Another finding of human/hominid interbreeding...

[zoegirl]

It hasn't been stretched to make it possible. You don't need to accept evolution to accept Old earth...

[musician]

It hasn't been stretched to make it possible. You don't need to accept evolution to accept Old earth...

If you look at the age of humankind as it has been taught over the last 100 years, it has been repeatedly lengthened.

- N

[zoegirl]

sure, because our knowledge has increased

[Kurieuo]

Thanks for the response Gman, I was curious then, if something like this doesn't prove or swing in favor of darwinian evolution (or at least in the sense of human evolution) then what kind of hoop will they have to jump through in order to accomplish such a task? I thought according to Fuz Rana's reaction I thought evolutionists had did just that. Did you listen to the podcast yet? Thanks again. Take care.

I think you misunderstood Fuz's discomfort.

He is quite clear I thought, that the data does not demand an evolutionary framework. Rather it is being interpreted within an evolutionary framework. The data and facts of the research stand on their own, and Fuz provided an alternative interpretation based on RTB's own framework.

No offense, but perhaps you need to give the podcast another listen, paying special attention to how Fuz interprets it within an OEC Day-age understanding.

Fuz's discomfort is more directed at how to understand the imago dei (image of God) if modern humans have mixed genetics with non-imago dei creatures. An important an interesting theological issue for the traducian vs creation debate.

[Kurieuo]

As a side note, some are calling these sub-humans or Neanderthals and Denisovas the nephilim in Genesis 6:4 and Numbers 13:33.

An interesting point. Fuz seems to want to place the interbreeding after the flood though, although this by no means rules out there wasn't a precedence in humanity with interbreeding.

It is interesting that Scripture actually supports interbreeding. I have personally always felt uncomfortable with the nephilim in Scripture. This latest research actually gives me more confidence in this now.

[Gman]

As a side note, some are calling these sub-humans or Neanderthals and Denisovas the nephilim in Genesis 6:4 and Numbers 13:33.

An interesting point. Fuz seems to want to place the interbreeding after the flood though, although this by no means rules out there wasn't a precedence in humanity with interbreeding.

It is interesting that Scripture actually supports interbreeding. I have personally always felt uncomfortable with the nephilim in Scripture. This latest research actually gives me more confidence in this now.

I think I'm the only one here that adheres to the nephilim view.. Yes, it does sound wacky, but sometimes I find this life to be wacky too..

As for Fuz, the Bible also states that there was interbreeding after the flood.. Genesis 6:4 "And also after that." So it is possible...

The more I study it, the more it makes sense anyways.. As for the size of some of these "nephilium" they weren't exactly 10 feet tall giants either.. The dead sea scrolls has given us some new measurements on those sizes..

"The nephilim were presumably destroyed in the Flood, but further giants are reported in the Torah, including the Anakites (Numbers 13:28-33), the Emites (Deuteronomy 2:10), and, in Joshua, the Rephaites (Joshua 12:4). The Bible also tells of Gog and Magog, who later entered into European folklore, and of the famous battle between David and the Philistine giant Goliath. (The King James Bible reports Goliath as "six cubits and a span" in height—over nine feet tall, (over 2.75 m) (1 Samuel 17:4 KJV), but according to other unverified texts, manuscripts, and accounts (the Septuagint, a Hebrew Bible (Greek), the 1st century historian Josephus, and the 1st-2nd century BC Dead Sea Scrolls all give Goliath's height as "four cubits and a span," approximately 2.00 m or about six feet seven inches)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_%28mythology%29

The idea here is that those measurements where corrupted by the Greeks when they translated the Bible. Instead they inserted their god's sizes (from Greek mythology) into the Biblical stories..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_%28m ... _mythology

[coldblood]

Described as a bad report, and at the least suspect, the claims in Numbers 13 such as that of Nephilim were probably embellishments. They claimed, “All the people we saw there are of great size,” and [even though some are mentioned later during the Israeli genocides, "all" would seem to be an exaggeration]; and claimed that, “The land we explored devours those living in it,” which again, was not quite true. The cowardice of the scouts who submitted that particular report, and their fearmongering among the people, so angered the LORD in the cloud that he threatened to kill everyone who lacked faith.

