The music and the net "John Titor" mentioned

[KerrTexas]

Re: The music and the net \"John Titor\" mentioned

For now I am sticking with what I consider to be the Divinely inspired books contained in the King James translation, and that is mostly because there are concordances that have ciphered out all the mis-translations, inconsistencies, and explain word meanings that were different in the time the book was written compared to today.

Good that you have taken the time to study and review the material as presented in the King James Bible. I will say that the true understanding doesn't necessarily come from the actual words as printed in the text, but comes when a certain relationship has developed between the "thirsty" and the Lord.

Remember, even the Apostles themselves didn't understand what Jesus was saying, until Jesus felt that they had reached a point that He provided them with an understanding.

"""
"Therefore speak I to them in parables, because they seeing SEE NOT: and hearing they HEAR NOT, NEITHER DO THEY UNDERSTAND" (Matt. 13:13).

"And when He was alone, they that were about Him with the twelve asked of Him the parable… And he said unto them, Know you NOT this parable? And how then will ye know all parables?" (Mark 4:10 & 13).

"Then He took unto Him the twelve, and said unto them. Behold we go up to Jerusalem, and ALL THINGS that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished… and THEY UNDERSTOOD NONE of these things: and this saying was HID from them, NEITHER KNEW they the things which were spoken" (Luke 18:31-34).

And He said unto them, These are the words which I spoke unto you while I was yet with you that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses in the prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning Me, Then opened He their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures [ALL of the Scriptures]" (Luke 24:44-45).

"""

Should make one pause before they declare exactly what it is they believe they understand, and why it would be felt that IF the Apostles themselves didnt understand, why would it be made any easier for anyone today ?

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: The music and the net \"John Titor\" mentioned

That book is part of the Apocrypha, which I don't believe are part of true Christianity. The first clue is that they are 'secret' and that goes against all other Christian teaching which is about God's people having access to Him and knowing Him.

There are plenty of "secrets" in Christianity, although the Christian faiths tend to prefer to call them "mysteries" as if to imply that the elders of the Church do not know any more than the "flock" does. But that is just not true. In fact, one can use the words of Christ himself to show that there are, indeed, "secrets" that even God keeps from His flock:

<font color="red"> Matthew 24:36, NIV. "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."[/COLOR]

This is just one example of a "secret" in Christianity. There are more. In the interest of full disclosure: I grew up a Catholic through my late teen years, went to Catholic schools, and so I am quite well-versed in Christian theology.

I don't doubt the people who wrote these books considered themselves followers of Christ, they just really twisted things. I will admit I haven't read them yet, and I'm going on others descriptions and assesments in what I have read about them.

That says a lot. I am afraid it is not fair (to the people who wrote the apocrypha) to say they "twisted things" without you reading them yourself and appealing directly to God to guide you as to whether they are "real". I found that, when reading apocrypha within the context of other spiritual traditions, it brings to light just how much the development of the Church was controlled by mankind, and not necessarily through "divine inspiration". Rome did not necessarily adopt Christianity for wholly spiritually-inspired reasons. Rome was first and foremost about controlling and pacifying her subjugate nations.

and that is mostly because there are concordances that have ciphered out all the mis-translations, inconsistencies, and explain word meanings that were different in the time the book was written compared to today.

There are a great many concordances, written by fallible humans, that attempt to do nothing more than convince the masses thus making them easier to control. I think you might have a hard time aruging the fact that in the middle ages the Church was the de facto political controller of lives throughout Europe. I have found a great many reasons not to trust the political organization that is the church of Rome. With things like "Church Law" they wish to supplant Christ as the authority with their own (additional) rules. There is absolutely NO reason why women should not be allowed to be priests. In fact, when you study other spiritual traditions, you come to find that a "real" ceremony worshipping God's creations cannot be complete without BOTH the male and female potencies. They are BOTH part of the "mystery" of creation. One cannot create without the other.

RMT

 

[TimeNot_0]

Re: The music and the net \"John Titor\" mentioned

To say that the Governmit had anything to do with it is like saying that since they don't believe anyone, we surely really only believe half of what they say.

I am sure some people in the Governmit (Congress) perhaps underneath their breath whether aware of it or not is probably having thoughts similiar to:

"I find your lack of faith - disturbing!"

