Revelation 8:8,9 and the Gulf oil spill.

Fanny Cradock

It's a great verse. One that must rank high in my all time favourites.

sponsoredwalk

uprising2 wrote: »

I'd suggest sticking to the sponsored walks or else know what your talking about before posting nonsense,

That was brilliant, I've never been put in my place so fast

uprising2 wrote: »

maybe go back over the thread and click links etc before telling us oil is black, well it is normally, but there are 2 links I posted here about the "RED OIL" and how it has the "experts" puzzled or as suggested above watch the video.
Oh and the END is not the end, it's the beginning.

Lol, I actually responded to your written words,

uprising2 wrote:

it can cause one third of the water to turn red as it is quite clearly not black oil that is coming out but some brighter colour.

Now, I hate to break it to you but it's not red oil, it's actually black oil that is coming out. It's probably turning red because of water/asphaltene interactions, but it's not red oil, it's a red "water-in-oil emulsion, called a mousse".

The reason I would pull up this trivial detail is because you said this;

uprising2 wrote:

If a third of the waters turn red and the fish are poisoned it does present a match with Revelation.

This is not the waters turning red, this is oil chemically interacting with water.

This is also a case of correlation necessitating causation in your eyes :rolleyes:

Any time you smell the whiff of tragedy it's back to the good ol' books to prophesize like crazy. We read this nonsense nearly every week from you guys and it's getting old. It's time you either stopped believing these fantasies or began to explain, in detail, how your preminitions apply to real life situations when I'm able to find stupid little contradictions like the above in 5 seconds.

Oh, and you still haven't answered how your little fairytale will cause every single star in the universe to end due to this BP disaster...

Another thing, I'm going to assume you all like to imagine end of the world nuclear holocaust fantasies seeing as the Iran-Israel-US situation is getting so scary. Well, if that is the case, & I'm willing to bet, how does a nuclear holocaust on the planet earth mean that every single other star in the galaxy will die as we welcome the rapture and end of days?

Again, these are serious flaws in all of the nit-pickings you indulge in as you try to scare the irrational people that are willing to listen to you...

(Do you see the signpost in this picture? It says "turn in red"!!! :eek:
Maybe it's a sign that the jews led to this BP oil spill,
because the waters red!)

uprising2

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Oh, and you still haven't answered how your little fairytale will cause every single star in the universe to end due to this BP disaster...

It's not my fairytale, and if you believe it's a fairytale maybe you shouldn't be here and when did I say the BP disaster will destroy other planets?.

I've nothing to explain to you, you come simply to get your kicks that I won't be entertaining, if you have anything intelligent to add, please do and I'll try respond.

Baggio1

in fairness,,..

,i dont think the prophets etc writing about the sea turning as like blood would know about the composition of the oil/water,, its just the imagery of water going red like this thats all thats nessecary to understand what they meant!...so knit picking about whats the composition/colour of oil is a red herring, bottom line is for whatever reason the water looks to be turning red where the oils spill is and thats all we can say, but its veryyy biblical in terms of coinsidence to what was prophesized and to the enormity of the problem....

personnally i think many DO jump up and down as in year 2000 about "oh end of the world" etc, but anyone with any sense of what has to happen knows it aint that simple, for instance how could 2000 be the end of time when no tribulation had happened, anti christ, false prophet, conversion of the jews etc all has to happen BEFORE Christ can return, and the "great warning" thats coming pre tribulation hasnt happened either....so signs of the times are important in my opinion and are a time table to future events, all we CAN do is put out here what we think will happen and opinions on what IS happening

so thats my 2 cents worth...ciao' amigos......

uprising2

Some more links and pictures from the Gulf, and things are just getting worse as the days pass by, there are reports of a huge methane bubble under an unstable sea floor, then reports of MOAB(Mother of all bombs) to stop the leak, kinda like trying to put out a fire by throwing petrol on it.

Gulf oil spill: The story so far

The effort to contain the Gulf oil spill has had more twists and turns than a mystery novel.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0629/Gulf-oil-spill-The-story-so-far

Gulf Oil Gusher: Danger of Tsunamis From Methane?