[Gman]

Described as a bad report, and at the least suspect, the claims in Numbers 13 such as that of Nephilim were probably embellishments. They claimed, “All the people we saw there are of great size,” and [even though some are mentioned later during the Israeli genocides, "all" would seem to be an exaggeration]; and claimed that, “The land we explored devours those living in it,” which again, was not quite true.

Well if you would have studied the Canaanite culture you would have understood that these tribes sacrificed their children to their gods, not to mention had sex with them.

The cowardice of the scouts who submitted that particular report, and their fearmongering among the people, so angered the LORD in the cloud that he threatened to kill everyone who lacked faith.

Ah... Not exactly. These people did not want to go to the promise land.. AND they wanted to replace Moses and Aaron by stoning them to death. This is after numerous signs and wonders.. If I was God I wouldn't have put up with this.. These people were completely disrespectful and hated their leaders. If God and Moses wouldn't have intervened, these people would have killed Moses and Aaron and would have returned back to Egypt. But God put up with it..

Numbers 14: 1 That night all the members of the community raised their voices and wept aloud. 2 All the Israelites grumbled against Moses and Aaron, and the whole assembly said to them, “If only we had died in Egypt! Or in this wilderness! 3 Why is the LORD bringing us to this land only to let us fall by the sword? Our wives and children will be taken as plunder. Wouldn’t it be better for us to go back to Egypt?” 4 And they said to each other, “We should choose a leader and go back to Egypt.”

5 Then Moses and Aaron fell facedown in front of the whole Israelite assembly gathered there. 6 Joshua son of Nun and Caleb son of Jephunneh, who were among those who had explored the land, tore their clothes 7 and said to the entire Israelite assembly, “The land we passed through and explored is exceedingly good. 8 If the LORD is pleased with us, he will lead us into that land, a land flowing with milk and honey, and will give it to us. 9 Only do not rebel against the LORD. And do not be afraid of the people of the land, because we will devour them. Their protection is gone, but the LORD is with us. Do not be afraid of them.”

10 But the whole assembly talked about stoning them.

[coldblood]

“Gman wrote:
. . . These people did not want to go to the promise land.. AND they wanted to replace Moses and Aaron by stoning them to death. This is after numerous signs and wonders . .

.


Okay… close enough; and this pervasive irrationality that existed within the camp that produced the scouts is all the more reason to cast doubt on the report of Nephilim.


Those ingrates who rebelled against the LORD’s carrot would soon feel the stick. And fortunately (or perhaps unfortunately, it’s debatable) for them the LORD was mindful of public relations. Moses won an appeal for mercy through reasoning with the LORD that, if he didn’t deliver his chosen people into Canaan, the Canaanites might get the idea that the LORD in the cloud was weak and incapable.

As you say, had you been God, you would not have put up with it. By that I imagine you mean you would have HIT the humans harder, HURT them more. After all, how dare those people not want what you told them to desire? Then again, perhaps you say that because you feel a need to justify the LORD’s actions. Either way, you provide us with insightful comment, and thanks for that.

.


- - -


The LORD approved of stoning people to death, but ONLY for the right reasons.

(While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation . . . And the LORD said to Moses, "The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.")

[Gman]

“Gman wrote:
. . . These people did not want to go to the promise land.. AND they wanted to replace Moses and Aaron by stoning them to death. This is after numerous signs and wonders . .

.


Okay… close enough; and this pervasive irrationality that existed within the camp that produced the scouts is all the more reason to cast doubt on the report of Nephilim.

I don't know what you are advocating here..

Those ingrates who rebelled against the LORD’s carrot would soon feel the stick. And fortunately (or perhaps unfortunately, it’s debatable) for them the LORD was mindful of public relations. Moses won an appeal for mercy through reasoning with the LORD that, if he didn’t deliver his chosen people into Canaan, the Canaanites might get the idea that the LORD in the cloud was weak and incapable.

So your understanding is that Moses wanted to lead his people into Canaan so that he could show how great God was by his presence in the cloud? If not he would be embarrassed?

