[BelieverInGod]

Originally Posted by Las Vegas Larry

Well, I am partial to them too, as I've had two Rotties and was not the mastiff bred with another to produce them? But two AKC BMs do NOT have enough genetic variety to EVER produce mini dachshunds.

You own rottweilers and don't know where they came from? I hope you're not a breeder since you don't seem to understand how it works. I breed and train Rotts, or do you own those silly teddy-rotts that are absolutely useless brainless twits.

I do love dogs (as pets, NOT partners), so we have one thing in common.

I don't think so, I like dogs as a working partner. My dogs are not pets in any form of the word. They are coworkers, we work together to get a job done. It's a bond that a pet owner will never understand.

[Timofey]

We all the love of God in common too!

[Las Vegas Larry]

Originally Posted by Timofey

We all the love of God in common too!

I don't know who or what you are, but please speak for yourself....

[Las Vegas Larry]

Originally Posted by BelieverInGod

You own rottweilers and don't know where they came from? I hope you're not a breeder since you don't seem to understand how it works. I breed and train Rotts, or do you own those silly teddy-rotts that are absolutely useless brainless twits.


I don't think so, I like dogs as a working partner. My dogs are not pets in any form of the word. They are coworkers, we work together to get a job done. It's a bond that a pet owner will never understand.

No, I HAD two Rotties. They don't live long and I had Lucy for ten years and Zeus (160 lbs) for eight.

Thought they were derived from mastiffs, but guess I was wrong. See? I can admit it. Can you???

I said "not partners" as I have seen how quickly you "christians" can twist things around to suggest that I am into bestiality or whatnot.

Larry.

[BelieverInGod]

Originally Posted by Las Vegas Larry

No, I HAD two Rotties. They don't live long and I had Lucy for ten years and Zeus (160 lbs) for eight.

Thought they were derived from mastiffs, but guess I was wrong. See? I can admit it. Can you???

I said "not partners" as I have seen how quickly you "christians" can twist things around to suggest that I am into bestiality or whatnot.

Larry.

Where did I say anything about bestiality? You're the one who brought that up.

[Timofey]

Originally Posted by Las Vegas Larry

I don't know who or what you are, but please speak for yourself....

Oh Larry.

[Brother V]

Originally Posted by Las Vegas Larry

Take a pair of pure bull mastiffs and produce mini dachshunds. I'll give you 7000 generations and guarantee it won't happen. There would have to be genetic diversity from interbreeding and you don't have this with just one pair of wolves.

Well, lets see...

Even scientists say that dogs have only been around for 15,000 years. Have you ever watched that show on the History Channel (or is it Discovery) where they say that all dogs came about from wolves?

According to them, dogs came from wolves who ate from the human garbage pile. The ones that didn't run away when humans approached bred with the others like them. This made a species of less skittish wolves. Eventually (over a couple of generations) they became friendly.

Scientists says this happened about 15,000 years ago. Not millions or billions of years ago.

We say it happened about 4,000 years ago. Which (according to scientists) is not even worth noting on the geologic/evolutionary scale.

As for taking 2 bullmastiffs, if you bred it, and then took the runts of the litter, then bred them, it eventually would turn into a different dog, and it wouldn't take 7000 generations, it'd take about 4 (of breeding runts) before you wouldn't recognize it to it's great great grandfather.

YIC
V

[BelieverInGod]

Originally Posted by Brother V

Well, lets see...

Even scientists say that dogs have only been around for 15,000 years. Have you ever watched that show on the History Channel (or is it Discovery) where they say that all dogs came about from wolves?

According to them, dogs came from wolves who ate from the human garbage pile. The ones that didn't run away when humans approached bred with the others like them. This made a species of less skittish wolves. Eventually (over a couple of generations) they became friendly.

Scientists says this happened about 15,000 years ago. Not millions or billions of years ago.

We say it happened about 4,000 years ago. Which (according to scientists) is not even worth noting on the geologic/evolutionary scale.

As for taking 2 bullmastiffs, if you bred it, and then took the runts of the litter, then bred them, it eventually would turn into a different dog, and it wouldn't take 7000 generations, it'd take about 4 (of breeding runts) before you wouldn't recognize it to it's great great grandfather.

