The Fact is, Jesus is the prophesied Messiah

Interesting how you changed your question from "ONE of the so many opportuinites" to "SOME of the so many facts" isn't it? I've provided the one example, let's hear a valid explanation for the contradiction? Once you adequately explain it, I am more than happy to provide another of the "so many".

Your one was already answered. Was hoping you could produce a few more instead of run from your statement.

I will be more than happy to again address your question.

1. The contradiction that exists between the 120 year age limit imposed on human life and the many instances of people living longer than this age.

As before, God is not talking about how long men will live in the future, He is talking about mens days being numbered. He is talking about sending a flood and wipeing man from the face of the earth. What don't you understand?

Genesis 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. 5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

God is talking about destroying man, what could be more clear.

That was question #1 answered again. I will move to question #2 again.

And here was your response to my answer, before you proceded with question 2

Sun Matrix: Fair enough, point taken. It's actually the first time I have heard anyone take this line, and I commend you for the originality shown.

It certainly appears that question 1 was answered. Now I will reanswer question 2

2. Where the 20 year gap between the handing down of this judgement and the call to Noah to build the ark is, if you wish to stick to your flawed interpretation.

God said mans days would be 120 years and then he would destroy mankind. And God told Noah to build an Ark 100 years before the flood. How is it possible, given the scriptures? Watch.

God says at the end of Genesis 5 that Noah is 500 years old and has some sons.

Genesis 5:32 And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

In Genesis 6 it starts off, "And it came to pass". The scholars put this information together and read, " After Noah was 500 years old, it came to pass. That's not what it says. It says, "and it came to pass" When did it come to pass? "When men began to multiply on the face of the earth." NOT when Noah was 500 years old.

1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

So from this point, all we have is that God said he would destroy man in 120 years. Notice in verse 7 that he says, "I will destroy man", not I will destroy man expect for Noah and his family.

7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Then it says in verse 8, "but Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord". When did Noah find grace from the eyes of the Lord. Not when God decided to destroy the earth, but after that. Twenty years after that. Notice in verse 10 it says "and Noah begat 3 sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. The exact thing that he says at the end of Genesis 5. What was the rest of it? "and Noah was 500 years old."

Noah was 500 years old when he found grace in the eyes of the Lord, NOT, when it came to pass.

8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. 9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God. 10 And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

Notice, that I didn't interpret anything, I just read what it said, and it all fits. The facts fit exactly, no interpretation needed.

OK, question 2 is answered again. I going to watch the NBA playoffs now, but I will be back to finish all of your questions

Sun Matrix:
That's your interpretation Sun Matrix, thus an invalid answer. Try answering it without interpretation and validity will be achieved. "My spirit shall not always strive with man, for he is flesh", is a clear indication of the reference to the mortality of man. Mortality indicates the man has a finite lifespan. The notification of the coming flood arises from a seperate issue. Besides this obvious intention, why would there be a supposed 20 year gap between these two instances if they are related?

[edit on 3/6/06 by mytym]

Sun Matrix
Nowhere in your explanation did you show where there is a 20 year gap between the two instructions. You are making this assumption based on your flawed interpretation of what the 120 year reference means. All you have shown is that it is possible that the first instruction happened at a point prior to the second instruction, not 20 years prior. I've read it exactly as it is written, and the contradiction is glaringly obvious, no interpretation needed.

God also said that mytym's interpretation is the correct one. If you want a reference where this is said, you will find it in exactly the same verse as where it says Noah was 480 when he received the first instruction and 500 when he received the second. Do you catch my drift?

If you ever do come back to answer the last two questions you may want to make another attempt at answering the first two, as the current explanations you provide are far from satisfactory. By all means take all the time you wish to get your story straight and ensure you don't contradict yourself. That's one of the problems with fabricating an explanation, whereas I am afforded the luxury of not having to go to all that trouble as I am merely telling it like it is.

Originally posted by mytym
Sun Matrix:
Nowhere in your explanation did you show where there is a 20 year gap between the two instructions. You are making this assumption based on your flawed interpretation of what the 120 year reference means. All you have shown is that it is possible that the first instruction happened at a point prior to the second instruction, not 20 years prior. I've read it exactly as it is written, and the contradiction is glaringly obvious, no interpretation needed.

[edit on 3/6/06 by mytym]

What seems to be your problem understanding. Read exactly what it says. There is no mystery.

Explain exactly where this twenty year problem that you have comes from.

[edit on 3-6-2006 by Sun Matrix]

[edit on 3-6-2006 by Sun Matrix]

Originally posted by mytym
Sun Matrix:
That's your interpretation Sun Matrix, thus an invalid answer. Try answering it without interpretation and validity will be achieved. "My spirit shall not always strive with man, for he is flesh", is a clear indication of the reference to the mortality of man. Mortality indicates the man has a finite lifespan. The notification of the coming flood arises from a seperate issue. Besides this obvious intention, why would there be a supposed 20 year gap between these two instances if they are related?