Cascading Catastrophe Scenarios
1. Loss of Buoyancy
2. First Tsunami with Toxic Cloud
3. Second Tsunami via Vaporisation
Conclusion
The danger of loss of buoyancy and cascading tsunamis in the Gulf of Mexico -- caused by the release of the massive methane and poisonous gas bubble -- has been a much lower probability in the early period of the crisis, which began on April 20th. However, as time goes by and the risk increases, this low probability high impact scenario ought not to be ignored, given that the safety and security of the personnel involved remains paramount. Could this be how nature eventually seals the hole created by the Gulf of Mexico oil gusher?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dk-matai/gulf-of-mexico-danger-of_b_619095.html

Tropical storm halts Gulf oil skimming, booming efforts

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/06/29/1707297/tropical-storm-halts-gulf-oil.html#ixzz0sHoexOCl

Cleanup ships idled as storms rattle Gulf region
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gIXWYBTpLtSayJtg41LKXpxSxVPAD9GL66I81

Gulf Oil Spill: There Is A Media Blackout, People Arrested For Taking Pictures Of The Gulf Oil Spill
http://wireofinformation.wordpress.com/2010/06/09/gulf-oil-spill-there-is-a-media-blackout-on-the-gulf-oil-spill/

Marine Techie: End Gulf Oil Spill With ‘Mother of All Bombs’ (Updated)
Read More http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/06/marine-techie-end-the-oil-spill-with-the-mother-of-all-bombs/#ixzz0sHgMbkhQ

Gulf Oil Spill: How BP's Dispersants May Contaminate Seafood for Years
http://industry.bnet.com/food/10002337/why-bps-trigger-happy-use-of-dispersants-is-going-to-contaminate-gulf-coast-seafood-for-years/

Texas sea turtles swimming straight toward Gulf oil
http://www.khou.com/news/local/Texas-sea-turtles-swimming-straight-toward-Gulf-oil--96896624.html

Revelation 16:3 - And the second angel poured out his vial upon the sea; and it became as the blood of a dead man: and every living soul died in the sea.

johno2

me_right_one wrote: »

Also, in Hebrew, each letter has an equivalent number. www=666. I sh1t you not boardsies. Scary stuff.

Hmmm, yes, that would be a convincing argument to scare people away from the anarchy of the internet and back into the churches where they can be told how to live their lives. Only problem is that hebrew doesn't even have a w in it. w is part of the greek and latin alphabets which share no root with the hebrew alphabet.

johno

Nick Dolan

so is the oil spill revelations 8:8 or 16:3 ? If your going to spread apocalyptic nonsence at least get the basics right.

uprising2

Nick Dolan wrote: »

so is the oil spill revelations 8:8 or 16:3 ? If your going to spread apocalyptic nonsence at least get the basics right.

Both are relevent, it the same second Angel in both, you decide!, and maybe you'll be singing a different tune in a few months time.
Your ignorance and denial is amazing, I can't believe you still think of this as nothing more than a little oil drip.

Kirby

uprising2 wrote: »

maybe you'll be singing a different tune in a few months time..

And will you be equally as contrite in a few months time? You expect him to be if he is proven wrong...........

This is the problem with people who predict the end of the world....or some form of it. Because even when they are wrong, which they invariably are, they can say "I'm not wrong, it will happen etc. etc."

Nick Dolan

uprising2 wrote: »

Both are relevent, it the same second Angel in both, you decide!, and maybe you'll be singing a different tune in a few months time.
Your ignorance and denial is amazing, I can't believe you still think of this as nothing more than a little oil drip.

Its two different actions, at two seperate points in time so the oil slick is either the mountain cast into the ocean or the bowl spilled into the sea. Now i dont believe this oil spill is either of them, but you havent shown even basic, straight forward logic in your interrepations.

uprising2

Nick Dolan wrote: »

Its two different actions, at two seperate points in time so the oil slick is either the mountain cast into the ocean or the bowl spilled into the sea. Now i dont believe this oil spill is either of them, but you havent shown even basic, straight forward logic in your interrepations.

Think about it, what order would it have to be?, one says a third of the sea, the other says the sea, I think thats pretty straight forward, also they may have to go with explosives/nukes to stop it, and what I've said is, "should it go wrong, there will be a mountain under there" and a and some major sh1t coming out, take that as Rev 8:8,9, move forward in time, same sh1t spreading to the sea (all the sea on the planet) Rev 16:3.

Also there are translation issues that havent been taken into account, right to left and left to right writing directions, and also may be copied from earlier writings etc, but as things stand I'd say its closer to being fulfilled than not, with a striking similarity.

When they stop the oil leak, and only when they stop it, I'll be back here to say I was mistaken and wrong, please forgive me etc, blah,blah, which I may be, I'm no Prophet.

And finally my interpretations are observations and comparison, please show me anything in world history, that could also observed and compared to Rev 8:8,9 or 16:3, any news or event you can think of that I could also compare, there is none, this is a first, and it's not stopped or contained yet, so Time Will Tell.