If anything, you should first not assume and ask them if they are:

"Time-Travellers?"

After all the rhetoric:

I leave, once again!
-------------------------------------------------------------

The Universe is Not Enough!

Humans are on this Planet and in this Universe.

http://dimensionalcitizen.tripod.com/index.html

/ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[aerohead]

Re: The music and the net \"John Titor\" mentioned

That makes no sense at all.

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: The music and the net \"John Titor\" mentioned

Yeah, well.... TimeNot_0 is one of our more "colorful and unique" members... /ttiforum/images/graemlins/confused.gif

RMT

 

[Packerbacker]

Re: The music and the net \"John Titor\" mentioned

That makes no sense at all.

<font color="red"> That's because it's neo-Creedo-ism. [/COLOR]

Waiting for Godot doesn't make "sense" either, (not that I care for it).

 

[servantx]

Re: The music and the net \"John Titor\" mentioned

There is absolutely NO reason why women should not be allowed to be priests.

Hi RainmanTime,

1 Corinthians 14:34

"women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. "

Priests speak sermons in the church. Not suitable for women under that verse in the bible.

However, women can be appointed as Deans who can teach other younger women and be leaders of youth group and sunday school teachers.

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: The music and the net \"John Titor\" mentioned

1 Corinthians 14:34

"women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. "

Priests speak sermons in the church. Not suitable for women under that verse in the bible.

However, women can be appointed as Deans who can teach other younger women and be leaders of youth group and sunday school teachers.

That is not the word of God. Those are the words of a very fallible human, influenced by the sexism and patriarchial politics of his time. In other words, the Bible is simply wrong in that particular statement. I am sorry if this offends you, and if you really do think this is the word of God then all I can do is pray for you. The God I know, and have communicated with, is not sexist. He created value in both sexes, and anyone who values all the knowledge they received from both their mother and father knows this.

RMT

 

[servantx]

Re: The music and the net \"John Titor\" mentioned

Hi RainmanTime,

No no I don't mean God is sexist or anything like that, it is just the "role" of men and women are different on earth when God created them.

Like the way that Moses who encountered God said in Deuteronomy:
"22:5 A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this. "

Like the way women and men are "different". The jobs or roles for them are also different.

What is written in 1 Corinthians 14:34 is word of God. To show the authenticity let me explain the full context of the passage. It was about the orderly worship in the church.

(1) the Law St. Paul mentioned is the Law of Moses who encountered God in person.
The Law is from God = God said it.

(2) the entire chapter is about Prophecy. Prophecy is a spiritual gift from God. A true prophet don't speak prophecy with their own minds but spoke the word of God. And in the same way the bible is God breathed, the writers doesn't write their own mind but only as instruments to write what is from the breath of God ("breath of God" = "Spirit" in Hebrew)

Here is the whole passage:

1 Corinthians 14

As in all the congregations of the saints, 34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

36Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. 38If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.

I repeat this once more time and hope you understand my agenda. God is not sexist, nor the context is sexist, it is from God, not men, it said that because God created men and women differently and gave them different roles.

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: The music and the net \"John Titor\" mentioned

it is just the "role" of men and women are different on earth when God created them.

I disagree. There is only evidence for biological roles. Nothing else. There is certainly no evidence at all that God intends men and women to keep separate social roles.

Like the way that Moses who encountered God said in Deuteronomy:
"22:5 A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this. "

Fact #1 - ALL clothing was created by man. God created us in a naturally unclothed state. So claiming that God wishes men and women to dress a certain way is heresay since God did not create us with clothes.

Fact #2 - Genesis 3:7-11 states: <font color="red"> "7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the LORD God called to the man, "Where are you?"

10 He answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid."

11 And he said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?" " [/COLOR]

Clearly one part of the Bible contradicts the other, yet it is self-evident that humans were not created with clothes. Therefore, what you claim cannot be true.

Like the way women and men are "different". The jobs or roles for them are also different.

This is a non-sequitor. It does not follow that just because we are biologically different that men and women must have different social roles. That is ancient thinking.

What is written in 1 Corinthians 14:34 is word of God.

I disagree.

To show the authenticity let me explain the full context of the passage. It was about the orderly worship in the church.

