It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Daughters of Cain, Sons of Seth, Fallen Angels Oh My

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 09:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Bleeeeep




Daughters of men does not mean that there are no daughters of God.


Really? That doesn't seem to the premise of the declaration:



Sons of Seth and Daughters of Cain or Fallen Angels


This is just more broad brush stereotyping of the inferior and spiritually vulnerable role of women perpetuated in the Abrahamic religions.



You may as well declare :
IT IS WRITTEN: "Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus".




posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: bitsforbytes

What if God is both time and space? Maybe God needs to be redefined.



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 04:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: AlephBet

I read enough. I stopped reading here:


The "Sons of God" are deemed to refer to leadership in the line of Seth; the "daughters of men" is deemed restricted to the line of Cain.




But he was not expressing his view here, but showing the view others hold. His conclusion was much different. It's part of the overall view that his conclusion counters.


edit on 4-9-2014 by AlephBet because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 11:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Cuervo
a reply to: AlephBet

To be honest, I never knew there was a "Sethite" interpretation. It seems pretty cut-and-dry. Supernatural humbugs were roaming around, pissing off the Abrahamic gods and then they got hosed down.

The Sethite version of the story seems like an obvious attempt to make a square scriptural peg fit into a religious round hole. That's the case for a whole lot of current understandings in the bible. When I read something in the first testament that (again) seems pretty cut-and-dry, I'll hear the consensus on the interpretation and I'm left totally baffled.


I don't know what the Sethite version is, I never heard of it before either.

What the KJV has to say is simply this "Genesis 4:25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.

26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the Lord."

Apparently there were either different religions before Seth, or after Seth was the first time that the religion of the Lord had begun. Abel had some type of religious views and yet we see the interaction between Cain and the Lord. The problem with this is that the Lord was not given a name until Moses, and even then it wasn't really a name, just a handle, I AM, or the four letters which simply means I AM. YWHW is not really a name.

As He said to Moses "tell them I AM sent you". But later we see Joshua telling the people "You may serve the gods of your fathers from before the flood, as for me and my house we will serve the Lord". So there were other gods, not necessarily idols, that were known and worshiped before the flood. And as Joshua says "your fathers", meaning they were not all descended from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob but through time had amalgamated into this group. We don't know those gods from before the flood, but Joshua seems to understand that there must have been a long history.

I think it is presumptive that there is a Sethite view, per se, but if there is one, then it is ancient. Perhaps then it could be assumed that this religion that Abraham embraced was a Sethite religion and it could simply mean that at that time, there were gods that different families worshiped. It must be like a patron god of that particular family, much like today with patron saints.

I hope it doesn't baffle you too much for me to say this, that is not my intent. I am merely proposing some things.

If it is the case that each family worshiped a patron god, then Cain had a particular god for his family and Seth had one for his, two competing religious systems in the ancient world. The Sethite view would then be what the ancient Hebrews followed, because their line of descent is through Seth.

Then we go down to Noah, who would have had the Sethite family god, of whom there is no name for. I would not say this is an Abrahamic religion yet, so it is not codified as such until Moses. Certainly Noah had a patron family god, but not explained equally by his descendants. That would still be pre-flood and then post-flood. Noah would then have had the Sethite view about god, but his sons did not because Shem and Ham seem to be at the same odds. Japheth is barely mentioned in the text, and it is Japheth who would be the founder of Europeans and therefore European religious systems.

It is very possible in that sense that European "paganism" is from that Japhethic view. I say paganism in quotes merely to emphasize the historical nature of the same type of worship, that is all. Shem seems to take on a more closer to monotheism than the rest. But in saying that, the most ancient religion, seem to be monotheistic at the very onset but through time morphed into polytheism.

Even the Rig Vedas give credence to that, before Hindusim. And in China, there was a monotheistic religion well-documented 2,500 years before Buddha and Confucius. The Chinese called Him Shang Di. The Rig Vedas simply say "The One".

