Adam, Eve, Cain and Enoch

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Is that a joke, or do you really mean it?!

first, you need to Pm me and tell me if you are a member of the brotherhood of the illuminati, before i can reveal such intimate details! (na i was just messin) however as a Jehovah Witness we do have a connection with the new world order, in that a certain president of the united states of America, his mother was a witness! i let you guess which one.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No way, it was added on later by a member of the illuminati.

robbie carrobie what do you make of the this issue in the JW issue. that saul when he visited a medium and the spirit of samual arose from his sleep, your JWs are saying that it was a demon??. Well since the demon spoke the truth as to sauls death seems your way belive that demons beyond gods grace speak the truth. I belive what the bible says in this matter and they do not say it was a demon, nor does it dismiss it as faulse.

Originally posted by stoker
robbie carrobie what do you make of the this issue in the JW issue. that saul when he visited a medium and the spirit of samual arose from his sleep, your JWs are saying that it was a demon??. Well since the demon spoke the truth as to sauls death seems your way belive that demons beyond gods grace speak the truth. I belive what the bible says in this matter and they do not say it was a demon, nor does it dismiss it as faulse.

quite clearly, as is indicated by Solomon, in the inspired word of God, the dead are conscious of nothing, the are therefore incapable of influencing the world of the living. that being the case, quite obviously then, this was an apparition, not the actual spirit of Saul. how can one see a spirit? it cannot be done. how can the dead influence the living, it cannot be done. whether daemons can speak truth or not i do not know, however, it seems quite clear from other biblical accounts that they do indeed, for example Paul cured a girl that had a 'spirit', of prediction, Christ cured a daemon possessed man, that spoke the truth concerning who Jesus was. what have you to say for yourself now my friend?

you must understand first and fore-mostly why we have come to this evaluation, for everything we profess, has a biblical basis, whether others agree with the interpretation or not!

you should learn to trust what we print, it is well researched and always corroborated. i shall provide you with an example, there is in one of our publications, a picture of the city of Babylon, with a ziggurat in the middle. The angle of the picture is such that it is viewed as if one is looking up to the ancient walls from the river Euphrates. The question was posed, that it would not be possible to see that ziggurat given the dimensions of the city of Babylon and its close proximity to the Euphrates river. what did we do? we built a three dimensional scale model of the entire city and projected the viewpoint upwards, and yes indeed, it would have been possible to see the ziggurat. There is nothing that we shall not do, to try to ascertain accurate knowledge, even in small details like this. Have confidence, what you are reading is truth!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
quite clearly, as is indicated by Solomon, in the inspired word of God, the dead are conscious of nothing, the are therefore incapable of influencing the world of the living. that being the case, quite obviously then, this was an apparition, not the actual spirit of Saul. how can one see a spirit? it cannot be done. how can the dead influence the ...[text shortened]... e knowledge, even in small details like this. Have confidence, what you are reading is truth!

There is nothing that we shall not do, to try to ascertain accurate knowledge, even in small details like this.

I'll rephrase the sentence for you Rob.

There is nothing that we shall not do, to try to ascertain accurate knowledge, even in small details like this, as long as it fits with scripture. Otherwise it will be dismissed out of hand as the work of the Devil.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]There is nothing that we shall not do, to try to ascertain accurate knowledge, even in small details like this.

I'll rephrase the sentence for you Rob.

There is nothing that we shall not do, to try to ascertain accurate knowledge, even in small details like this, as long as it fits with scripture. Otherwise it will be dismissed out of hand as the work of the Devil.[/b]

Lol, haha, as i was saying..... no really my friend, who else would go to such lengths for a mere single page illustration. we are the people!!! sceptics and devil worshippers dont appreciate this, i dont know why?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Lol, haha, as i was saying..... no really my friend, who else would go to such lengths for a mere single page illustration. we are the people!!! sceptics and devil worshippers dont appreciate this, i dont know why?

sceptics and devil worshippers dont appreciate this, i dont know why?

Because you're nuts. I can't take anyone seriously who believes in a literal account of the Flood.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]sceptics and devil worshippers dont appreciate this, i dont know why?

Because you're nuts. I can't take anyone seriously who believes in a literal account of the Flood.[/b]

oh howl, howl, we provided reams of incontrovertible evidence, Josephs sound calculations, my rather brilliant exposition of the minimal amount of species required for diversification and the origin of humans, Galvos excellent ice caps and temperate climate theory, but i dont know, we play the flute and you people refuse to dance!

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]sceptics and devil worshippers dont appreciate this, i dont know why?