Ah.. This is a rather pointed question but have you ever read the Bible before?

As you say, had you been God, you would not have put up with it. By that I imagine you mean you would have HIT the humans harder, HURT them more. After all, how dare those people not want what you told them to desire? Then again, perhaps you say that because you feel a need to justify the LORD’s actions. Either way, you provide us with insightful comment, and thanks for that.

Ah... No, what I was trying to relay to you is that man's grace is not as strong as God's grace.. Those people wanted to kill their leaders. What should we do with people today who wish to kill our leaders? It just happened in Arizona with a congresswomen and a judge. Have a parade in their honor? Cheer their killers on?

The LORD approved of stoning people to death, but ONLY for the right reasons.

(While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation . . . And the LORD said to Moses, "The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.")

I don't know what you mean by your statement, but a lot of atheists always bring this into the argument in Numbers 15:35 thinking that God is harsh.. Like Christians have never faced these type of questions before. Just one place in the Bible and they blow the argument totally out of proportion..

Are you also aware of how God treated Cain the first murderer in the Bible? Well, after Cain killed his brother, God's punishment for him wasn't death, instead he told him that his work would now be cursed Genesis 4:12. But Cain petitioned God and told him that he will be a wanderer now and that people would seek to kill him Genesis 4:14.. So what did God do? He marked him so that no one would kill him.. Genesis 4:15. In other words, God protects a murderer..

Think about it before you strike..

[coldblood]

“Gman wrote:
. . . These people did not want to go to the promise land.. AND they wanted to replace Moses and Aaron by stoning them to death. This is after numerous signs and wonders . .

coldblood wrote:
Okay… close enough; and this pervasive irrationality that existed within the camp that produced the scouts is all the more reason to cast doubt on the report of Nephilim.

“Gman wrote:
I don't know what you are advocating here..

My only intention in posting was to point out that the scouts' reporting of Nephilim may have been an embellishment. Any additional comments are only out of courtesy in response to you.

“coldblood wrote:
Moses won an appeal for mercy through reasoning with the LORD that, if he didn’t deliver his chosen people into Canaan, the Canaanites might get the idea that the LORD in the cloud was weak and incapable.

“Gman wrote:
So your understanding is that Moses wanted to lead his people into Canaan so that he could show how great God was by his presence in the cloud? If not he would be embarrassed?

My understanding is simply that Moses said these words to the LORD:

“With your mighty power you rescued your people from Egypt, so please don't destroy us here in the desert. If you do, the Egyptians will hear about it and tell the people of Canaan. Those Canaanites already know that we are your people . . . But if you kill us, they will claim it was because you weren't powerful enough to lead us into Canaan as you promised.”

For whatever reasons Moses may have had, he did use this argument in his appeal to the LORD, and the LORD did relent.

I would not presume to know how the LORD felt about it. “Embarrassment” is your word, and perhaps that is your conclusion.

I wouldn’t want to speculate why, exactly, Moses used this approach. I do not think I would have. However, I am sure Moses was far more familiar and knowledgeable about how to speak to the LORD in the cloud than I am.

“Gman wrote:
Ah.. This is a rather pointed question but have you ever read the Bible before?

I could make equally pointed inquiries about you, but I prefer not to go there.

coldblood wrote:
As you say, had you been God, you would not have put up with it. By that I imagine you mean you would have HIT the humans harder, HURT them more.

“Gman wrote:
. . . what I was trying to relay to you is that man's grace is not as strong as God's grace..

Well, Moses was a man and apparently he had more patience than either you or the LORD in the cloud.

“Gman wrote:
Those people wanted to kill their leaders. What should we do with people today who wish to kill our leaders? It just happened in Arizona with a congresswomen and a judge. Have a parade in their honor? Cheer their killers on?

Perhaps we should be cautious about evaluating the actions of people in Biblical times by today’s standards.

It appears to have been a mob mentality coming from an ignorant, superstitious, and frightened people. (I would add that they were stupid, but stupidity is hereditary and their descendants weren’t stupid.) Nonetheless, how could anyone have seen God’s miracles, (not the least of which was the parting and closing of the sea of reeds, allowing them to cross while drowning their Egyptian pursuers), and then ever say that they want to follow another God; especially when there was no other real God? It doesn’t make sense.