Are you claiming to be the interpreter of words alleged to be God's? That is bordering on sacrilege: John 1:1 <font color="red"> "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." [/COLOR]

Here is the whole passage:

The whole passage only further proves that the Church, created by man and whose rules were established by man, was patriarchal and sexist. I know you may believe differently and that is your right. But the Bible is anything but clear on this:

http://www.directionjournal.org/article/?680

<font color="red"> "Those who believe the Bible restricts the public ministry of women appeal to texts such as 1 Timothy 2:11-12,14 and 1 Corinthians 14:34; those who favor the unrestricted ministry of women counter with Galatians 3:28, Romans 16:1-3,6,12, Philippians 4:2-3 and 1 Corinthians 11:5. Since there is so little consensus on the Pauline writings, perhaps we may turn to the Gospels for guidance." [/COLOR]

Read the gospel of John, especially the place of Mary Magdalene as the first one to proclaim the risen Jesus.

RMT

 

[PaintHorse]

Re: The music and the net \"John Titor\" mentioned

There are plenty of "secrets" in Christianity, although the Christian faiths tend to prefer to call them "mysteries" as if to imply that the elders of the Church do not know any more than the "flock" does. But that is just not true. In fact, one can use the words of Christ himself to show that there are, indeed, "secrets" that even God keeps from His flock:

Matthew 24:36, NIV. "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

This is just one example of a "secret" in Christianity. There are more. In the interest of full disclosure: I grew up a Catholic through my late teen years, went to Catholic schools, and so I am quite well-versed in Christian theology.

This particular scripture is about Christ's second coming and it is kept from us for a reason. God may have secrets from men, but the secrets I refer to are the ones that men have from each other. I believe true Christianity is not about secrets that one Christian keeps from another. Jesus said if you have "eyes to see and ears to hear" meaning it wasn't secret at all, but waiting for you to grow into the wisdom so you could understand. He was disappointed in the Apostles when they didn't understand his parables, although He expected most of the listening crowds would not understand. To me Christianity is a reality, not a religion. As soon as you limit what you learn by a particular denomination, you have chosen a particular corruption....or tradition of men, not God. I grew up what I thought was Christian Protestant Congregationalist and attended regularly until I was 25 and sporadically thereafter. I got very disallusioned after my husband died at age 27 and why my church and religion had no comfort or answers for me.

That says a lot. I am afraid it is not fair (to the people who wrote the apocrypha) to say they "twisted things" without you reading them yourself and appealing directly to God to guide you as to whether they are "real". I found that, when reading apocrypha within the context of other spiritual traditions, it brings to light just how much the development of the Church was controlled by mankind, and not necessarily through "divine inspiration". Rome did not necessarily adopt Christianity for wholly spiritually-inspired reasons. Rome was first and foremost about controlling and pacifying her subjugate nations.

Exactly my point. What does Rome have to do with God? The first assemblage of old testament books is thought to have been done by the prophets Ezra and Nehemiah. God called Israel his treasured people, not the Romans. I know that the books that are compiled into our Bible of today all have acrostics that aid in showing their divinity. Like I said, I haven't studied the Apocrypha yet, but I have a feeling that is one of the reasons they were omitted from the King James. I need to find out when the acrostics were first discovered (They weren't secret, we just didn't have the wisdom to see them for a while.)

There are a great many concordances, written by fallible humans, that attempt to do nothing more than convince the masses thus making them easier to control. I think you might have a hard time aruging the fact that in the middle ages the Church was the de facto political controller of lives throughout Europe. I have found a great many reasons not to trust the political organization that is the church of Rome. With things like "Church Law" they wish to supplant Christ as the authority with their own (additional) rules. There is absolutely NO reason why women should not be allowed to be priests. In fact, when you study other spiritual traditions, you come to find that a "real" ceremony worshipping God's creations cannot be complete without BOTH the male and female potencies. They are BOTH part of the "mystery" of creation. One cannot create without the other.

I will save you some time and suggest you read something by E. W. Bullinger. I am not in the least interested in the church of the middle ages because what you say is totally true. I am not really interested in any church, unless it is the true Church of Christ, which owns no building or property other than souls. I give you a 'bravo' for not trusting the church of Rome. The scriptures do not say women can not or should not be priests. This is a tradition of men based on a mistranslation. The word speak was actually 'chatter' in the Greek and no one, man or woman, should chatter when they are supposed to be respectfully listening to God's word. The Apostle Paul mentions many women in scripture who are church leaders and teachers, so he obviously would not say to keep women from preaching then have them preaching at churches he was establishing.