[edit on 3/6/06 by mytym]

Question on was answered and here was your response

Sun Matrix: Fair enough, point taken. It's actually the first time I have heard anyone take this line, and I commend you for the originality shown.

Just read what it says, we don't need any interpretation. God says that he will destroy man from the face of the earth.

Does that sound like men are going to be living to be 120 yrs. old?????????

Read what it says, what is so difficult. If someone says your days are numbered, what does that mean????????????? Ask anyone...............It's simple English............What can't you understand.







FACE THE FACTS.

3. How we could both come to different conclusions from reading the same passage exactly how it is written without interpretation.

See Spot run.

Read what it says. Does it need to be interpreted? It just comes down to reading exactly what it says and then facing it.

4. How we are to distinguish between one day equalling one day and one day equalling one thousand years.

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

God is going to do exactly what he says he will do. If He says that He will revive the Jews after two days, just look around. It didn't happen in two days, so you apply exactly what it says. (to the Lord, a day is as a thousand years, a thousand years is as a day). It happened in two thousand years, just look in Israel.

[edit on 4-6-2006 by Sun Matrix]

Sun Matrix:
The flood went for 100 years, you say the 120 year ruling relates to the flood, and if this is the case one must accept that the ruling was made at the same time as Noah's instruction to build the ark. Last time I check 100 does not equal 120. You make the argument that the 120 ruling was made 20 years prior to the command to build the ark, but nowhere is this indicated. You're making an assumption based on the flawed interpretation you have put forth. How much clearer would you like me to make it?

Sun Matrix:
Nice try to distort the truth by omitting relevant information. Here is what followed that line in my response:

Originally posted by mytym
Sun Matrix:
Fair enough, point taken. It's actually the first time I have heard anyone take this line, and I commend you for the originality shown. However, if you are saying that this was a one-off event that was to take place 120 years after Noah received the message to build the Ark, which I believe you are, why did it occur only 100 years later? From what I remember Noah only took 100 years to build the Ark and the flood lasted 40 days.

As you can see, I even allowed your flawed interpretation to pass through, but in order to do so, it raised another contradiction which you are unable to address. Hence why the 20 year discrepancy came about. What can you not understand about that?

It doesn't say mans days ARE numberED, it says mans days SHALL number. I am reading what it says, and 120 year life span is the coming through loud and clear.

Sun Matrix:
Another attempt to avoid addressing the issue. Be careful, because you are letting contradictions slip through the net. If one day equals a thousand years, why wouldn't the flood have lasted 365,000 years? Conversley if a thousand years equals one day, why wouldn't the flood have lasted 1/10 of a day? You need to spend more time getting your story straight before posting ridiculous responses. Not only do yo not have any credibility, but now you going into negative territory.

None of the issues I have raisedhave been adequately addressed, thus I will re-iterate:

Either summon up the courage to address the points I raise or remain on the receiving end of a humiliating credibility loss. It's your choice. I will continue to bask in the spoils of victory while you contemplate this.

Let's try checking your reading comprehension. Maybe you got an F in word problems. Answer this question?



Chapter 1

It all started with John. He had a son named Jeff. Jeffs son was Jack.

Jack was 10 years old, and for his birthday received a bow and arrow and killed 3 bears.

Chapter 2

And it came to pass that there were three bears living in the woods. For five years straight the 3 bears spent the winter in the cabin on the lake.

Jack said, "Those bears keep ruining the cabin" I'm going to deal with that someday.

Someday came, and Jack killed 3 bears.

Question: How old approximately was Jack when the bears started spending the winter in the cabin.

Maybe you are having trouble with the English language.

Define destroy.


Maybe if you answer the word problem and define destroy we can reach some conclusions why you are having such a problem.

Sun Matrix:
In order to particpate in this argument it is a pre-requisite that YOU understand the concept of assumptions. Your bear killing analogy bears no similarity to the 120 year instruction. Why, you ask? You are making the flawed assumption that the 120 year instruction has some relationship to the flood, thus using it as your sole motivation for determining that 120 years pass in the meantime, despite no scripture existing that verifies this. Conversely, I am making the assumption that the 120 year instruction has been interpreted by me (not to mention countless others and EVERY single version of the Bible EVER produced) as God intended, as the maximum lifespan of man from this time forward, despite no scripture existing that verifies this.

The difference is that my interpretation takes the entire sentence into account, notably "my spirit shall not always strive with man" and "for that he also is flesh", which validates the interpretation as referring to ongoing mortality. Your interpretation is reliant on omitting this key information. Evidence that you often adopt this flawed method can be found in your recital of my response to your invalid answer a few posts back.