One would think that after all the generations of slavery in Egypt they would have learned to trust their leaders.

coldblood wrote:
The LORD approved of stoning people to death, but ONLY for the right reasons.

(While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation . . . And the LORD said to Moses, "The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.")

“Gman wrote:
I don't know what you mean by your statement, but a lot of atheists always bring this into the argument in Numbers 15:35 thinking that God is harsh.. Like Christians have never faced these type of questions before. Just one place in the Bible and they blow the argument totally out of proportion..

Why harsh? Why would anyone think that? Many good Christians and Christian thinkers have long ago come to terms with situations like this. However, it was not just one occurrence, but stoning to death was the LORD’S solution for several situations.

It would seem that stoning someone is either right or wrong based on one’s reason for doing it. A lynch mob, motivated by anger, insanity, and pressure to conform can for the moment feel they have a moral right to carry out their act. Maybe we shouldn’t be in such a rush to condemn the temporary rage of a people from millennia past.

It is easy to make judgments in hindsight, based on today's standards. It is easy for atheists to judge the LORD of the Old Testament, just as it is easy for us to judge the mob. If the atheists’ judgments are too harsh, perhaps ours are as well. You can’t have it both ways.

“Gman wrote:
Are you also aware of how God treated Cain the first murderer in the Bible? Well, after Cain killed his brother, God's punishment for him wasn't death, instead he told him that his work would now be cursed Genesis 4:12. But Cain petitioned God and told him that he will be a wanderer now and that people would seek to kill him Genesis 4:14.. So what did God do? He marked him so that no one would kill him.. Genesis 4:15. In other words, God protects a murderer..

Moses was a murderer, too, and the LORD protected him. However, the LORD’S protection fell short for 10 of the 12 scouts; and they were NOT murderers.

Yes, I have thought a lot about Cain; thought about the fact that there were enough other people on earth to allow Cain anonymity. Interesting, too, is that the concept of homicide was already so prevalent that it was “expected” someone from the populace would kill Cain should he be discovered. This suggests to me that killers of men were already in existence and that, probably, Cain was not the first murderer.

Also, a typical mark or scar would tend to identify Cain, not hide him. Maybe the mark was recognizable to everyone at the time as having come from God, or at least carried with it some kind of special import to deter killers. But had it been that kind of mark there would seem to be no reason for Cain to flee. So, perhaps it was an altogether different kind of marking. Perhaps God simply altered Cain’s face so that he would not be recognizable. And if that is what happened then this would be the first recorded case of plastic surgery, (done by God's own hand).



“Gman wrote:
Think about it before you strike..

Lead by example.

.

[Gman]

My understanding is simply that Moses said these words to the LORD:

“With your mighty power you rescued your people from Egypt, so please don't destroy us here in the desert. If you do, the Egyptians will hear about it and tell the people of Canaan. Those Canaanites already know that we are your people . . . But if you kill us, they will claim it was because you weren't powerful enough to lead us into Canaan as you promised.”

For whatever reasons Moses may have had, he did use this argument in his appeal to the LORD, and the LORD did relent.

I would not presume to know how the LORD felt about it. “Embarrassment” is your word, and perhaps that is your conclusion.

I wouldn’t want to speculate why, exactly, Moses used this approach. I do not think I would have. However, I am sure Moses was far more familiar and knowledgeable about how to speak to the LORD in the cloud than I am.

No that isn't everything.. You omitted numbers 17-19 from the appeal...

Numbers 14:17 Now may the Lord’s strength be displayed, just as you have declared: 18 ‘The LORD is slow to anger, abounding in love and forgiving sin and rebellion. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.’ 19 In accordance with your great love, forgive the sin of these people, just as you have pardoned them from the time they left Egypt until now.”

So if you are telling me you don't have an opinion? Then why are you posting here?

I could make equally pointed inquiries about you, but I prefer not to go there.

About my understanding of God or your understanding of God?

Well, Moses was a man and apparently he had more patience than either you or the LORD in the cloud.