Nick Dolan

uprising2 wrote: »

And finally my interpretations are observations and comparison, please show me anything in world history, that could also observed and compared to Rev 8:8,9 or 16:3, any news or event you can think of that I could also compare, there is none, this is a first, and it's not stopped or contained yet, so Time Will Tell.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez
http://members.tele2.nl/the_sims/rig/index.htm
http://members.tele2.nl/the_sims/rig/steelhead.htm
http://www.incidentnews.gov/incident/6262
http://www.incidentnews.gov/incident/6237

uprising2

Nick Dolan wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez
http://members.tele2.nl/the_sims/rig/index.htm
http://members.tele2.nl/the_sims/rig/steelhead.htm
http://www.incidentnews.gov/incident/6262
http://www.incidentnews.gov/incident/6237

Nick Dolan

i believe i have you by the short and curlies

uprising2

Nick Dolan wrote: »

i believe i have you by the short and curlies

HAHA, you wish!, none of the above come close.

Link 1: wrong link, try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill
which says:

It is considered to be one of the most devastating human-caused environmental disasters ever to occur in history.[3] As significant as the Valdez spill was — the largest ever in U.S. waters until the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill — it ranks well down on the list of the world's largest oil spills in terms of volume released.

Link 2:

Several phases of work then commenced, including debris removal from the Usumacinta, the attachment of a valve for controlled flaring, the installation of a blow-out preventer and finally the shutting in of the well followed by killing with heavy mud and plugging with cement. By 17 December 2007, PEMEX reported complete control of the well.

Not the same, they cannot stop this one or did that fact elude you?

Link 3:

Attempts were made to kill the well with drilling mud but the gas unfortunately ignited, leading to a fire which caused extensive damage to the drilling package. The fire burned out of control for a week before the well bridged and extinguished the fire

MAN:eek:, a whole week......from a shallow natural gas pool, again not the same, this wellhead has not bridged.


Link 4:

The well was not capped because the field was in the middle of the Iran/Iraq war zone. This platform was attacked by Iraqi planes in March and the resulting slick caught fire. This well was capped by the Iranians on September 18, 1983.

Could have been capped much sooner, again not the same.

Link 5:

This platform is 180 miles southwest of the Ekofisk oil field center in approximately 230 feet of water.
The "blowout preventer" had apparently been placed upside down on the wellhead during an earlier maintenance procedure.
The blowout resulted in a continuous discharge of crude oil through an open pipe 20 meters above the sea surface. At an estimated rate of 1170 barrels per hour, approximately 202,380 barrels of oil escaped before the well was finally capped 7 days later on April 30th.

Capped again, after another WEEEK:eek:.

Nick, these are not the same, there are a few unique features of the deepwater horizon that you don't seem to be taking in, think about it!.


EDIT:
Also Nick a few thing's make this stand out, apart from the fact they haven't a clue how to stop it, did you click the "Submit your idea how to stop the deepwater horizon link I provided back a bit?, the oil looks like blood in the Gulf, something that has scientist's confused, there's a very real chance the sea floor will blow out or fall in, this is an ultra high pressure well, and it's gographical location, all make for a perfect disaster,

"The Gulf Stream, together with its northern extension towards Europe, the North Atlantic Drift, is a powerful, warm, and swift Atlantic ocean current that originates in the Gulf of Mexico, exits through the Strait of Florida, and follows the eastern coastlines of the United States and Newfoundland before crossing the Atlantic Ocean"

storm2811

Eh,what was the relevancy of the car crash pics?

NckD

First sorry for any confusion as Ive changed my profile to a less Identity Theft friendly one (But managed to bugger the spelling).


You said there was no comparable event to the BP disaster, there are loads, lots of disasters put bucketloads of oil into the sea. This one is no different. You also claim to signs in revelations to be the same event, and none of them resemble the oil spill. Id reckon a closer fit for the predictions is the exit of cameroon from the world cup. Their kit is one third red, and their world cup hopes died in a group or pool (The sea)

uprising2

storm2811 wrote: »

Eh,what was the relevancy of the car crash pics?

The top pic represent's the links provided by the member formally known as Nick Dolan.

The bottom pic represents the deepwater horizon oil spill.

Kinda in the same sense as "Sure it's just a car crash/oil spill"

uprising2

NckD wrote: »

First sorry for any confusion as Ive changed my profile to a less Identity Theft friendly one (But managed to bugger the spelling).

I pity the spelling.

NckD wrote: »

You said there was no comparable event to the BP disaster, there are loads, lots of disasters put bucketloads of oil into the sea. This one is no different.

