problem you're most likely encountering is called english translation. 

wo-man was not a word in hebrew. it's an english word.
the word for wo-man in the original hebrew was not even remotely similar to the word for man in original hebrew.  and the word for eve was not the same as the word for woman because eve was the first "wife" (mom), the first female human to give birth to a copy of herself and her mate (an adam) via sexual intercourse, 9 month gestation and vaginal delivery. 

and the word for man, had two possible translations.  any time the english text says man, check it to see what the original word was there.  some "man" examples are from the word "adam" and some "man" examples are from the word "enowsh".  for example, the men who came to see abraham in his tent, who he called various things such as adonai, yahweh, adam and enowsh.  i think this is another example of how generational layering has effected the meaning of the text.

the translators had their jobs cut out for them.  that was not an easy task.  let's look at the word for woman in the creation of the eve, verse:

'ishshah

how does one get ishshah out of adam?

these verses are extremely condensed. 

[undo11]

and i will explain now (which proves adam was atum (et.al a group of creator gods that the adam race was made in the image of)

the only way to get "woman" out of "man" in the "word" sense of the original text language, is if you realize  "eve" is "chavvah" and "chavvah" is from "chavah" and "chavah" is from "havah" and "havah" is from hayah and hayah is jehovah and jehovah is at least 3 gods.   it's telling you right there that eve was from jehovah, in the sense of "taken out of" not in the sense of "hey, here's a gift adam. a wifey, have fun."  lol

now how in the sam hill did eve "come from god" if she came from man ? cause that's the idea of them stating "Woman" from "Man"  but it ain't woman from man, it's woman from atum.   i can tell ya!  it's because the original adam was atum (both plural words), et.al, the egyptian gods of creatiion. 

the translators didn't know what to make of it, exactly, so they probably debated, asked some jewish scholars of their day, and that was the result :

chavah came from adam, when more precisely it should read:

chavah (chayah) came from havah (hayah).

remember what "god" told moses when he asked him who he should say sent him to the people with the 10 commandments?  he said he was

hayah asher hayah. 

biggggggggggggggggggg clue.

[The Matrix Traveller]

Hi Undo11,

the problem you're most likely encountering is called english translation.

wo-man was not a word in hebrew. it's an english word.

Sorry I obviously didn't make it clear enough for You...


This knowledge has absolutely Nothing at all to do with Translations !


It has to do with the "Geometric" Understanding of The Glyphs and their origin.

I am Referring to The ZION Language NOT... I Repeat NOT "Hebrew".

The ZION Language, is NOT a Language of the "Primate Species".

So it Can't be translated into any other Language.

The Knowledge here.... is to do with GEOMETRY and "The Processing System" of LIFE,
i.e. The LIGHT of MAN, NOT A' DAM & EVE and their  descendants who currently populate the Earth.

You Languages are the Result of the Programs of LIFE.

Human Kind does NOT Create anything All is Inspired by "The One True Mind"
i.e. "Awareness" or LIFE and NOT The "Flesh" as humans desperately desire to believe.

Languages are Inspired by "The True Mind" not the Human Species...

[undo11]

(hint: chavah was made in the image of atum (god) not in the image of adam (man).  now i'm not saying this means god is a woman.  what i'm saying is, it proves the original adam (atum)  were both male and female, and their subsequent creations, were both male and female.  the translators and scribes down thru the ages, just had trouble separating adam(atum)-god from adam-man, so they smashed it all together in their translations. )

[undo11]

Hi Undo11,


Sorry I obviously didn't make it clear enough for You...


This knowledge has absolutely Nothing at all to do with Translations !


It has to do with the "Geometric" Understanding of The Glyphs and their origin.

I am Referring to The ZION Language NOT... I Repeat NOT "Hebrew".

The ZION Language, is NOT a Language of the "Primate Species".

So it Can't be translated into any other Language.

The Knowledge here.... is to do with GEOMETRY and "The Processing System" of LIFE,
i.e. The LIGHT of MAN, NOT A' DAM & EVE and their  descendants who currently populate the Earth.

when you quote the english text, you put your foot in the door of translation problems.

[The Matrix Traveller]

when you quote the english text, you put your foot in the door of translation problems.

Please read again. But This Time without preconceived beliefs.

when you quote the english text, you put your foot in the door of translation problems.

NO... You did NOT Understand what I was saying...  Sorry.   