...help those women which laboured with me in the gospel... Philippians 4:3

In Philippians 4:2 Paul mentions Euodias and Syntyche as being "of the same mind" as Paul himself, teachers of the gospel. The fact that Euodias is mentioned first establishes that she was a church leader, else her name should have been listed after the male name, Syntyche.

The belief that women take a back seat to men is the corruption of todays fake Christianity. The Bible and God are clear that men and women are all equally His children.

I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to as the "mystery" of creation. It's actually spelled out pretty well, and I think I have it down as well as a fallable human mind can, but I am always hoping for more wisdom on the subject when God sees fit to let my eyes be opened.

PaintHorse

 

[servantx]

Re: The music and the net \"John Titor\" mentioned

Hi RainmanTime,

Fact #1 - ALL clothing was created by man. God created us in a naturally unclothed state. So claiming that God wishes men and women to dress a certain way is heresay since God did not create us with clothes.

Fact #2 - Genesis 3:7-11 states: "7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the LORD God called to the man, "Where are you?"

10 He answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid."

11 And he said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?" "

Clearly one part of the Bible contradicts the other, yet it is self-evident that humans were not created with clothes. Therefore, what you claim cannot be true.

Fig leaves cannot last, they are not real clothings, they just try to get something to cover themselves, but it doesn't work so they have to hide themselves.


God made the first "real" garments.

Genesis 3:21
21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.

Are you claiming to be the interpreter of words alleged to be God's? That is bordering on sacrilege: John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Do you remember I posted the following. Do you think St. Paul is lying to you and mankind?

1 Corinthians 14:37
37If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command.

In John 1:1, the word "Word" is translation of original Greek text "Logos", St. John was proclaiming Jesus is the Word at the beginning, who is with God.

In the same chapter later he said, John 1:14
14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.


I pray that may the Lord reveals to both of us and that you understand the bible is from God. Not from men.

2 Timothy 3:16
16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness



I have found a right answer to that question about men and women. These guys answered it more clearly than I do. Jesus does not restrict disciples to male, but to females as well as he asked all to activity of sharing the faith.

But when it comes to the role of being a spiritual head and teaching with authority over a group of both men and women, God has asked men to take that role.


Here is the answer that explain it well.

"Let me begin with something in which we are certainly in agreement. When Jesus gave his great commission and urged his church to make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:19), he certainly was not restricting that activity of sharing the faith only to adult males. When Peter tells us in his first epistle that we are God's "royal priests" who are to "declare the praises of him who called us out of darkness into his wonderful light" (1 Peter 2:9), that also is not restricted to males. Every Christian has a calling from God to "always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have" (1 Peter 3:15). And while that calling to be ready to speak of the wonders of our Savior's gospel has been given to all of us, there are also those - both men and women - who have particular gifts and abilities from God to turn conversations from things of this life to things of eternity.

But while all Christians - men and women, young and old - are certainly privileged to share the gospel in their personal lives wherever they are (that's one privilege of what we call the priesthood of all believers) it is a different thing when we, God's royal priests, ask someone to speak on our behalf and to teach the Word to us with God's authority. While Jesus doesn't speak of this directly in the gospels, those who speak as his inspired spokesmen (and so with his authority) do speak of this. When it comes to the public, authoritative teaching of the Word (which is much of what a pastor does), the Apostle Paul tells us this quite simply and clearly: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." (1 Timothy 2:12). These words of Paul reflect the fact that while men and women are absolutely equal in status and importance with God, we are not duplicates of each other. God has established unique callings for us. When it comes to the role of being a spiritual head and teaching with authority over a group of both men and women, God has asked men to take that role.

But let me end where I began. While God does have specific direction for who speaks his Word to his gathered flock, this does not in the least take away from the sharing of the gospel that all his Christians are called to do in their personal lives in whatever opportunities God gives. For that, he has indeed gifted both Christian men and women with such abilities!"

Source: http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?1518&amp;cuTopic_topicID=30&amp;cuItem_itemID=13305


May Jesus Christ blesses you in your journey, RainmenTime.

 

[PaintHorse]

Re: The music and the net \"John Titor\" mentioned

the Apostle Paul tells us this quite simply and clearly: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."