No NckD, This IS DIFFERENT lot's of disaster's may have put "bucketloads" of oil into the sea, but this is MUCH DEEPER, and VERY HIGH PRESSURE

Subsea wells have the wellhead and pressure control equipment located on the seabed. They vary from depths of 10 feet (3.0 m) to 8,000 feet (2,400 m). It is very difficult to deal with a blowout in very deep water because of the remoteness and limited experience with this type of situation.[16]
The Deepwater Horizon well blowout in the Gulf of Mexico in April 2010, in 5,000 feet (1,500 m) water depth, is the deepest subsea well blowout to date.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowout_(well_drilling)

NckD wrote: »

You also claim to signs in revelations to be the same event, and none of them resemble the oil spill. Id reckon a closer fit for the predictions is the exit of cameroon from the world cup. Their kit is one third red, and their world cup hopes died in a group or pool (The sea)

Sorry?, I would have thought the links I provided at the start about RED OIL would look like Blood in the SEA, A possible explosion or implosion of the seabed that some scientists say will happen, poisoning of one third of the sea and then the sea.

NckD do you realise (actually no you don't) just how big, bad and awkward this little oil spill is, you seem to know better than the Unified Command.

It was just on skynews, BP spokesman says "We will stop this spill", then it replays him saying "All claims will be sorted in 48 hrs, come and get your cheque", then a man crying because BP won't pay his wifes medical bills after she was burnt while working for BP, then the current media blackout, people are being arrested for photographing the coast.

Cinful

PDN wrote: »

they happen in the most self-obsessed nation in the world - the USA.

An ethnocentric sweeping generalization?

PDN wrote: »

The same with the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. The same volume of oil has ben spilled into the waters of the Nigerian Delta region every day for the last 20 years.

While tragic, a gross exaggeration to make a point?

"The Niger Delta, where the wealth underground is out of all proportion with the poverty on the surface, has endured the equivalent of the Exxon Valdez spill every year for 50 years by some estimates."

"New estimates suggest that the BP oil spill is leaking 1.5 to 2.5 million gallons a day into Gulf, equivalent to having an Exxon Valdez disaster every 4-7 days."

Citations:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/17/world/africa/17nigeria.html
http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2010/06/bp-oil-spill-equals-4-8-times-exxon-valdez.html

NckD

Show me where Revelations 8:8 gives the quantity of oil placed in the sea by the second angel. It doesnt. Because its not taking about an oil spill. In fact the whole revelation book is the crazy ramblings of a nut case.

You said there was no comparable event in history. There were loads of oil spills throughout history. And i bet when they happened other people went scanning through their bibles and started freaking out. But again even using the warped logic of revelation, then oil spill in not a mountain or on fire, and you cant get round that fact

Fanny Cradock

NckD wrote: »

In fact the whole revelation book is the crazy ramblings of a nut case.

Read the charter. Abide by it.

AtomicHorror

There is a quote that comes to my mind whenever I see people with a flimsy grasp of my own academic sphere (biology) make grand and immovable pronouncements based on very poor knowledge.

Bertrand Russell wrote:

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.

Uprising, when it comes to the likes of PDN, you're more than a little outgunned in the knowledge department. No amount of Googling for backup is going to change that. Don't let your certainty make a fool of you.

uprising2

AtomicHorror wrote: »

There is a quote that comes to my mind whenever I see people with a flimsy grasp of my own academic sphere (biology) make grand and immovable pronouncements based on very poor knowledge.



Uprising, when it comes to the likes of PDN, you're more than a little outgunned in the knowledge department. No amount of Googling for backup is going to change that. Don't let your certainty make a fool of you.

What do you know about me?, I'm outgunned in the knowledge department by PDN?, what are you talking about?.
I have said I will come here and say I was wrong "WHEN THEY STOP IT", it's just this once I don't believe they can, because I researched it and PDN made a comment that I corrected and added a link to, had I not, somebody would have asked for backup.

And if you read over the thread I only asked if anybody thought there was a connection, some said no because X, and I replied X is wrong.

Also don't assume you know me or my mental abilities or lack of them, because you don't, and I know enough to know nobody is always right, including me, I'm big enough to say I'm wrong when I know I am, it just hasn't happened yet on this issue here.

EDIT:
Maybe you should enlighen us all with your expertise in biology and what affect this oil leak will have on sealife, how much oil would have to leak to destroy 1/3 of life in the sea?, please do enlighten us all with your higher knowledge, since mine is very poor.
And remember "Don't let your certainty make a fool of you".
Also!, in your higher opinion "What is making the oil red?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJ54dmQ0mAo

NckD

Your putting elements of Revelations 8 and 16 together and picking and choosing. Only 16 can describe an oil spill and it says everything in the sea dies. So until sharks in the indian ocen start going belly up ,its not 16 either

sponsoredwalk

NckD wrote: »

Your putting elements of Revelations 8 and 16 together and picking and choosing. Only 16 can describe an oil spill and it says everything in the sea dies. So until sharks in the indian ocen start going belly up ,its not 16 either

No no no...