I think for most people, they assume that there was only one god that the ancients believed in. I see that there were different gods, because of what Joshua says. We may never know who those gods were from before the flood, but perhaps in tracing religions and culture and language, we could possibly do that.

I never thought of a Sethite view before, but if that is true then I am leaning toward thinking that the god of Seth was a family patron god. Abraham didn't seem to grow up with the Sethite religion, but if it was a Sethite religion, then those idols he broke were Sethite, because his father was an idolmaker in Ur.

Even though Jesus comes from Seth, He never mentions the god of Seth. He only mentions the god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob that seemed to be found in Canaanite understanding. Sethites were then polytheistics, and by that token, if Enoch wrote from a Sethite view, then that leaves little doubt that Enoch was in a world of demons, idols, angels and many other beings. Paul specifically mentions a prophecy by Enoch that is found nowhere else in the Bible. For Paul to mention this, means it was written down before. Paul was taught by Gamaliel in the school of Hillel. Then Paul and Peter go on to mention that those beings were being held in chains and John in Revelation says there are four angels bound in the great river Euphrates.

They could only have known that through a previously written source that was well-known in that time. We no longer have any of those writings, except for the Book of Enoch. If this Book of Enoch we see today is the real one, then it is how they believed then, and it says much of the same that Zoroastrianism and the Rig Vedas. I must conclude that the Sethites were polytheistic. And we have no idea of the religion of the descendants of Japheth, which may very well be what we think of as paganism. Estonia was the last European country to be converted, and yet people today in Estonia still follow much of the previous type of religion as their ancestors. The earliest mention in Estonian mythology is still one god, Taara, but that may have been the familial patron god originating from Japheth.

I think that not many Christians know to read the Bible from the most ancient context, assuming there was only one view. That's my take on it, the pre-flood world began with familial patron gods, of whom we do not know the names or descriptions of, but what is apparent is that from that ancient world, they are indeed describing the same events.



posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: AlephBet


If one takes an integrated view of the Scripture, then everything in it should "tie together." It is the author's view that the "Angel View," however disturbing, is the clear, direct presentation of the Biblical text, corroborated by multiple New Testament references and was so understood by both early Jewish and Christian scholarship; the "Sethite View" is a contrivance of convenience from a network of unjustified assumptions antagonistic to the remainder of the Biblical record.

Not necessarily. One thing you have overlooked. You are reading the Genesis account as though it were the original account whereas it is not in the pristine order as you suppose. The original Torah is lost and being lost it cannot be cited as word for word. The Torah which the Septuagint was translated and even the Masoretic texts are not the original Torah. By this we can assume but not verify.

Also we must consider the fact that a much older copy of Torah along with the books of Enoch were discovered side by side in the dead sea discovery. We can realize from this that the literature of Enoch was considered sacred and used along with Torah. To what extent it was used I have no idea but literature of this sort was not considered fabricated in any way or it would not be in the same library. This is why the first Jewish Christian church did use Enoch in their liturgy.

The reason that the linage of Seth is used is that the youngest son was to minister to the needs of the father. That and the belief that there was no remorse from Cain for the death of his brother and therefore Cain was disrespected by his own actions. This was shown when God chided Cain for his attitude.

Gen 4:5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
Gen 4:6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
Gen 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

It was not for the sake of Noah's sons that they were saved from the waters but it was for the sake of Noah that God respected Noah and his house. The house of Adam was propagated from Seth up to Noah. If Seth had not been born then so Noah likewise would not have existed. Meanwhile Cain was building cities and procreating his seed which was not of the house of Adam. The reason for this tradition is as follows.

When the serpent first tempted Eve it is said (by tradition) that the serpent had intercourse with Eve and propagated Cain. Cain was believed to have been the seed of the serpent and not of Adam. This is why the scriptures say --

Gen 4:25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.

Gen 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:

Note that Seth was in the likeness of Adam inferring that Cain was not in the likeness of Adam. This is not simply a misused wording. likeness after his image is also used in the creation of Adam.

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Tradition tells us that likeness is the life (spirit) of a person while image is the terrestrial flesh (body) of a person.