Because you're nuts. I can't take anyone seriously who believes in a literal account of the Flood.[/b]

he is not nuts because he believes in a literal account of the flood. that just makes him a very devout believer. he is nuts because he believes he actually has proof the flood happened as in scientifical proofs. and he is really abnoxious because he names his "proofs" "incontrovertible evidence" while anything others bring to the table is controversial, disputed, improbable, faulty science, propaganda, fairy tales, wishful thinking and so on. but his are "incontrovertible "

EDIT: only an absolute moron would use galveston's ice cap "proof" for the flood when the author of that article mentioned the ice caps to be about 450000 years old

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
he is not nuts because he believes in a literal account of the flood. that just makes him a very devout believer. he is nuts because he believes he actually has proof the flood happened as in scientifical proofs. and he is really abnoxious because he names his "proofs" "incontrovertible evidence" while anything others bring to the table is controversial, d ...[text shortened]... ence, propaganda, fairy tales, wishful thinking and so on. but his are "incontrovertible "

you may not have noticed Zippy, i stated we, as in collective, therefore your assertion that it is specifically and exclusively with reference to mine, to the exclusion of giving credence to others, is bumf!

and if anyone is qualified to verify moron, well, i have a sneaking suspicion you just might be, perhaps even overqualified.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you may not have noticed Zippy, i stated we, as in collective, therefore your assertion that it is specifically and exclusively with reference to mine, to the exclusion of giving credence to others, is bumf!

and if anyone is qualified to verify moron, well, i have a sneaking suspicion you just might be, perhaps even overqualified.

the others are not quite as abnoxious as you. but yes, if you wish to be thorough, anyone believing in a thorough flood is a fundamentalist. anyone believing in "scientific proofs" about the flood is a moron.

one thing to be really devout and believe in something because god tells you to. quite another thing is to actually find evidence where there are none.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
quite clearly, as is indicated by Solomon, in the inspired word of God, the dead are conscious of nothing, the are therefore incapable of influencing the world of the living. that being the case, quite obviously then, this was an apparition, not the actual spirit of Saul. how can one see a spirit? it cannot be done. how can the dead influence the ...[text shortened]... e knowledge, even in small details like this. Have confidence, what you are reading is truth!

No jesus forbid the demons from saying who he was, they can not speak lies to jesus, but can speak decite to mankind. In one he jesus did ask who he was and replyed legion, which is truth but they are not allowed to say they serve god when faulse,. But as your belief is with no spirits dead means dead, im in total disagreement.
A biblical basis is where im coming from, but please tell me how the bible says its faulse that it was not samual woken from his sleep
truth is you belive this im not sure if one could or could not see ziggurat since ive never quetioned it, but i belive you are fitting to your belief not the other way, mind you i think most faiths do that, even me.

Originally posted by stoker
No jesus forbid the demons from saying who he was, they can not speak lies to jesus, but can speak decite to mankind. In one he jesus did ask who he was and replyed legion, which is truth but they are not allowed to say they serve god when faulse,. But as your belief is with no spirits dead means dead, im in total disagreement.
A biblical basis is where im c ...[text shortened]... you are fitting to your belief not the other way, mind you i think most faiths do that, even me.

ok, you may disagree, however here is the biblical precedent, part of the biblical cannon and held to be inspired by all.

(Ecclesiastes 9:5-6) . . .For the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, neither do they any more have wages, because the remembrance of them has been forgotten.  Also, their love and their hate and their jealousy have already perished, and they have no portion any more to time indefinite in anything that has to be done under the sun.

this is biblical, i did not write those words, nor do i see much grounds for interpretation either. daemons are one thing, apparitions another. If this is the case, then one, using ones powers of reasoning, of necessity, must conclude that if the dead have no 'portion any more', and that they cannot influence the living, then it could not have been Saul, nor his spirit.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ok, you may disagree, however here is the biblical precedent, part of the biblical cannon and held to be inspired by all.

(Ecclesiastes 9:5-6) . . .For the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, neither do they any more have wages, because the remembrance of them has been forgotten.  Als ...[text shortened]... , and that they cannot influence the living, then it could not have been Saul, nor his spirit.

yes but it does not say they do not exsist, just the wages, jealousy, hate, love has.
tho ide also put in hunger and sickness but thats my understanding

Originally posted by stoker
yes but it does not say they do not exsist, just the wages, jealousy, hate, love has.
tho ide also put in hunger and sickness but thats my understanding

no, please read it carefully, it says, ALSO, their love and their hate and their jealousy.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
oh howl, howl, we provided reams of incontrovertible evidence, Josephs sound calculations, my rather brilliant exposition of the minimal amount of species required for diversification and the origin of humans, Galvos excellent ice caps and temperate climate theory, but i dont know, we play the flute and you people refuse to dance!

The only incontrovertible evidence you provided proved my theory that you are clearly bonkers. You are without doubt a few sandwiches short of a picnic!!!

Galvos excellent ice caps and temperate climate theory

Are you kidding me?! Do you really believe that or is that a wind up?! His 'evidence' that the ice caps were only 5,000yrs old had a paragraph which clesrly stated the Vostock ice core was 450,000yrs old!!!!! Buffoonery of the highest order, which you now call 'excellent'.