You don't understand.

You're just supposed to decide on what parts of seperate verses fit the tragi-fantasy you're determined to claim
is pre-determined in this holy scripture that has been wrong on just about everything else.

uprising2 wrote: »

Both are relevent, it the same second Angel in both, you decide!

Again, it's just standard religious practice here. Pick and choose the verses that kind of fit what's going on and pronounce all this mystical nonsense to back it up, standard

uprising2

Nuke the BP oil leak! Undersea blast could plug it, say physicists



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1291654/Nuke-BP-oil-leak-Undersea-blast-plug-say-physicists.html?ito=feeds-newsxml#ixzz0siIJY5qE

The Mad Hatter

Well, the Daily Mail certainly has a good reputation when it comes to science.

sponsoredwalk

At the risk of getting banned from this interesting thread for stating another truism;

A spokeswoman for the US Energy Department told the New York Times that neither Energy Secretary Steven Chu nor anyone else was thinking about a nuclear blast to stop the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. The nuclear option was not - and never had been - on the table, officials said. One "senior official" said simply: "It's crazy.".
Link

I think this is exemplar, the people in charge have said they never felt this was an option - for obvious reasons - yet
we have people on here too afraid to even google to see if their claims are true or not - fearmongering I believe,
would be the word to describe this, or whatever word describes a situation in which a person uses false information
in order to scare people into believing that something they've been saying is true.

But no, according to the daily mail... :rolleyes:

Fanny Cradock

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

At the risk of getting banned from this interesting thread for stating another truism

Your truism is really more of a subjective opinion - the dismissive spirit of which would definitely go down well over in the A&A forum, less so here.

sponsoredwalk

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Your truism is really more of a subjective opinion - the dismissive spirit of which would definitely go down well over in the A&A forum, less so here.

Since when did having energy department spokespersons tell us that nuking an oil spill was never an option, contrary to the lies in this thread, become a subjective opinion?

Whether or not you think the truth is dismissive does not change the fact that it's true...

Fanny Cradock

I was talking about your reference to getting an infraction for your comments in post 77, and nothing about who said what about nuclear detonations. Perhaps this wasn't made immediately clear in my post.

As an aside, I'm glad to see that you are not a postmodernist.

sponsoredwalk

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

As an aside, I'm glad to see that you are not a postmodernist.

Lol, because I spoke of truth as an absolute :P

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I was talking about your reference to getting an infraction for your comments in post 77, and nothing about who said what about nuclear detonations. Perhaps this wasn't made immediately clear in my post.

Well it is true - both in the post-modernist & non-post-modernist senses :pac:

Not to get too off-topic but if people aren't stoning their children to death then they are not following the thing
at it's word - ergo it's picking and choosing verses.

That is not a controversial topic, in fact, isn't that preached as standard?

Fanny Cradock

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Not to get too off-topic but if people aren't stoning their children to death then they are not following the thing
at it's word - ergo it's picking and choosing verses.

We are getting off topic, but did you ever consider that there is a reason why some laws supersede others beyond your insistence that we are all cherry picking?

Perhaps you can answer that in another thread.

uprising2

I posted that link to show people reading this that it is what some believe to be the only option, these BP scientists have tried all they have, when they get their 2 relief wells drilled and it doesn't work, then it's time to consider other options, one of which will definately be the nuclear one.
They have to stop this, and they can't, then when all options run out, they may reluctantly go for broke, and they will be broke!!!!!!!!
This isn't a walk in the park, or something that is normal, as I've said over and over in this thread, this is something never experienced before now and it's a guessing game of what to do next, with each step getting more extreme than the one before, and I didn't invent the nuke theory, it's been in the public domain since they discovered just how powerful this leak is, long before this thread existed.
I've said that "IF" they take the nuke option then there will be a mountain in the sea, the huge methane bubble will go boom, ships will sink as the sea loses boyancy, sealife will be a memory, the red oil we can already see, prophecy fulfilled. If they can stop it, I will be the first to say I was wrong, if they can't then start repenting and Praise God.
Some people still think this oil leak is the same as all before, it's not, and the supposed greatest minds alive are twiddling their thumbs, not knowing what to do, BP and Obomber are covering up the true extent of this leak.

If this is God's will, then so be it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99H-nO6wgwc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm1JHyDyIsI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ige7u4nGywg

wolfsbane

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Since when did having energy department spokespersons tell us that nuking an oil spill was never an option, contrary to the lies in this thread, become a subjective opinion?