Then how do you explain Phoebe? She was the equivalent of a college dean for teaching scripture and Paul regarded her very highly.

I suggest you study this particular scripture in the Greek language because the Bible you are taking from has slaughtered the true meaning.

Paul said no one should "chatter" during teaching and if a woman couldn't refrain from it, (stereotypical, I know, but sometimes true!)then it would be better for her to stay home and learn the scripture from her husband when he returns home.

The only place I can find that men and women are not totally equal in scripture is the husband is put at the head of the family. This is actually a necessity since two leaders don't work, but with that denotation comes much responsibility, because the husband is told to love his wife and treat her like his own body. You do not want to harm your body, so the wife giving way to the husband when they can't reach agreement is supposed to work out, in that, his love for her is so great, that he makes sure she does not feel inferior to him as a result of his final say on a matter.

PH

 

[PaintHorse]

Re: The music and the net \"John Titor\" mentioned

OK, I don't claim to have this one all figured out yet, but I do know that 'naked' does not mean what we think of as 'naked'. Adam and Eve did not bite an apple and suddently realize they didn't have clothes on.

Read about Ham uncovering his fathers (Noah's) nakedness. Seeing your father naked would be a shock I know, but in the Hebrew this was a term that meant you had sex. In this case it was Ham having sex with his mother/stepmother (not sure which) and that was how he "uncovered his fathers nakedness"

I know there was sex involved in the garden and covering up with fig leaves means something too, and that God covered them with skins. Every word means something. Nothing is arbitrary. I just haven't had my eyes opened on this one completely.

The Hebrew texts say Eve was "beguiled by the Nakash". The KJV calls him the "serpent" although Nakash means "shining one" which serpents were also called. I came to my own conclusion on this, but to me an angel in also a "shining one" and Satan was an angel. (A hunk of a hottie too, as described by God himself.)

Come on guys, I know you can put 2 and 2 together on this one. Forget about the apple and think about another "tree" or "trunk" with "limbs".

Now I will give you a little hint that there is another mistranslation concerning the births of Cain and Abel. It's not a secret, but when you read it do you have the eyes to see it?

PH

 

[KerrTexas]

Re: The music and the net \"John Titor\" mentioned

Jesus said if you have "eyes to see and ears to hear" meaning it wasn't secret at all, but waiting for you to grow into the wisdom so you could understand. He was disappointed in the Apostles when they didn't understand his parables, although He expected most of the listening crowds would not understand.

No, He wasn't disappointed at all. If you bothered to read my post above, as stated there, Jesus held back from providing the Apostles with understanding his parables. When he deemed the time was appropriate, he THEN gave to them what he meant for them to understand.

Do you really think that Jesus would NOT be capable of saying something to anyone in a manner that could be easily understood ? or do you believe that Jesus had a failure to communicate ?

Growing into the wisdom means nurturing that part of Himself God that gave to man. A seed that was given to each of us when He breathed "life" into the body he had made from the Earth.

The last book in the KJV almost didn't make it, and the Apocalypse of Peter was slated to be the last book, however, the Church decided that the mention that ALL would be saved from Hell did not sit well with them. Anything that hints at the Church NOT being necessary to develop a realtionship with God, was excluded. Accuracy was a great excuse to proclaim to the general poulation -- however most of the Books that Rainman mentioned in his posts, were withheld from the Bible(s) simply becuase they took the ice cream away from the organized religious institutions. In other words, those texts and/or manuscripts did not promote filling the coffers with silver and gold in the vaults of the Churches.

Not to mention the political agendas and personal ideals that were infused into many of the translations.

These distortion's become clear when you are able to go back to the earliest versions before others had the opportunity to input their own ideals into the text.

How many times the Church has had to back up and eat their words when certain scientific discoveries are made that contradict the Churches claims ?

In the Hermetic Traditions, many of these "scientific discoveries" were already in the Hermetic texts, and those same discoveries were not much of a surprise to the Hermetic Folks.

As far as secrets are concerned, there are a few reasons for secrecy. One of which was that during the course of history, many who claimed anything different than the ruling powers were imprisoned or killed. So these men found it necessary to write thier "experiences" in a format that would not be easily discovered by those who would seek to execute them.