Really? You seem to have the understanding of the Biblical God down pat.. Who is He?

Perhaps we should be cautious about evaluating the actions of people in Biblical times by today’s standards.

How is that? Have today's standards changed?

It appears to have been a mob mentality coming from an ignorant, superstitious, and frightened people. (I would add that they were stupid, but stupidity is hereditary and their descendants weren’t stupid.) Nonetheless, how could anyone have seen God’s miracles, (not the least of which was the parting and closing of the sea of reeds, allowing them to cross while drowning their Egyptian pursuers), and then ever say that they want to follow another God; especially when there was no other real God? It doesn’t make sense.

One would think that after all the generations of slavery in Egypt they would have learned to trust their leaders.

The Bible say's there are two gods that can do miracles... The people were starting to doubt Moses thinking he lead them out into the wilderness to get killed which is worse than slavery for some..

Why harsh? Why would anyone think that? Many good Christians and Christian thinkers have long ago come to terms with situations like this. However, it was not just one occurrence, but stoning to death was the LORD’S solution for several situations.

You mean that our current government shouldn't have any laws? Should we take police men and women's guns away from them? In Arizona where a gunman killed many people we should just stand there and watch the bloodshed?

It would seem that stoning someone is either right or wrong based on one’s reason for doing it. A lynch mob, motivated by anger, insanity, and pressure to conform can for the moment feel they have a moral right to carry out their act. Maybe we shouldn’t be in such a rush to condemn the temporary rage of a people from millennia past.

It is easy to make judgments in hindsight, based on today's standards. It is easy for atheists to judge the LORD of the Old Testament, just as it is easy for us to judge the mob. If the atheists’ judgments are too harsh, perhaps ours are as well. You can’t have it both ways.

Again what are today's standards? Are you implying things are getting better? And who is the Lord of the OT?

Moses was a murderer, too, and the LORD protected him. However, the LORD’S protection fell short for 10 of the 12 scouts; and they were NOT murderers.

Read the text again.. Some scouts brought a wrong report...

Yes, I have thought a lot about Cain; thought about the fact that there were enough other people on earth to allow Cain anonymity. Interesting, too, is that the concept of homicide was already so prevalent that it was “expected” someone from the populace would kill Cain should he be discovered. This suggests to me that killers of men were already in existence and that, probably, Cain was not the first murderer.

Sure that is possible as well... It just shows us how forgiving God really is.. Thanks for the ammunition.

Also, a typical mark or scar would tend to identify Cain, not hide him. Maybe the mark was recognizable to everyone at the time as having come from God, or at least carried with it some kind of special import to deter killers. But had it been that kind of mark there would seem to be no reason for Cain to flee. So, perhaps it was an altogether different kind of marking. Perhaps God simply altered Cain’s face so that he would not be recognizable. And if that is what happened then this would be the first recorded case of plastic surgery, (done by God's own hand).

It sounds like the last Harry Potter movie when his face got transformed. Anything is possible here...

Lead by example.

I never said I was an example... What is your example?

[coldblood]

“coldblood wrote:
My understanding is simply that Moses said these words to the LORD:

“With your mighty power you rescued your people from Egypt, so please don't destroy us here in the desert. If you do, the Egyptians will hear about it and tell the people of Canaan. Those Canaanites already know that we are your people . . . But if you kill us, they will claim it was because you weren't powerful enough to lead us into Canaan as you promised.”

“coldblood wrote:
For whatever reasons Moses may have had, he did use this argument in his appeal . . .

“Gman wrote:
No that isn't everything.. You omitted numbers 17-19 from the appeal...

No, I said he used the argument “in” his appeal. The second part, N. 17-19, did not further this argument, but was more of a straight-forward plea to the LORD for leniency.

“coldblood wrote:
I would not presume to know how the LORD “felt” about it . . .

“Gman wrote:
So if you are telling me you don't have an opinion? Then why are you posting here?

No, you need to read. I said I would not presume to know the emotions of GOD.


Why I am posting here? You need to read. I will repeat:

“coldbloood wrote:
My only intention in posting was to point out that the scouts' reporting of Nephilim may have been an embellishment. Any additional comments are only out of courtesy in response to you.