Whether or not you think the truth is dismissive does not change the fact that it's true...

I too take all the scary stuff about the spill with a pinch of salt. But that applies too to energy department spokespersons who tell us that nuking an oil spill was never an option. Do you really believe all the government assures you of? :eek:
___________________________________________________________________
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.

uprising2

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Since when did having energy department spokespersons tell us that nuking an oil spill was never an option, contrary to the lies in this thread, become a subjective opinion?

Whether or not you think the truth is dismissive does not change the fact that it's true...

Ok so govt is truth and only truth???, that explains a lot if that is what you believe.
Maybe you should start using your own inbuilt BS radar, as I did with this.

Agency Agreed Wildlife Risk From Oil Was ‘Low’
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/06/us/06wildlife.html

The Obama administration officially suspended First Amendment Rights this Fourth of July weekend to better ensure a cover-up of the Deep Horizon Gulf oil criminal activity including blocked clean-up, what could become a crime against humanity.
http://www.examiner.com/x-10438-Human-Rights-Examiner~y2010m7d3-Gulf-oil-crime-coverup-of-no-cleanup

Censored Gulf oil news: Emergency Meeting in New Orleans
http://www.examiner.com/x-10438-Human-Rights-Examiner~y2010m7d6-Censored-Gulf-oil-news-Emergency-Meeting-in-New-Orleans

fontanalis

uprising2 wrote: »

Nuke the BP oil leak! Undersea blast could plug it, say physicists



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1291654/Nuke-BP-oil-leak-Undersea-blast-plug-say-physicists.html?ito=feeds-newsxml#ixzz0siIJY5qE

Let's hope they don't try it or it will stop Armageddon.

PDN

uprising2 wrote: »

Ok so govt is truth and only truth???, that explains a lot if that is what you believe.
Maybe you should start using your own inbuilt BS radar, as I did with this.

It should be pointed out that anyone who treats the Daily Mail as a reliable source obviously lacks a BS radar.

uprising2

PDN wrote: »

It should be pointed out that anyone who treats the Daily Mail as a reliable source obviously lacks a BS radar.

Still sore?

sponsoredwalk

uprising2 wrote: »

Still sore?

What I don't understand is how you can treat the comments of a spokeswoman for the U.S. Energy department as suspect
when she explains the reasons why they're not nuking the bloody sea
yet you'll gleefully use the daily mail's nonsense to speak on scientific issues.

That, takes real faith :rolleyes:

uprising2

PDN wrote: »

It should be pointed out that anyone who treats the Daily Mail as a reliable source obviously lacks a BS radar.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

What I don't understand is how you can treat the comments of a spokeswoman for the U.S. Energy department as suspect
when she explains the reasons why they're not nuking the bloody sea
yet you'll gleefully use the daily mail's nonsense to speak on scientific issues.

That, takes real faith :rolleyes:

Victor Mikhailov CLICK IT or THIS

That's the man who said it not the mail, the mail reported it and happened to have an illustration that I used for it's visual effect, nothing more.

It came from Rothschilds Reuters originally where most international news/spin comes from so your favorite rag more or less has the same sh1te in it anyway.

She explained why not at the beginning of June, this russian supposedly said it a few days ago, and if you want to re-read what I wrote you will see I said I posted that link to show that is what "some people are saying".
I didn't say it was some scientific fact that it would be done.
I did say that they may eventually use it when other options run out, and if they do there will be a mountain under there, which I stand by.

PDN

uprising2 wrote: »

Still sore?

Still cryptic?

PDN

uprising2 wrote: »

No evidence exists outside my imagination?, are you sure about that?, maybe you need to brush up on your knowledge before making such statements.

Yes, I am sure, and my knowledge of biblical studies is pretty up to date. It has to be since I lecture on the subject at graduate level.

http://www.archive.org/stream/LostBooksOfTheBible/LostBooksOfTheBible_djvu.txt

Do you understand this link? Did you actually read it? It refers to some early Gnostic works, but doesn't mention anything about an imaginary earlier Hebrew version of Revelation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

Again, did you actually read this link? It has nothing to do with the Book of Revelation. The Septuagint was a translation of the Old Testament into Greek (made centuries before Revelation was written) since many Jews lived in the Diaspora outside Palestine and were either rusty in their own Hebrew or wanted to attract Gentile converts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse_of_John

This is stuff about the authorship of Revelation. Where does it say it was originally written in Hebrew?

Read all about it here:
http://www.blainerobison.com/endtimes/rev-hebrew.htm

You can always find a website for some crackpot arguing rather whacko theories. The guy you link to is not a biblical scholar (he is less qualified than me in the subject, and I am certainly not a recognised biblical scholar) and he has a dubious track record having also advocated polygamy.

