BibleForums Christian Message Board

This is not an appropriate response. Stay on topic.
-- A

I’ve never played with a ball that had an “agenda”. Sports are for fun, I try not to add politics to any kind of office Monday with crankcase oil on the table that might I might be required to attend.

Noah was a conspiracy theorist? Wow, I’d be REALLY interested to learn more about that. Most conspiracy theorists think that people, rather than the natural world, are out to get them. I don’t recall Noah making a speech in the Bible, or even Methuselah, of whom it’s only recorded that his name means “After me, the deluge.” I’ll be sure to go back over that in Genesis, though. Noah is a stand alone case to mist Bible readers I know, since for the most part famous prophets are thought to be the ones who personally wrote their own books or scrolls. Moses is alleged to have written all five of the first five books quite a long while after the events that at least the first one records, there’s a big gap in time there between the end of Genesis and the beginning of Exodus, but people miss it, because the great excitement of the fall and the flood tend to overshadow the missing time between the death of Joseph (another dreamer/prophet who didn’t write his own diary), and the birth of Moses, who wrote his memoirs after being led out of Egyptian slavery.

My imagination holds that Noah wasn’t a conspiracy theorist, more a mad scientist working on a newfangled gadget that no one else could think of a use or occasion for. I can see the events he underwent during the tower episode with Ham and the girlies as victimization by a cabal or conspiracy, but I don’t see any evidence at all in the writings that he knew that was coming or foresaw it.

People don’t know the future. Noah and Solomon were both builders in their own right, and do was Moses. But they had only prophesied in the sense that God had given them engineering drawings, basically. They had blueprints. There’s just no record at all that either Noah or Moses saw the future. In fact, I can’t see it in the stories of either David or Solomon, either.

Socially speaking, how do you know the other guy’s a reliable witness? This is an abstract rather than an immediate question. Anyone can order an FBI background check online, so “socially”, as a casual use of a word, you can always find out if the other person is good to testify. Social also means something else in Greek, but you already speak all the Greek, and my keyboard is in English anyway. Social is a word that has more nuances than people think it sounds like these years, it’s been over used by the extreme left.

Saying that something is social, strictly speaking, is stating that it pertains to Socrates, which in the casual non Greek speaking world or outside of the bar association means that it’s got something to do with the king of Greece. The “King of Greece” is termed “Zeus” in the Peloponnese.

If you’re interested in what this has to do with you, Plato, Zeus’ Prime Minister, wrote a book called “The Republic”, which has been translated into English for a long time. I always have to point this out, since San Diego is in the Republic of California. That’s probably just me being sensitive, since I live next to the Mexican border without being overtly Savoyard.

Let occurs at the same time as the historic Festival of Booths. I’d explain the language arts joke, but it’s probably too political for a religion chat room, and also it revolves around atomic spelling. People think you’re talking down to them when you explain jokes, and also you just shouldn’t, because once you’ve done it they know what you know.

Explaining Lent/lint is a good way to find out which side of the American Civil War people fought on, though. Thin about it. Booths. Voting Booths, Polling Booths, John Wilkes Booth…..

Agincourt is another way of saying “Jerusalem”.

Option B.

Always buy low and sell high.

I did spot the computerized note that this was an old post, but since it’s here, I still want to join in. So you cite people you know as evidence of God? I remember when I was a kid in about seventh grade, people started growing up to clever level and asking deep questions, to which the sabbath school teacher always answered, wait until you are mature and have life experience! It always interests me to compare believer’s arguments for and atheists arguments against the existence of God. Believers often cite salvation experiences from their real world lives, and sometimes second chances granted by others, church bodies, or even the state in business, love, and the law. Having gone through hell and come out of it like the footprints poem is a normal belief answer. Atheists by contrast seem to have stayed in seventh grade, and always post clever Trevor questions about how Cain found a wife, or who married who after the flood to repopulate the earth. Not many people cite inspiration as a reason for belief, if you say “I read the Bible as literature and it exhibits grammatical soundness in conjunction with rhetorical validity.” People cut you off as an isolationist and an ivory tower intellectual. If you say you believe because of direct divine inspiration, your a hopey dreamy Obama voter, and you wet your bed. It used to be that people graduated from “my parents said it was true” to “the book makes enough sense” to “I finished college and I can do all the two column proofs in ethical logic as well as formulate the astronomical timeline from the written records”. But belief on the testimony of reliable citizen testimony sounds socially aware too.