YIC
V

Thank you Brother. People don't seem to understand that most breeds are really less than 200 years old. Before that dogs were bred for function, you bred best hunter to best hunter and best herder to best herder, nobody cared if one was a pointer and the other was a setter.

I could just see these atheists imagining humans wandering around 100,000 years ago with their chihuahuas and their dachshunds running after them, yipping at their heels.

[Cindy Karly]

Originally Posted by Brother V

Genesis 7-9

Today we get more of the Noah story. (and as promised the possible rape of Noah by his son).

Every one is familiar with the two by two story of the animals, but in Genesis 7:2 and 3 we see how the Lord made Noah take extra of the clean beasts for sacrifice to the Lord.

2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

Here is an interesting tidbit. The flood came the same year Methuselah died.

Genesis 7:6 And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.


Genesis 5: 25 And Methuselah lived an hundred eighty and seven years, and begat Lamech.


27 And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died.

28 And Lamech lived an hundred eighty and two years, and begat a son:

29 And he called his name Noah

So Methuselah was 187, when he had Lamech. Lamech was 182 when he had Noah. So Methuselah was 369, when Noah was born. The flood happend when Noah was 600, so Methuselah was 969 when he died/the flood happened. Lamech died at age 777, five years before the flood. (It's always sad when a parent outlives a child, I'm sure those last five years of Methuselah were very difficult.)

Lets continue back with today reading.

Genesis 7:16 And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the LORD shut him in.

That's correct, the LORD shut the door of the ark, and as He did, He made it rain.

Some interesting pre-flood facts:

1. It didn't rain before the flood.

Genesis 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
Genesis 2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
Rain isn't mentioned next until the story of Noah.

2. All creatures were vegetarians.

Genesis 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

post flood

Genesis 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

OK, back to the story.

They leave the ark, then Noah sacrifices one of each of the clean beasts, then God decides not to kill everything again*

Genesis 8:21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.


*Genesis 9:11 And I will establish my covenant with you, neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

Don't read the fine print...

Genesis 9:18 And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan.

Uh... ok, thanks for that...

20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:

21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.

A husbandman is a farmer. Uncovered means nekkid.

22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.

Once again... thanks for that.

24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

Remeber that word ... KNEW from yesterdays lesson? So why did he curse Canaan, and not Ham?

29 And all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years: and he died.

And that's the end of today's lesson.

So what did we learn?

Mankind was wicked, and a vegetarian; coincidence?

Ham possibly raped Noah.

Noah became a farmer.

God promised not to kill everyone again by a flood.


PRAISE JESUS!!!

YIC
v

This is a very good Bible Study Brother V! I have only been reading my KJV for a day and I am already to Genesis 9!
You have also already somewhat answered my question. I noticed how in Genesis 6:19-20 it says God commanded Noah to take 2 of every kind of animal into the Ark with him. But when I got to Genesis 7:2-3 It says that Noah was to take seven of each kind..So did he take 2 or 7 of each kind? I am confused as I always thought there was only 2..

[Brother Harold Porter]

Originally Posted by Cindy Karly

This is a very good Bible Study Brother V! I have only been reading my KJV for a day and I am already to Genesis 9!
You have also already somewhat answered my question. I noticed how in Genesis 6:19-20 it says God commanded Noah to take 2 of every kind of animal into the Ark with him. But when I got to Genesis 7:2-3 It says that Noah was to take seven of each kind..So did he take 2 or 7 of each kind? I am confused as I always thought there was only 2..

It depends on whether the animal was of the clean or unclean species. If clean 7 and if unclean 2. God will describe to you in detail how to tell the difference when you get to Leviticus.

Keep reading.

[Cindy Karly]

Originally Posted by Brother Harold Porter

It depends on whether the animal was of the clean or unclean species. If clean 7 and if unclean 2. God will describe to you in detail how to tell the difference when you get to Leviticus.

Keep reading.

Oh. Got it, I will have to keep reading then.