His arguments, to be honest, are very weak. He also misses the rather obvious fact that the Book of Revelation was initially written to seven churches in Asia Minor - Ephesus, Smyrna, Sardis, Pegamum, Thyatira, Philadelphia, and Laodaecia. Since these churches were composed primarily of Greek converts it would be incredibly bone-headed to compose a letter to them in Hebrew, a language most of them wouldn't understand.

If you are seriously interested in understanding Revelation then, rather than googling wikipedia, I would recommend a serious theological study such as Richard Bauckham's excellent and readable "The Theology of the Book of Revelation".

Please link to these manuscripts for further research.

I'm not sure what research you want to do since linguists and biblical scholars have been stuying them for centuries, but here's a short list of over 330 Greek manuscripts that predate the King James Bible, some by well over 1000 years (many of which you can view online: http://www.csntm.org/manuscript

The idea that modern Bible translations are faulty because they rely on anything to do with King James is laughable nonsense on a par with believing that Elvis is alive and working in a Pizza Hut in New Mexico.

sponsoredwalk

PDN wrote: »

and he has a dubious track record having also advocated polygamy.

What is dubious about polygamy? I do believe this is common practice in many parts of the world &
is certainly not a dubious practice to these people - nor to the many people who've chosen this way of living
coming from societies that value monogamous relationships.

If it's some biblical issue:

Biblical practice

Multiple marriage was considered a realistic alternative in the case of famine, widowhood, or female infertility
like in the practice of levirate marraige, wherein a man was required to marry and support his deceased brother's widow,
as mandated by Deuteronomy 25:5–10.

Despite its prevalence in the Hebrew bible, scholars do not believe that polygyny was commonly practiced in the biblical era
because it required a significant amount of wealth.

The Torah, Judaism's central text, includes a few specific regulations on the practice of polygamy,
such as Exodus 21:10, which states that multiple marriages are not to diminish the status of the first wife
(specifically, her right to food, clothing and conjugal relations).

Deuteronomy 21:15–17, states that a man must award the inheritance due to a first-born son to the son who was actually born first,
even if he hates that son's mother and likes another wife more
and Deuteronomy 17:17 states that the king shall not have too many wives.

The king's behavior is condemned by Prophet Samuel in 1Samuel 8.
Exodus 21:10 also speaks of Jewish concubines.

Israeli lexicographer Vadim Cherny argues that the Torah carefully distinguishes concubines and "sub-standard" wives
with prefix "to", lit. "took to wives."

The monogamy of the Roman Empire was the cause of two explanatory notes in the writings of Josephus
describing how the polygamous marriages of Herod were permitted under Jewish custom.

Link


Not exactly a dubious practice to those engaging in the method of scripture Hebrewi-style and is if there opinion mattered
on the subject to the many people's of the world currently practicing such a way of life.

wolfsbane

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

What is dubious about polygamy? I do believe this is common practice in many parts of the world &
is certainly not a dubious practice to these people - nor to the many people who've chosen this way of living
coming from societies that value monogamous relationships.

If it's some biblical issue:

Biblical practice

Multiple marriage was considered a realistic alternative in the case of famine, widowhood, or female infertility
like in the practice of levirate marraige, wherein a man was required to marry and support his deceased brother's widow,
as mandated by Deuteronomy 25:5–10.

Despite its prevalence in the Hebrew bible, scholars do not believe that polygyny was commonly practiced in the biblical era
because it required a significant amount of wealth.

The Torah, Judaism's central text, includes a few specific regulations on the practice of polygamy,
such as Exodus 21:10, which states that multiple marriages are not to diminish the status of the first wife
(specifically, her right to food, clothing and conjugal relations).

Deuteronomy 21:15–17, states that a man must award the inheritance due to a first-born son to the son who was actually born first,
even if he hates that son's mother and likes another wife more
and Deuteronomy 17:17 states that the king shall not have too many wives.

The king's behavior is condemned by Prophet Samuel in 1Samuel 8.
Exodus 21:10 also speaks of Jewish concubines.

Israeli lexicographer Vadim Cherny argues that the Torah carefully distinguishes concubines and "sub-standard" wives
with prefix "to", lit. "took to wives."

The monogamy of the Roman Empire was the cause of two explanatory notes in the writings of Josephus
describing how the polygamous marriages of Herod were permitted under Jewish custom.

Link


Not exactly a dubious practice to those engaging in the method of scripture Hebrewi-style and is if there opinion mattered
on the subject to the many people's of the world currently practicing such a way of life.