Show me where in the 120 year instruction, the term destroy was used? Is it a failing of mine that I can't find it anywhere to define? Hmmm, you may want to keep on the look out for the repossession man coming to collect the credibility you keep losing, despite having none in the bank available to lose.

Once again, in an attempt to answer the points I raise, you have succeeded with exactly zero of them. Therefore:

Either summon up the courage to adequately address the points I raise or remain on the receiving end of a continuing humiliating credibility loss. It's your choice. I will continue to bask in the spoils of victory while you contemplate this.

[edit on 4/6/06 by mytym]

Genesis 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. 5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Please try and answer my question and define destroy so I can determine what your problem is.

Your fear that God is real keeps clouding the issue.

Sun Matrix:
Show me where the word destroy is in Genesis 6:3 and I will.

It's not that I fear God is real, it's that I fear he may not be that is the real worry. This may not seem like a significant statement to the layperson, but to those of faith, the significance should be quite evident.

Excuse me, while I complete another victory lap.

In order to particpate in this argument it is a pre-requisite that YOU understand the concept of assumptions. Your bear killing analogy bears no similarity to the 120 year instruction. Why, you ask? You are making the flawed assumption that the 120 year instruction has some relationship to the flood, thus using it as your sole motivation for determining that 120 years pass in the meantime, despite no scripture existing that verifies this. Conversely, I am making the assumption that the 120 year instruction has been interpreted by me (not to mention countless others and EVERY single version of the Bible EVER produced) as God intended, as the maximum lifespan of man from this time forward, despite no scripture existing that verifies this.

The difference is that my interpretation takes the entire sentence into account, notably "my spirit shall not always strive with man" and "for that he also is flesh", which validates the interpretation as referring to ongoing mortality. Your interpretation is reliant on omitting this key information. Evidence that you often adopt this flawed method can be found in your recital of my response to your invalid answer a few posts back.

First you are correct that countless people, including many Bibical scholars interpret the 120 years in question as mans maximum lifespan. So there is no shame in being wrong, as you have plenty of company.

You are also correct in saying that you are taking the entire sentence into account to validate your interpretation. The problem comes from not taking the entire chapter into account.

Why would God say that mans days would be 120 years and then talk about destroying man for his evil? He is talking about destroying man in 120 years.

Here is a different translation that you should read to help bring light to the KJ translation.

Genesis 6 New International

1 When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.

3 Then the Lord said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years."

4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days--and also afterward--when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown. 5 The Lord saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.

6 The Lord was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. 7 So the Lord said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth--men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air--for I am grieved that I have made them."


Read this version, pick up a few points and then go back to the King James.

Sun Matrix:
Why would God wait 20 years to present the second installment of a two part warning? This version of Genesis 6:3 even ties in mortality with the ruling, which is a clear indication of limiting life expectancy. If your interpretation is accurate and God destroyed man with the flood because He did not want His spirit to contend with man any longer, why does it contend with man now? Here is another version of the Bible which clearly validates my view:

Genesis 6:3 (New Living Translation)
New Living Translation (NLT)
Holy Bible. New Living Translation copyright © 1996 by Tyndale Charitable Trust. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers.


3Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not put up with humans for such a long time, for they are only mortal flesh. In the future, they will live no more than 120 years."


The very fact that there is more than one version of the Bible is undeniable proof that this statement, along with many others, are open to interpretation, thus are ambiguous, hence non-factual.

I have no issue with you interpreting this or any other passage in the way that you do. Just acknowledge that these are all interpretations of yours, not facts, and abandon your technique of portraying them as such.

What more proof do you need? Accept defeat and move on.

If your interpretation is accurate and God destroyed man with the flood because He did not want His spirit to contend with man any longer, why does it contend with man now?

He contends with man now because Noah found favor by his righteousness. Don't worry, God is not going to contend much longer.

The very fact that there is more than one version of the Bible is undeniable proof that this statement, along with many others, are open to interpretation, thus are ambiguous, hence non-factual.

Always back to the King James.

I have no issue with you interpreting this or any other passage in the way that you do. Just acknowledge that these are all interpretations of yours, not facts, and abandon your technique of portraying them as such.

Just read what it says.

What more proof do you need? Accept defeat and move on.

I took your best shot, bub, without even a flinch. What else you got? Wad shot?

Sun Matrix:
True tp form, you cannot even address the most recent quandries I raise, let alone the original ones. Your last response brings nothing new to the discussion, therefore I shall repeat:

Either summon up the courage to adequately address the points I raise or remain on the receiving end of a continuing humiliating credibility loss. It's your choice. I will continue to bask in the spoils of victory while you contemplate this.