[undo11]

This is why the "Carpenter/Builder" Jesus, referred to "The Return of the Son of MAN"
and NOT The Return of The Son of A' DAM.

second atum.   (he calls himself that).

how can jesus be the second adam and god at the same time? easy peasy.  atum=adam, plural words meaning gods.
adam race = clones and then humans, made in the image of the adam/atum.

the return of the second atum.  who was the first atum?

[The Matrix Traveller]

how can jesus be the second adam and god at the same time? easy peasy.  atum=adam, plural words meaning gods.

How the Hell do you arrive at this Interpretation ?   

Are You  telling me, you only know the Dead and have NO Knowledge of "The Place of LIFE",
or even The ZION language ?

In other words You only know the "Flesh" and NOT "The Place of LIFE" ?

I find this hard to believe !

I sincerely Hope you do know, "The Place of LIFE".

[undo11]

How the Hell do you arrive at this Interpretation ?   

Are You  telling me, you only know the Dead and have NO Knowledge of "The Place of LIFE",
or even The ZION language ?

In other words You only know the "Flesh" and NOT "The Place of LIFE" ?

I find this hard to believe !

I sincerely Hope you do know, "The Place of LIFE".

not sure about the zion language, no. what is the zion language?

[The Matrix Traveller]

Sorry Undo11 Not sure how you made the Comments you did when are NOT Familiar with The ZION Language ?

But anyway I was trying to explain something you are Not aware of.

Please go back and read very, very, Carefully what I had written regarding the ZION Language.

But don't try and mix it with your own understanding.

Keep it separate...

This is about something you are NOT Aware of, but please, this certainly
does NOT say, I don't know what I am Talking about.

Those who have Witnessed "The LIGHT" i.e. "The Place of LIFE" will be able to follow what I have written and may even understand.

It does NOT come from any human origin, neither is it taught by the human Primate,
but rather can be found in "The Book of LIFE" NOT found on Earth,
except in the form of "Parables" Inspired by "The Tue Mind", or "Awareness"
sometimes referred to as "The LIFE of God" in Ancient writings.

[undo11]

as to how i came up with that interpretation:

"m" denotes plural.
this is why "elohim" is plural,  nephilim is plural, etc.
there was more than one adam and there was more than one gender of adam and more than one kind of adam.  there were female adam and male adam. there were the adam gods (atum) and the adam race (adam).  the race of adam were made in the image of adam.  that's gotta be why the translators had trouble with it.  how can adam be made in the image of himself?  no wonder the egyptians said that atum was "self-created."   adam - god is not the same as adam - man.   also explains why eve ends up being made in the image of adam-man instead of adam-god because they didn't understand that adam-god was not the same as adam-man.

moses was raised egyptian, not to mention his ancestors in his family tree from noah, settled in egypt and ethiopia after the flood.   they would've taken the same stories that ended up in the text of the bible, with them to egypt and ethiopia.  moses would've learned it from those texts in egypt and from his own hebrew family as well.  he would call the gods of creation - atum, because that was the egyptian word for the gods of creation.  well, to be precise, the actual egyptian word is more like "tm"  (tum or tem. they were also pretty much voweless like the hebrews).

sorta how we call a hebrew deity "god" and an egyptian deity "god" and a hindu deity "god" etc.   moses was relating the creation as the people he was leading out of egypt, would've recognized it, with egyptian words, translated into hebrew.   the hebrews added their own flavor by using their own language variants and cultural variants, many of which originally derived from the same place -- et. al, sumer. 

i just connected the dots.   

[undo11]

Sorry Undo11 Not sure how you made the Comments you did when are NOT Familiar with The ZION Language ?

But anyway I was trying to explain something you are Not aware of.

Please go back and read very, very, Carefully what I had written regarding the ZION Language.

But don't try and mix it with your own understanding.

Keep it separate...

This is about something you are NOT Aware of, but please, this certainly
does NOT say, I don't know what I am Talking about.

Those who have Witnessed "The LIGHT" i.e. "The Place of LIFE" will be able to follow what I have written and may even understand.

It does NOT come from any human origin, neither is it taught by the human Primate,
but rather can be found in "The Book of LIFE" NOT found on Earth,
except in the form of "Parables" Inspired by "The Tue Mind", or "Awareness"
sometimes referred to as "The LIFE of God" in Ancient writings.

it's very interesting!
i understand that this flesh body is a primate.  i also understand that i have a spirit body which is not a primate. 
i still don't know what the language of zion is.