Polygamy is not God's standard for marriage. It was not the creation ordinance. It was tolerated and legislatively restrained in the OT times just as was divorce. But it was never God's will:
Mark 10:4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to dismiss her.”
5 And Jesus answered and said to them, “Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’ 7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh.

A man and two or more women cannot be one flesh.

Christ brought us back to God's will, put away the weak and beggarly elements and demands we observe God's will in all things. So we are not free to use OT practices to replace God's creation ordinance.

Those caught up in such relationships are to be taken as they are, but not so that we approve the arrangement. Polygamy was enough to disqualify a man from church office.
_________________________________________________________________
1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach;

1 Timothy 3:12 Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

Titus 1:6 if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination.

sponsoredwalk

In classical pseudo-interpretation of a statement that clearly says nothing of the sort you claim you use this fallacious rationalization to disapprove of others :mad:

I think it's hilarious that the first google search I took to show you are a liar specifically chose the paragraph you used in your defense.

You've clearly been proven a liar by the following statement I'll quote, read it carefully & critically - you've clearly shown yourself to lack critical faculties but you might admit you made a mistake & learn from it.

Old Testament

In Exodus 21:10, a man can marry an infinite amount of women without any limits to how many he can marry.


n 2 Samuel 5:13; 1 Chronicles 3:1-9, 14:3, King David had six wives and numerous concubines.
In 1 Kings 11:3, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.
In 2 Chronicles 11:21, King Solomon's son Rehoboam had 18 wives and 60 concubines.
In Deuteronomy 21:15 "If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons...."

New testament

There is not a single verse from the New Testament that prohibits polygamy.

Christians usually mistakenly present the following verses from the Bible to prove that polygamy in the New Testament is not allowed:


Matthew 19:1-12

"1. When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan.


2. Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.



3. Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked,



"Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"



4. "Haven't you read," he (Jesus) replied, "that at the beginning the Creator `made them male and female,'


5. and said, `For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' ?



6. So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."



7. "Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"



8. Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.



9. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."



10. The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."



11. Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given.



12. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men;

and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."


In the above verses, we see that Jesus was approached with a question about whether or not it is allowed for a man to divorce

his wife in Matthew 19:3.



Jesus immediately referred to the Old Testament for the answer in Matthew 19:4.

He referred to Adam and Eve, one man and one woman. The Old Testament does talk about the story of Adam and Eve as one husband and one wife.



However, the Old Testament which Jesus had referred to in Matthew 19:3 does allow polygamy.



Also, when a man becomes a one flesh with his wife in Matthew 19:5-6,

this doesn't mean that the man can't be one flesh with another woman.



He can be one flesh with his first wife, and one flesh with his second wife, and one flesh with his third wife and so on....



To further prove this point,



let us look at the following from the New Testament:
Matthew 22:23-32



"23. That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question.



24. "Teacher," they said, "Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him.


25. Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother.


26. The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh.


27. Finally, the woman died.


28. Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?"



29. Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.



30. At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.



31. But about the resurrection of the dead--have you not read what God said to you,



32. `I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob' ? He is not the God of the dead but of the living."


In Matthew 22:24-28, the Jews referred to Deuteronomy 25:5 from the Old Testament where it states that if a woman's husband dies,

and she didn't have any kids from him, then she must marry his brother regardless whether he had a wife or not.



When the Jews brought this situation up to Jesus in Matthew 22:24-28,
Jesus did not prohibit at all for the childless widow to marry her husband's brother (even if he were married).



Instead, Jesus replied to them by saying that we do not marry in heaven, and we will be like angels in heaven (Matthew 22:30).



So in other words, if Jesus allowed for a widow to marry her former husband's brother even if he were married,

then this negates the Christians' claim about the Bible prohibiting polygamy.



A man can be one flesh with more than one woman.



In the case of Matthew 22:24-28, the man can be one flesh with his wife, and one flesh with his deceased brother's wife.



Also keep in mind that Exodus 21:10 allows a man to marry an infinite amount of women,

and Deuteronomy 21:15 allows a man to marry more than one wife.

Link - Read it carefully!


I wouldn't be so scolding of you if you didn't use your lying mis-information to disapprove of human beings :mad:

Fanny Cradock

Do not call other people liars because they happen to disagree with you.

sponsoredwalk

It's not me (s)he disagree's with, it's biblical scripture.

What's worse is invoking it in an absolutist way to condemn a large proportion of the world when it's clearly incorrect.

I believe that is taking god's name in vain - but I'm the one who get's criticized...

Fanny Cradock

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

but I'm the one who get's criticized...

You weren't getting criticised, you were receiving your one and only warning. Be nice.