“Gman wrote:
Ah.. This is a rather pointed question but have you ever read the Bible before?

“coldblood wrote:
I could make equally pointed inquiries about you, but I prefer not to go there.

“Gman wrote:
About my understanding of God or your understanding of God?

Not hardly. I have no doubt that you can penetrate the mind of God just as easily as you think you can penetrate mine. But, I repeat: I prefer not to go there.

“Gman wrote:
If I was God I wouldn't have put up with this . . . But God put up with it..

“Gman wrote:
. . . what I was trying to relay to you is that man's grace is not as strong as God's grace..

“coldblood wrote:
Well, Moses was a man and apparently he had more patience than either you or the LORD in the cloud.

“Gman wrote:
Really? You seem to have the understanding of the Biblical God down pat.. Who is He?

God is the one whom YOU said put up with it. YOU are the one who said you would NOT have put up with it.

“coldblood wrote:
Perhaps we should be cautious about evaluating the actions of people in Biblical times by today’s standards.

“Gman wrote:
How is that? Have today's standards changed?

Is slavery still legal? Do women have the right to vote?

“While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation . . . And the LORD said to Moses, "The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp." Numbers 15:32-36

“Gman wrote:
. . . a lot of atheists always bring this into the argument in Numbers 15:35 thinking that God is harsh.. Like Christians have never faced these type of questions before. Just one place in the Bible and they blow the argument totally out of proportion..

“coldblood wrote:
Why harsh? Why would anyone think that? Many good Christians and Christian thinkers have long ago come to terms with situations like this. However, it was not just one occurrence, but stoning to death was the LORD’S solution for several situations.

“Gman wrote:
You mean that our current government shouldn't have any laws? Should we take police men and women's guns away from them? In Arizona where a gunman killed many people we should just stand there and watch the bloodshed?

No, you should read. The question means just what it asks: Why should anyone think that stoning a man to death for gathering sticks on the Sabbath [or, for that matter, other sundry reasons] is harsh?

By today’s standards, would that be harsh? Have standards changed? Would it fit in today, or be out of place? If the shoe fits, you know.

“coldblood wrote:
It is easy to make judgments in hindsight, based on today's standards. It is easy for atheists to judge the LORD of the Old Testament, just as it is easy for us to judge the mob. If the atheists’ judgments are too harsh, perhaps ours are as well. You can’t have it both ways.

“Gman wrote:
Again what are today's standards? Are you implying things are getting better? And who is the Lord of the OT?

The state of today’s standards is an excellent question. If you would like to watch a video (released today) of a woman and man being stoned to death by the Taliban, you can see it here:

<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... death.html>

You might note that it takes a willing crowd to throw the stones.


Whether things are getting better or not is a value judgment; and that is something you will have to decide by yourself and for yourself.

And who is the LORD of the Old Testament? In this particular instance, re: your comment on Numbers 15:35, the LORD is the one who ordered that a man be stoned to death for gathering sticks on the Sabbath.

“coldblood wrote:
Moses was a murderer, too, and the LORD protected him. However, the LORD’S protection fell short for 10 of the 12 scouts; and they were NOT murderers.

“Gman wrote:
Read the text again.. Some scouts brought a wrong report...

All the more reason to be suspect of their account regarding the Nephilim --

However, no matter how many times I reread the account, it never did “change” to say that the 10 were murderers, nor did it say that the LORD spared them. [You must tell me how you do that; that is, make the text change by rereading it.]

“coldblood wrote:
. . . Perhaps God simply altered Cain’s face so that he would not be recognizable. And . . . this would be the first recorded case of plastic surgery . . .

“Gman wrote:
It sounds like the last Harry Potter movie when his face got transformed. Anything is possible here...

I never saw any Harry Potter movies, but perhaps I should. Do you find them to be a good source of material?

“Gman wrote:
Think about it before you strike..

“coldblood wrote:
Lead by example.

“Gman wrote:
I never said I was an example... What is your example?

Well, I try to read what you write before I reply to you; not saying that I am good at it, just saying . . .

.