So in order to understand tradition we could understand that the serpent did not have an everlasting spirit or image of the Creator.

Enoch was accepted by the first Christians as teachable in the first Christian synagogues.
According to this Torah there were two distinct seeds of mankind. One of Seth and one of Cain.



posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede

The quote you used is the opinion of the author of the article linked. He believed, as do you and I, that the Enoch story is the correct version. All that you are saying here is accurate. Tradition is not the same as scripture, although we can glean good understanding from both. The traditions of men are not always the same as scripture, but I think it is safe to say that the article I linked sticks to the Enoch story as consistent with scripture itself, noting the account of Jude as compared to Genesis 6.



posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede

I agree with everything you just said.

When Zechariah Sitchin was translating the Sumerian Texts, did he do that from already established understanding or did he do that on his own?



posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 07:57 PM
link   
a reply to: AlephBet



The quote you used is the opinion of the author of the article linked. He believed, as do you and I, that the Enoch story is the correct version. All that you are saying here is accurate. Tradition is not the same as scripture, although we can glean good understanding from both. The traditions of men are not always the same as scripture, but I think it is safe to say that the article I linked sticks to the Enoch story as consistent with scripture itself, noting the account of Jude as compared to Genesis 6.

Yes, sorry for my misunderstanding. I agree with you completely.



posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 08:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: bitsforbytes
This got me thinking, all those Greek mythical creatures (centaur, minotaur, etc) were maybe true, dinosaurs, all the unexplained structures we have on earth were, I suspect, all pre flood.

I also believe that mythology may be based on real creatures.

Howard Pittman's NDE experience suggests this as well...


And interestingly Oxford historian Mark Booth makes a similar claim as to the identification of these “giants” and "Spirits peopling the Earth”: he steadfastly states that the ‘gods’ of Greek mythology were one in the same with the Biblical ‘giants’ and ‘nefilim’ of the Old Testament. And recall that Greek ‘mythology’ is nothing but a more refined version of the Ancient Egyptian, Babylonian and Sumerian ‘gods’. www.theoryoflivevolution.com...

Mythology in its purest form is Lucifer telling his version of how the Supreme God overthrew his kingdom and violently threw him out of his own palace.

Will the Real God Please Stand Up

"This is one of the most amazing NDE's I've ever read. On his way to the 3rd heaven to plead for his life, God allowed him to go through the second heaven and witness the various types of demons there. Some looked half human and half animal, like in Greek Mythology. Others looked like giant angels, humans, and animals, and other strange looking creatures. God also was angry with this guy, who thought he was a great Christian, and said his life and works were worth nothing, and that he wasted his life."

Howard Pittman's near death experience

Originally posted by Donna Andes
"Howard O. Pittman explains the function of demons in his book, Demons An Eyewitness Account, written after he had a near-death experience... The third ranking order of demons were those who possessed skills in the area of dark arts such as witchcraft, false religions, meditation, self destruction, fear, magic, sorcery, hypnosis, occult worship, ESP, psychedelic drugs... The demons appeared to be part man and part animal like the figures in Greek mythology. ..."

Originally posted by Maria Merola
"The baby was “half” mermaid because mermaids are what we see in Greek Mythology. I recall Howard Pittman’s personal testimony of being taken into the second heaven during his clinical death experience. He was shown by the angel of YaHuWaH, certain demons that looked like half man and half animal. He saw some that were half horse and half human, and he saw some demons that looked like mermaids. Howard Pittman says that this order of demons are the ones behind occultism, witchcraft, paganism and mythology."


Google search: "howard pittman" Greek Mythology



posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 09:15 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy


When Zechariah Sitchin was translating the Sumerian Texts, did he do that from already established understanding or did he do that on his own?