Alchemy is a prime example of this...most of the terminology within the alchemist texts contain words that do NOT mean what they are written as...but are surface covering's for people to read one thing, while those involved were able to extract what was really written into those texts.

Many people are not able to handle the truth, or expect understanding just to be handed over to them without doing the work to earn it. I can't say how many times that efforts to explain certain concepts (L)earned through experience and intense discipline has been attempted, and after recognizing that most people have no idea what is being said, leads one to remain silent.

No secrets, but no reason to say anything if the concepts are either not understood, or mis-used.

What I sense from you Painthorse, is a type of tunnel vision. Focused on only a portion of the painting, and missing the rest of the picture.

Satan was created perfectly to be the perfect deceiver. That was and is his purpose. That he is some sort of fallen angel is hogwash, but you won't find that out until you have walked a certain distance along the path.

A read through the materials of L. Ray Smith might interest you, and open some doors that otherwise have been closed to you.

The other aspect I havent read about yet, but was mentioned by RainmanTime, was "experience". Anybody can read all the books they want, but without the "experience" all the words in all the books mean nothing.

If anyone decided to engage in a discussion with another about summoning elemental beings, but got the information only from some books and never actually did it themselves, what could he/she possibly contribute to the discussion with someone who has actually done it ? The level of understanding would be from two entirely different perspectives. And who would have the more accurate perspective ? The book reader or the person that actually had the experience ?

The Word of God lives, and is an experience beyond ink on paper. Only through the experience of the Living Word, does ones eye's and ear's become opened, and that is IF God has determined that the relationship between that individual and Himself is at a point the person is capable OF understanding His Word.

There also is alot of information that never made into written words, but have been passed down verbally. Kind of hard to know what that information is without having been told, wouldn't you say ?

Sure, there are instances where some have been granted the gift of understanding God's Word without reading a single word in print. Although that is extremely rare.

I might be wrong, but I have a feeling what you are going to say about Cain and Able...is that there was hanky-panky between Eve and an angel, and God became so angry He threw the angels out of the Garden, with Adam and Eve as well.

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: The music and the net \"John Titor\" mentioned

Come on guys, I know you can put 2 and 2 together on this one. Forget about the apple and think about another "tree" or "trunk" with "limbs".

Are you pointing out what is the real significance of the Tree Of Life? The Tree Of Life is your physical body:

I do not need others' interpretations of the Bible foisted upon me, or even suggested to me. For I have experienced a direct relationship with our Creator that silences all imperfect, man-made language. Truth cannot possibly be relayed by fallible human language. This can be scientifically proven (Godel Incompleteness Theorem). Our language is merely one tool when it comes to understanding our position with respect to our Creator. The Bible is not perfect, and certainly not without error. In addition, as KerrTexas points out, much of the Pentateuch was written as allegory. I can point you to a book that shows how the 1st chapter of Genesis can actually be viewed as an accurate treatise on the physics of the Big Bang!

www.workofthechariot.com

There is another book (Sepher Yetzirah) that illustrates how the most basic structure of those 31 verses in Genesis 1 correspond directly to the diagram I have shown above. It is a story of Creation on many different levels. It is a non-linear text. The literal reading is merely the most linear interpretation. But much of the depth of Genesis 1 is lost when translating to other languages. For the original biblical Hebrew it was written in is primarily a mathematical language. Those who believe they can understand everything about God from a translated version of Genesis 1 are simply mistaken.

RMT

 

[recall15]

Re: The music and the net \"John Titor\" mentioned

Old ADSL just dissapear, this one got Dynamic IP *

Hello Again RMT ...

:oops:

 

[KerrTexas]

Re: The music and the net \"John Titor\" mentioned

do not need others' interpretations of the Bible foisted upon me, or even suggested to me

I agree . I realized last night after posting that discussion(s) relative to certain details of the Bible(s) could be endless and usually never accomplish anything. Rarely does anyone walk away with accepting different perspectives, but begrudingly hold onto their peerspectives regardless. Case in point: The God ? Thread here at Time Travel Institute.

To bring this into the relativity of time travel, what has been attempted to be placed onto the table are the underlying "dynamics" of energies. That Adam or Eve did this or that, doesnt really apply to our intentions in the here and now, but is a seperate topic that should be relegated elesewhere for discussion, perhaps under a Morals and Philosophy Thread ?