[Gman]

No, I said he used the argument “in” his appeal. The second part, N. 17-19, did not further this argument, but was more of a straight-forward plea to the LORD for leniency.

No what? You omitted the rest of the appeal.. Reread Numbers 14:15-19 entirely. The oath was a promise he made out of love to His people...

No, you need to read. I said I would not presume to know the emotions of GOD.

Then you don't have an opinion... In other words you have nothing to say.

Why I am posting here? You need to read. I will repeat:
“coldbloood wrote:
My only intention in posting was to point out that the scouts' reporting of Nephilim may have been an embellishment. Any additional comments are only out of courtesy in response to you.

Good for you... Maybe the scouts' were reporting that the Nephilium were a basketball team..

Not hardly. I have no doubt that you can penetrate the mind of God just as easily as you think you can penetrate mine. But, I repeat: I prefer not to go there.

Who ever said I could penetrate the mind of God? I just asked you a simple question..

God is the one whom YOU said put up with it. YOU are the one who said you would NOT have put up with it.

That is because God's love is stronger than mine... Nothing new here.

Is slavery still legal? Do women have the right to vote?

What is this about??

No, you should read. The question means just what it asks: Why should anyone think that stoning a man to death for gathering sticks on the Sabbath [or, for that matter, other sundry reasons] is harsh?

By today’s standards, would that be harsh? Have standards changed? Would it fit in today, or be out of place? If the shoe fits, you know.

So why do you think God reacted that way? Why did He command that the man be stoned? In your infinite wisdom..

The state of today’s standards is an excellent question. If you would like to watch a video (released today) of a woman and man being stoned to death by the Taliban, you can see it here:

<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... death.html>

You might note that it takes a willing crowd to throw the stones.

So what is your claim about stoning in the Bible?? Good? Bad? Cool? Don't know? No opinion?

Whether things are getting better or not is a value judgment; and that is something you will have to decide by yourself and for yourself.

What that our tax dollars used today don't support policeman that kill people?

And who is the LORD of the Old Testament? In this particular instance, re: your comment on Numbers 15:35, the LORD is the one who ordered that a man be stoned to death for gathering sticks on the Sabbath.

What does that mean? I believe I'm wasting my time here..

All the more reason to be suspect of their account regarding the Nephilim --

However, no matter how many times I reread the account, it never did “change” to say that the 10 were murderers, nor did it say that the LORD spared them. [You must tell me how you do that; that is, make the text change by rereading it.]

I don't even know what you are reading in the text.. Best wishes..

[coldblood]

To Gman:

-

coldblood wrote:
No, I said he used the argument “in” his appeal . . .
Gman wrote:
No what? You omitted the rest of the appeal.. Reread Numbers 14:15-19 entirely. The oath was a promise he made out of love to His people...

No, I said he used the argument “in” his appeal, as in “part” of his appeal. “Part” does not mean all. Sorry if you misunderstood, again.

However, the remainder of the appeal is indeed very interesting. The LORD’S promise of love, a promise to show kindness and mercy toward his people, contains some intriguing details.


- - -

Coldblood wrote:
. . . I would not presume to know the emotions of GOD.
Gman wrote:
Then you don't have an opinion... In other words you have nothing to say.

Nothing to say because I will not presume to know the emotions of GOD?? Fascinating!

Apparently tapping into GOD’S emotions is not a problem for you.

Suppose however, just suppose, you lacked this peculiar empathic ability. Would that mean that you, too, had nothing to say?


- - -


“coldblood wrote:
My only intention in posting was to point out that the scouts' reporting of Nephilim may have been an embellishment.
Gman wrote:
Good for you... Maybe the scouts' were reporting that the Nephilium were a basketball team..

That makes about as much sense as some of your other conclusions.

However, since you ask for my opinion, I think it much more likely that their report was termed “evil” because it contained elements that were not true; and, if so, that would cast doubt on their report of the Nephilim.

However, the report may have been entirely true and still have been considered evil; a kill-the-messenger type response, if you will. I doubt that was the situation, but if it was, it wouldn’t be the only time someone had a problem with the truth.