[Cindy Karly]

Oh I have one more question but first I will say I'm sorry to waste your time on some of my stupid questions... I just don't want to have the wrong idea of God's Word.
Ok so in Genesis 9:11 it says about how God will never send another flood to kill people. What about all those floods we're having now, like Katrina? Are those just to warn people about their ways, and telling them they should change, or what?

[Brother Harold Porter]

Originally Posted by Cindy Karly

Oh I have one more question but first I will say I'm sorry to waste your time on some of my stupid questions... I just don't want to have the wrong idea of God's Word.
Ok so in Genesis 9:11 it says about how God will never send another flood to kill people. What about all those floods we're having now, like Katrina? Are those just to warn people about their ways, and telling them they should change, or what?

I'll cut you a degree of slack, as you are a woman and your reading comprehension is likely marginal, but this is NOT a forum to question the inerrancy of God's Word. He tells us this.

2 Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

As to your question, it is answered within the very verse you quote.

Genesis 9:11 "And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth."

This scripture clearly indicates that God will never destroy all of earth or all life again with a global flood. He didn't say anything about regional calamities in insignificant areas like New Orleans or third-world countries.

In Christ

[Cindy Karly]

Originally Posted by Brother Harold Porter

I'll cut you a degree of slack, as you are a woman and your reading comprehension is likely marginal, but this is NOT a forum to question the inerrancy of God's Word. He tells us this.



As to your question, it is answered within the very verse you quote.



This scripture clearly indicates that God will never destroy all of earth or all life again with a global flood. He didn't say anything about regional calamities in insignificant areas like New Orleans or third-world countries.

In Christ

Oh..That makes sense, I should pay more attention to what I read, I am sorry if it seems like I am questioning God's Word, I do not mean to... But thank you for being so patient with me anyway.

[BelieverInGod]

Originally Posted by Cindy Karly

Oh I have one more question but first I will say I'm sorry to waste your time on some of my stupid questions... I just don't want to have the wrong idea of God's Word.
Ok so in Genesis 9:11 it says about how God will never send another flood to kill people. What about all those floods we're having now, like Katrina? Are those just to warn people about their ways, and telling them they should change, or what?

You are reading the Authorized King James Version, correct? This sounds like the confusion that is started when people start reading the NIV or some other nonsense.

[Cindy Karly]

Originally Posted by BelieverInGod

You are reading the Authorized King James Version, correct? This sounds like the confusion that is started when people start reading the NIV or some other nonsense.

Yes the King James 1611 right? No I would never read such things. Especally since they twist scripture around, I want the TRUE REAL 110% Word of God, not some dumbed down/twisted stuff that people claim is true.

[Pure_Angel]

It's so intresting to first read the KJV and then read about what everyone has to say, it really helps me to understand the bible much more!

Praise Jesus!

Yours in Christ
Elisabeth

[Gregory Jubilay]

I read this and I couldn't ignore that when in:

Genesis 8:11 And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth.

That during this time, even though the floodwaters were still reasonably high (inferred from the fact that Noah, when he looked outside his ark, had to send a creature to detect land), that the different plants such as the olive tree could still be there.

I think that this is incredible in a lot of ways! It shows how God was able to grow whole trees within 7 days! Or, even better, God could have used His Power to keep them alive! This is incredible!

Sadly, when I think of those crazy hydroponics researchers trying to act as God and believe that they can edit the world like He can, it is quite disappointing...I'll leave that open.

Praise be to God!

[Dawkinian]

No, god can't grow trees in 7 days, that is metaphorical. What is more likely, that the universal constants were suspended to make the bible literally true, or is it more likely that the bible is written in symbolism and metaphors, like the ones Jesus spoke in. (It puts stories in our heads and help us to think)

[Redeemed Papist]

Originally Posted by Dawkinian

No, god can't grow trees in 7 days, that is metaphorical. What is more likely, that the universal constants were suspended to make the bible literally true, or is it more likely that the bible is written in symbolism and metaphors, like the ones Jesus spoke in. (It puts stories in our heads and help us to think)

So are you saying the Bible is all metaphors? Jesus is just a fable?