FooManChoo

quote:

---

The Sumerian Tablet the Bible Couldn't Hide - It Describes What the Garden of Eden Really Was

This is a good video, imo, that plays on the theme of this thread. Here we have an analysis of a Sumerian tablet nearly 2,000 years older than the Biblical Genesis that describes in detail what the Garden of Eden actually was. It places it's location in Southern Iraq between the Tigris and Euphrates, explains that the first humans were there, and that it was guarded by "cherubs" with weapons that flashed like fire. Unmistakably the same story. But quite different. You see, the biblical account came nearly 2,000 years later. So a lot of the details were either forgotten or deliberately glossed over by the time Genesis was written.

---

As I pointed out earlier in this thread, this interpretation assumes several things, most of which is that there is no revelation from God, and that chronology determines truth.

The differences in the stores are just as important as the similarities, but people like you and that guy in the video you posted are glossing over those differences and just highlight similarities in order to support what I believe is a flawed hypothesis.

In addition, even if there was an echo of truth in the earlier stories, you and the guy in the video assume those are more true because they are older than the preserved written manuscripts of the Bible we have.

The story the Bible tells isn't merely a history, but a purpose. The purpose is for the people to worship the one, true God. The historical narratives are told to reflect true history that was perverted and twisted over time (and relayed by groups like the Sumerians) so that the truth could be known and glory given to God, not some alien beings or angels.

quote:

---

In any event, this is very interesting stuff, imo. And yeah, if these characters from these stories are confirmed to be behind the modern day UFO/UAP phenomenon, this will have profound impact on how the Bible is viewed.

---

The existence of alien life that is assumed to be talked about by the Sumerians doesn’t change anything.

Remember that greater intelligence does not make someone more moral. It is a heart issue that God must correct through saving sinners and making them more Christ-like through His Spirit.

quote:

---

I never said it wasn't, in fact, I agreed with that I simply stated we tend to overlook our own sins while pointing out others and also found it interesting that Jesus never felt it was important enough to discuss but adultery was very sinful and constantly preached about it.

---

Apparently homosexuality wasn’t as rampant in 1st century Israel like it was in Rome, which is why Jesus didn’t need to mention it explicitly while Paul did.

However, Jesus did implicitly teach against it. He taught that to lust in your heart for another person who wasn’t your spouse was sin, and He affirmed that marriage was between one man and one woman. The logical conclusion is that all sexual activity (and even heart-lust) outside of marriage was sinful, and there was no such thing as “gay marriage” to make it lawful for homosexuals. Therefore, homosexuals would need to remain “eunuchs” for the sake of Christ, and not engage in any sexual activity.

quote:

---

So shouldn't anyone that has ever committed adultery be looked upon as bad, if not more sinful in Jesus's eyes?

---

No, not “more sinful”, but certainly sinful. Adultery should be rejected by Christians and all adulterers should repent of their sin.

quote:

---

It’s never too early to teach your children not to hate.

---

I think parents should absolutely teach their children to hate sin. We are to love what God loves and hate what He hates, and He hates sin.

quote:

---

I've asked you this before - the bible says Donkey's and Snakes can talk. Do you believe that Donkey's and Snakes can talk?

---

You know why those events were written down in the Bible? Because they are extraordinary, not normative. The Bible doesn't say that it's normative for serpents and donkeys to talk, nor is it normal for people to rise from the dead, walk on water, or any number of miraculous actions. That's why they are miracles.

quote:

---

Each and every year. Over and over. June 1 yall can’t wait to come a scream about it online.

For a bunch of dudes who hate pride yall sure act like a bunch of drama queens. (Pun intended)

---

It's an offense against God to celebrate such sinfulness, and that offense against God is offensive to me.

quote:

---

this was always the logical conclusion of the protestant reformation.

---

I’m not sure what you mean by “logical conclusion”. The Reformation was a return to biblical Christianity over and against non-biblical abuses. The woman in the OP is not representing biblical Christianity any more than Mormonism does, and what she is doing and saying is being rejected by Protestants like myself, who continue the tradition of the Reformation by comparing her teaching to Scripture and finding it lacking in truth.

quote:

---

the fundamental reason for the protestant reformation was a protest against the hierarchy of the church.