- - -


coldblood wrote:
“ . . . I have no doubt that you can penetrate the mind of God just as easily as you think you can penetrate mine. But, I repeat: I prefer not to go there.”
Gman wrote”
Who ever said I could penetrate the mind of God? I just asked you a simple question..

Your inquiry was, quote: [color=#004040]“About my understanding of God or your understanding of God?” [/color]

There are some people who would not consider an understanding of GOD to be a simple question.

If you want my opinion, “simple” is the last word I would use in describing GOD. GOD is neither a simpleton, nor simple to understand. Again, that is only my humble opinion.

However, if you are saying that you, too, are unable to penetrate the mind of GOD, does that confirm that you, too, have nothing to say?


- - -


Gman wrote”
You seem to have the understanding of the Biblical God down pat.. Who is He?
Coldblood wrote:
God is the one whom YOU said put up with it. YOU are the one who said you would NOT have put up with it.
Gman wrote:
That is because God's love is stronger than mine... Nothing new here.

Fine, and apparently Moses’ love was stronger than yours is, too, in that he also put up with it.


- - -


“Gman wrote:
Again what are today's standards? Are you implying things are getting better?
Coldblood wrote:
Is slavery still legal? Do women have the right to vote?
Gman wrote:
What is this about??

It is about answering your question. I think most people can make the connection between today’s changing standards and the two human rights questions that I posed to you.


- - -


Numbers 15; 32-36:
“ . . . the people of Israel . . . found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath . . . [they] brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation . . . And the LORD said to Moses, "The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp."

Gman wrote:
So why do you think God reacted that way? Why did He command that the man be stoned? In your infinite wisdom..


According to the Biblical account the man was stoned for gathering sticks on the Sabbath.

Surely it was an act of love ordered by a loving GOD. However, even with my “infinite wisdom” I cannot establish that connection between love and killing.

However with GOD being as simple to understand as you claim he is, surely “you” must have down pat some snappy little explanation that is concise, obvious, and implicit within the very verse itself.

Or, at the very least, you seem to think I have such an answer that I can give to you.


- - -


Gman wrote:
. . . they [the crowd] wanted to replace Moses and Aaron by stoning them to death. This is after numerous signs and wonders.. If I was God I wouldn't have put up with this . . .
Gman wrote:
. . . a lot of atheists always bring this into the argument in Numbers 15:35 thinking that God is harsh.. Like Christians have never faced these type of questions before. Just one place in the Bible and they blow the argument totally out of proportion . . .
Gman wrote:
So what is your claim about stoning in the Bible?? Good? Bad? Cool? Don't know? No opinion?

According to you, if the people threaten to stone (Moses & Aaron), it is intolerable.

However, if the LORD orders a stoning (for collecting sticks on the Sabbath), it is a time-worn cheap-shot used by atheists to mischaracterize the nature of God.


- - -


Gman wrote:
I believe I'm wasting my time here..

I do not wish to be guilty of wasting your time. I never meant to threaten you and I am sorry that I could not give you the answers that you preferred to hear.

I did attempt to respond to your comments, remain on topic, try to be accurate, and afford you as much respect as you would allow me to give.


- - -


coldblood wrote:
. . . the LORD’S protection fell short for 10 of the 12 scouts; and they were NOT murderers.
“Gman wrote:
Read the text again.. Some scouts brought a wrong report...
coldblood wrote:
. . . I reread the account, it never did “change” to say that the 10 were murderers, nor did it say that the LORD spared them.
“Gman wrote:
I don't even know what you are reading in the text.. Best wishes..

YOU are the one who told me to reread the text. Perhaps, if YOU kept track of your own words, YOU wouldn’t be so clueless.

I make this last response because it epitomizes this entire (brief) interchange. You have a tendency to misstate, misdirect, and/or misunderstand replies you do not wish to acknowledge. I did my best to listen to you and bring you back to the subject each time you did this.

I do not visit here often. I had no idea what you had to offer, but I was willing to listen. I would not ask you to follow my example, because I am far-far from being perfect. But in this one area, if you want my humble opinion, I would offer this. If you were more willing to listen and less willing to tell us how befuddled you are, you might get more value for your time.

Respectively, I wish you the very, very best . . . coldblood

.