To carry on here in the realm of time travel...included in many of the texts that have been mentioned, there are the dynamics of Creation, itself, and in walking the path, one becomes familiar with the realities, NOT as written, but as experiences.

Telling anyone what it is to climb to the Summit of Mount Whitney ( for example ) will be quite different between the one that actually made the climb, and the other whom read about it in a book.

What I believe is being attempted here, is to inspire others to step away from the ink on the papers, and try to "live" and experience the "dynamics of life" themselves, something above and beyond the mere words of any one particular book.

 

[PaintHorse]

Re: The music and the net \"John Titor\" mentioned

I do not need others' interpretations of the Bible foisted upon me, or even suggested to me. For I have experienced a direct relationship with our Creator that silences all imperfect, man-made language.

I apologize, I did not realize I was trying to do that and had no intention to. I was simply saying that sometimes our first information is incomplete or wrong and we should always be willing to listen to another idea. Wasn't Galileo persecuted for just such an idea? I always thought the way to learn was to be open minded. I have a relationship with God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit, but it does not give me the right to silence anyone or anything. Christ said many would come preaching in his name, and He would say He did not know them. Why? They didn't tell the truth of His Word and I don't plan on being in that group.

I can point you to a book that shows how the 1st chapter of Genesis can actually be viewed as an accurate treatise on the physics of the Big Bang!

I am really confused. I don't know what you want from me. I totally agree with you on this subject (which has not been mentioned up til now) and yet you treat me like we have some arguement over this. Do you just like to create friction where there is none? As a matter of fact Moses, who knew nothing about modern science, correctly described the 13 events of the creation of the universe and in the correct order. I forget what the odds of that are, but I believe it was over 6 billion to one. If this doesn't prove divine inspiration I don't know what does. It seems like we could agree on certain things, but you feel the need to silence me or at least lord over me that you are more intelligent and insightful than I could ever be. Perhaps you are right on both counts, but why would you want to shove it in my face that way? I'm not one of your students, a captive audience relying on your approval or pass/fail.

Why are so many people on this board on such a high horse? Every time I post here I get bashed so I can take a hint. Both you and Kerr seem to think you need to put me in my place and I don't understand why. Didn't you read somewhere that it's not your place to judge me? I have never proclaimed to by anything other than a grieving mother looking for answers. If you truly believe what you claim to, I would think you would both have kinder spirits toward those of us in great need of compassion. I started out asking about time travel in scripture but this has really degraded to "I believe vs what you believe" and I'm not interested in that type of discussion or making any of you believe what I believe. You are pretty well set in what you believe and Jesus said to knock the dirt off my shoes as I leave your company.

I have had a lot of "Wow" moments studying the scriptures over the past year and just thought maybe someone would like to share that experience, but you have made it clear that my thoughts are not welcome here. I would have enjoyed the discussion of scripture with people who were not religious fanatic bible thumpers who already thought they knew everything. I do not know everything and don't proclaim to, but I have learned a lot as of late. I will leave you to your fun at others expense. I hope this board gives you many happy hours of fake time traveler de-bunking.

By the way, you got some of what I was getting at that the 'tree' was a body, and it was Satan's. The whole truth is much deeper than that though and takes much scriptural explanation,but here it seems even milk is hard to stomach for some.

I"m sure I won't be missed.
Good Bye and Happy Trails

PaintHorse

 

[KerrTexas]

Re: The music and the net \"John Titor\" mentioned

Every time I post here I get bashed so I can take a hint. Both you and Kerr seem to think you need to put me in my place and I don't understand why. Didn't you read somewhere that it's not your place to judge me? I have never proclaimed to by anything other than a grieving mother looking for answers. If you truly believe what you claim to, I would think you would both have kinder spirits toward those of us in great need of compassion.

I apologize for my counter-points to your points being taken as "bashing you".

I figured that we were merely engaged in a debate, and I don't agree with some of your points, and said why I didn't...and that is all there is to what was written. That you took offense, was not my intention.

I encourage you to not give up, but continue to contribute your perspectives.

We all are on a learning curve, and as you come across obstacles, doesn't mean that you should give up.

I hope you change your mind and decide to stay...whether "I" agree with you or disagree with you, why should that difference of perspective be justification for giving "me" the power to cause "you" either stay or go in this instance ?