Hello WarminIndy,
From my understanding Zechariah Sitchin was self taught and claimed that he was an expert in translating Sumerian texts. Sitchin's story was all based upon his understanding of a creation of Anunnaki of the Sumerian gods. I understand that Sitchin was a polytheist and regarded the biblical Adam as a creation or manipulation by the Anunnaki (Nephilim). If the Sumerian texts do indeed tell Sitchin what he writes then he must have gotten this from the Sumerian texts. On the other hand if the Sumerian texts do not tell his story then he must have either misunderstood or embellished his work. There are lots of people that believe the Sitchin work. Am I right in my understanding?



posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 09:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: WarminIndy


When Zechariah Sitchin was translating the Sumerian Texts, did he do that from already established understanding or did he do that on his own?

Hello WarminIndy,
From my understanding Zechariah Sitchin was self taught and claimed that he was an expert in translating Sumerian texts. Sitchin's story was all based upon his understanding of a creation of Anunnaki of the Sumerian gods. I understand that Sitchin was a polytheist and regarded the biblical Adam as a creation or manipulation by the Anunnaki (Nephilim). If the Sumerian texts do indeed tell Sitchin what he writes then he must have gotten this from the Sumerian texts. On the other hand if the Sumerian texts do not tell his story then he must have either misunderstood or embellished his work. There are lots of people that believe the Sitchin work. Am I right in my understanding?



I don't know, but there are indeed a lot of people who believe Sitchin was right. He may have embellished a lot. I really don't have an opinion one way or another about him.

But the Sumerian texts must have a lot to say. I don't know if they relate to the Book of Enoch, but it makes sense as they were in the same area. I have tried to read The Book of Enoch but would like to know if the present one is as close to the original as possible, because the man seems to have had a lot to say.

If you feel that it is close enough, then I shall give it a read. I have read Apocryphal books and Bel and the Dragon, that one was strange. I was young when I read that, but the moment I read "in the time you see the moon three times a day"..well, ever since that time, I have gone out and seen the moon all through the day..lol.

Does that mean Bel and the Dragon was reliable? I still see the moon and say "yep Bel, there's the moon". LOL. I don't know why that one verse is such a part of my memory.



posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 10:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlephBet

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: AlephBet

I read enough. I stopped reading here:


The "Sons of God" are deemed to refer to leadership in the line of Seth; the "daughters of men" is deemed restricted to the line of Cain.




But he was not expressing his view here, but showing the view others hold. His conclusion was much different. It's part of the overall view that his conclusion counters.



Even so, its astonishing to see how many of you people still believe the Adam and Eve story to be true enough to be the basis of this mythological femme fetale projection. If Adam and Eve weren't real people, then neither were Cain and his "daughters" nor the Sethites, the supposed "sons of God".

Woman was not created from the rib of a man. It isn't God's law for women to be under men. It wasn't the ease with which a woman can be seduced that brought about the schism within mankind's reality.

There's nothing spiritual or beautiful about these, so called, wedding references. Brides, in biblical times, weren't faithful women in love with their men. They were 12 and 13 year olds, who had most probably never met the man their fathers arranged for them to marry, and where their consent wasn't required. If their virgin "wicks" weren't prepared in time for their groom, when he arrived, it was because they were too immature for marriage, and it was GOOD THING!

God didn't create a flood because he was disappointed with his creation. There were many floods in our history, not due to God's punishment, but due to the melting of the polar ice caps and global warming. All this obsessing about God's wrath and poisoned blood lines justify war, "end times" and the "Days of Noah" is nothing less than unhealthy.



edit on 6-9-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 11:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: WarminIndy
I don't know, but there are indeed a lot of people who believe Sitchin was right.

A lot of people are gullible...

"Trust me, Wilbur. People are very gullible. They’ll believe anything they see in print." ~ Charlotte’s Web


Zecharia Sitchin has been proven wrong and his work is a complete fabrication.

If it were in fact correct, the "History" Channel would not be airing it.

That pretty much removes ALL credibility the way I see it.