---

Not exactly. The initial impetus that drove Martin Luther to speak up was actually an abuse of indulgences. Luther thought he was doing the Church a favor by calling it out and seeking debate on the topic. He genuinely wanted to reform the Church, not destroy it.

Even after the Reformation took off, it wasn’t the hierarchy, itself, that was at issue, but the teaching of implicit faith and submission to that hierarchy even against the Bible. The Reformers taught that church government was good and that Christians should submit to such authorities, but the caveat was that submission was based on God’s Word in the Bible as the final authority, not based on the authority of the hierarchy.

quote:

---

now we have a protestant faith without a hierarchy and doctrine is fluid.

---

I’ve noticed that Catholics often speak of Protestantism as a monolithic thing, as if there is a Protestant church and a Catholic church, and the Protestant church is a disunified mess while the Roman church is unified. You would be better to compare one denomination within Protestantism to Catholicism, because we don’t believe in one “Protestant” church as the true church like Rome (and the Orthodox Church) does.

If you take the Orthodox Presbyterian Church as an example, it has a government structure that does not change and the members submit to, and its doctrine isn’t “fluid”, as it subscribes to the Westminster Confession of Faith as a faithful summary of biblical doctrine. The doctrine is considered reformable but not “fluid”, as there isn't an understanding that anything can pop up out of the blue, but that the doctrine, itself, is more or less settled.

quote:

---

the great thing about being catholic is that popes come and go, but the sacraments are eternal. the mass has ended go in peace!

---

This statement downplays the RCC’s own teachings on the Pope, especially during the Medieval ages and the first Vatican Council, which dogmatized papal infallibility. I know it has become vogue for Catholics to trash the Pope, but that hasn’t been accepted throughout at least the last 1,000 years of history.

Another point of departure from Rome with Protestants generally is the emphasis of the sacraments. We believe the sacraments are important, but we believe they are important because they point to Jesus Christ, not because of sacramentalism, itself. You speak of the mass as an end to itself, while we see the Eucharist as pointing to what Christ has done for sinners, and therefore it is Jesus who is eternal, not the re-presentations of His death.

quote:

---

at the end of the day the protestant reformation was an historical blip.

---

The return to biblical Christianity that was started by the Reformation is still going strong in many Protestant denominations. 500 years is hardly a blip at this point, but even if most Protestants abandoned biblical Christianity, it wouldn’t change anything about the truth as reclaimed by the Reformers, since God has always preserved a remnant of His people, even when most of Israel went after idols and were taken away into captivity as punishment.

Perhaps these women should consider that there is beauty in bearing and raising children rather than being absorbed in a career.

quote:

---

How does Paxton measure up to your standard?

---

I don’t know a lot about him, but he seems to have been involved in several scandals that are unbecoming of a Christian leader, if he is guilty. If he has not publicly repented for public sins and committed himself to seeking to be obedient to Jesus Christ, then he isn’t qualified to lead, in my opinion.

quote:

---

Why is a mayor of any city going to Rome to meet with the pope? What’s the point and why is a random mayor important enough for that kind of trip?

---

He going to see the Pope in hopes of securing another means of emotional manipulation to get what he wants.

If he can get the support of the Pope, he can claim a religious and moral duty for the money that extends beyond the self-serving desires of those asking for them.

My natural reaction is to be skeptical of anything the pope endorses, though.

quote:

---

There are some subjects so massive they can't be left out of the Bible for the Bible to remain valid.

The argument is that aliens are one of those things.

---

It is a poor argument without further argumentation to support it, which you don’t have. It’s why when we were discussing it earlier, you quickly abandoned the argument as-is and latched on to the concept of aliens being image-bearers of God, because that would actually be impactful to Christianity.

We went through this earlier: the existence of alien life by itself impacts no important doctrine of the Christian faith, so your entire argument is based on an arbitrary expectation that important things must always be mentioned by the Bible, as well as the arbitrary designation of what is “important”.