The "Ancient Aliens Debunked" documentary exposes all of the lies behind this fraud:


Chris White has produced one of the most important video productions dealing with the Ancient Alien Phenomena With the added scholarly research from Michael Heiser this documentary is epic in its scope – answering just about every ”Alien” claim made on the Ancient Aliens television show, one of the most popular programs on television which is falsely spreading a “Psuedu Gospel” with the help of a complicit media, imagine folks seeing a show on “The History Chanel”? surely the History Chanel has done their homework and verified at least some of this shows claims? You will realize that it’s not just our national news media that has become lazy. Our History Channel seems to be rewriting history as well.

The Ancient Aliens show and its prime benefactor Giorgio Tsoukalos has one goal in mind. To Debunk the Judeo Christian world view and replace it with an age old story, A story the most beautiful of created angels used to temp earths first inhabitants. A psuedo gospel that will possibly sway even the “elect” with a future disclosure. When you hear for yourself so many Lies, disinformation and the twisting of the “truth” coming right from the mouth of Tsoukalos – one realized why Christ called Satan the “Father of Lies”. His followers on earth just can’t help but repeat them…..

www.supernaturalresearch.com...



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 07:15 AM
link   
a reply to: windword



God didn't create a flood because he was disappointed with his creation. There were many floods in our history, not due to God's punishment, but due to the melting of the polar ice caps and global warming. All this obsessing about God's wrath and poisoned blood lines justify war, "end times" and the "Days of Noah" is nothing less than unhealthy.


The flood is baptism: Reality Spoilers

Just as the allegorical story of the flood happened across the earth, it is also a story that shows us who the beasts in the Ark are in reality. Baptism is the flood, just as Adam and Eve are genetics of the Aleph Bet (Father). He is the letters. It doesn't matter that the story symbolizes something else. We all know this. The point is that this is the main metaphor for our current scientific theory. It's true because it reflects what we observe. No need to judge anyone for believing it. We should all believe it for the truth it contains. The value is not in the facts of the story, but in what the story teaches us about our origins. Both the Noah flood and the origins of Adam and Eve are metaphor for what they really mean. Yes. Of course. We all get this.



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy


If you feel that it is close enough, then I shall give it a read. I have read Apocryphal books and Bel and the Dragon, that one was strange. I was young when I read that, but the moment I read "in the time you see the moon three times a day"..well, ever since that time, I have gone out and seen the moon all through the day..lol.



a reply to: WarminIndy

But the Sumerian texts must have a lot to say. I don't know if they relate to the Book of Enoch, but it makes sense as they were in the same area. I have tried to read The Book of Enoch but would like to know if the present one is as close to the original as possible, because the man seems to have had a lot to say.

There is only one work of Enoch that is complete and that is the Ethiopian version. I rely upon R.H. Charlesworth who edited the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha in a two volume set. I believe we will always have differences of beliefs even among the bible scholars themselves.

In fact I spent quite some time in a different forum which is packed full of secular humanists and actually learned quite a bit from their perspectives. I have come to realize that Noah is actually the key to the Hebrew God and once you are convinced that he did not exist or that a global flood did not exist then you can easily dispose of this Christian God and Jesus.

Luke 17: 26-27 "Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the Ark. Then the Flood came and destroyed them all."

You can see that if Jesus actually believed in this then the secular Humanists are destroying Jesus also.

So one of the ways to attack this Hebrew God theology would be to promote a Sitchen philosophy by way of science and secular Humanists. That is this new culture which is promoted mostly by movies. The new culture wants a new type of savior and the outer space guys fit the bill. If you put this into a movie then the people can relate to it simply because books are a thing of the past for most people. Some how the space aliens will come down and love us to death and forever take care of us. That is what this new movie religion teaches. Even in ATS discussions most all will revert back to what another guy says in a film. As though this other guy in the film is the entire truth of the matter.

The epic of Gilgamesh is the tool that is mostly used against the flood of Noah but then most who use this tool will not tell the entire truth. The truth is that the 11th of 12 tablets of Utnapishtim tell of a flood very similar to Noah's flood. This epic (poem) was scribed on tablets dated at 650 B.C.E. while Noah's flood is dated at 2105 B.C.E. Actually Noah's flood is 1456 years older than the tablets but the character named King Gilgamesh is listed in the Sumerian's king list as living between 2800 B.C.E. and 2500 B.C.E. So in respect, the powers to be have stated that just because the story lists King Gilgamesh on the tablets then the story must be true and therefore the flood of Gilgamesh must be 395 to 695 years older than Noah and therefore Noah is a fraud. Not even a consideration that whoever scribed those tablets could have been embellishing simply a story.

This teaches that the tablets age have actually no meaning and that polytheism was the rule of the day. The Gilgamesh story relates that it was a local flood which lasted about 6 days. That fits the secular Humanists science because they also insist that there was no global flood and that a creator is a fantasy. Along with all of this is that they must get rid of Noah. The global flood did not happen and they can prove this with their science, or so they insist. But now that Sitchen is dead there is no hope in finding if he could actually understand that of which he claimed. So far his Sumerian texts have not been verified. What we have left is Noah and his flood.

What has this to do with fallen angels, Cain and Seth? If we get rid of Noah then the rest is easy. If Noah did not exist then biblical accounts are nothing but stories. What do we have left? We have the outer space philosophy and secular science simply because there was no biblical antediluvian world. The Stichen philosophy would then battle the science Humanists and the winner would then be the religion of this era. I would bet on science because they already have control of almost all education in the organized world. Actually true Christianity is a diminishing religion.



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy
Sorry about that last post. I got timed out and something went wrong when I tried to beat the time out.



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: AlephBet




The flood is baptism


I know that's your theory. I'm not seeing it. Baptism should represent being showered and submersed in the peaceful and welcoming waters of love, not crashing waves of anguish, regret or discipline.



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 11:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: AlephBet




The flood is baptism


I know that's your theory. I'm not seeing it. Baptism should represent being showered and submersed in the peaceful and welcoming waters of love, not crashing waves of anguish, regret or discipline.





Beasts in an Ark. It is a flood. Safety is in the water. It's not a theory.

1 Peter 3


After being made alive,[d] he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits— 20 to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: AlephBet




In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also


They weren't saved through water, they were from water by a boat, supposedly.


edit on 7-9-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede

That's ok, sometimes that happens.

I do believe there was a global flood and that a man, that the Hebrews call Noah, was warned of that impending disaster and built a boat.

In the 277 cultures that have a flood story, there are 2,000 from them and the same theme occurs in all of them, a man was warned of a flood because violence had covered the whole earth. God had to clean the blood first and then next He will purge the earth through fire.

The most amazing thing about the Genesis account, is that it then follows where his descendants settled and that the names of those people still existed in the names of the cultures that were well-known at the time of Josephus. Even Heroditus mentions the names of places that originated from those sons.

I don't think people realize just how much emphasis the Bible places on names and their meanings. The Bible shows clarity in detail that isn't found elsewhere. For instance, where the Bible says the Garden of Eden is at, let me show you an example, and this is what I found after someone told me that the name of a particular river was not important because we don't know where it is, but we do know, we have just been told by a different name, but one that may have the exact same meaning. And I want to show you what I found on Google Earth that supports my statement.


Genesis 2:10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.

11 The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;

12 And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.

13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.

14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.


Looking at Pison, it is described as having gold, bdellium and onyx. Those three things are very important and as they are listed together, then all three should be there in that place. So I looked up where all those are found together and it is none other than the Indus River that goes through what is Pakistan today.

But here, I found this on Google Earth, it is a built object, that has a 45 degree angle.


This is in the Arabian Sea, with Indus to the east, the Gulf of Oman with Tigris and Euphrates to the north and where the Gulf of Tadjoura sits beside the river exit at Djibouti but coming through Ethiopia.

I am not saying this is the Garden of Eden, but what I will say is that an extraordinary structure exists in the Arabian Sea. And this structure, there is no reference to it anywhere that I have found. It has straight lines that are too convenient to be natural formations.

ETA: Sorry the picture is so little. the Coordinates are Latitude 19°38'29.00"N Longitude 64°31'57.63"E


edit on 9/7/2014 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join