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.

 

The Creationist Myth - 500,000-Year-Old Stone Tools, Butchered Elephant Bones Found in Israel

page: 14
21
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 03:59 AM
link   
a reply to: undo

To elaborate on something that something would have to come before you elaborate on it, I think we're solid on this idea right.

So do you mean the story is older than both Sumerian and Bible and they both elaborated on it in different ways and you prefer the Biblical one over the Sumerian???




posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 04:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Develo
a reply to: mOjOm

What is usually accepted is that the Sumerian mythology and beliefs inspired the Jews during their stay in Bablylonia. Maybe it's what Undo meant.


Maybe. Honestly I can't tell if undo is just not saying what he's trying to say in a normal way or if it's me and I'm just retarded and have lost the ability to read something and understand the language.

I'm not even sure what we are talking about anymore.

I think I'm outta here for now...I'll see ya later unless I end up in a rubber room somewhere.



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 04:21 AM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

no, i think the biblical account had a sort of windy curvy path before it was written down, including its life as an oral history. so i really don't know how old it is.

for example, the first 5 books (Called Torah or Pentateuch or even Deutorocanonical texts) of the old testament, were supposedly written by moses. since then scholars have noted at least 3 writers in isolated places in the text, such as the flood account. one of those writers was moses. here comes the interesting part:

moses was adopted into the house of pharaoh (my research leads me to believe it was pharaoh ahmose. moses was named after him). he would've received the teachings of the egyptians on subjects like creation. but because his mother was his nanny, he also received the teachings of his mother, which would've been mesopotamian and therefore contain the data from her ancestors oral histories. however, even further back, ham (khem, the man who egypt was named after) had taken the histories of sumer, to egypt, following the black sea flood event (which started in the mediterranean and atlantic). so we have at least 2 mesopotamian sources involved in moses account, one of them via ham and the egyptians and the other, via his mesopotamian mother.

he must've had his work cut out for him, particularly on the creation account, as the egyptians referred to atum as the creator. twas here i realized that maybe atum=adam and that somehow, it had gotten confused in the egyptian account. however, that was not the case (at least, not according to my research). for example, the very first name on the sumerian kings list is ALULIM. i believe alulim is the word from which adam, and therefore atum, derives, but also, the source of the word elohim, later. this confused me as i couldn't understand why the habiru would call elohim the same name as a king . adam was understandable, but not in its egyptian equivalent atum.

then it dawned on me: the people who were created in the image of elohim, were originally named after their creator. so alulim/atum/adam were the people of alulim/atum/adam. moses, to reduce the confusion, chose the later mesopotamian word, elohim, for the creator and adam/atum, for the created. problem solved.



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 04:41 AM
link   
(shh, don't tell anybody, but undo is a lady)



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 04:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: undo
as the egyptians referred to atum as the creator.


Only in Heliopolis.

Each city (Hermopolis, Memphis, Thebes) had different priesthood, gods, creation myths. Didn't you know this?



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 04:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Develo

originally posted by: undo
as the egyptians referred to atum as the creator.


Only in Heliopolis.

Each city (Hermopolis, Memphis, Thebes) had different priesthood, gods, creation myths. Didn't you know this?


aye but depends what the word was at the time of moses, and if there's a particular creation god that moses was interested in (namely atum).



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 04:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: undo

originally posted by: Develo

originally posted by: undo
as the egyptians referred to atum as the creator.


Only in Heliopolis.

Each city (Hermopolis, Memphis, Thebes) had different priesthood, gods, creation myths. Didn't you know this?


aye but depends what the word was at the time of moses


Well, the city where the Jews were captive was Pi-Ramesses. Which is where Ramesses II moved his capital from Thebes.

So the Egyptian creation myth Moses would know about would be the Theban one which is about Amun, not Atum.



Sorry if real history doesn't support your personal interpretation



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 05:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Develo

you mean avaris




posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 05:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped

But by all means, give me one, clear, unambiguous example of a rational, scientific insight into modern astronomy. Not vague verses, just get to the point.



I'm not entirely sure why I would do that. It allows you to change the conversation by redefining the subject. It's not a modern book. Why on Earth would you think it's a textbook for "modern astronomy"? There is a world of difference between having astronomy in it and having it be a textbook on modern astronomy.

When did the conversation swing around to modern astronomy? I thought the discussion was on an ancient book - why would you expect to find modern anything in it?

Then again, I would expect one who confuses astrology for astronomy to not understand the history of astronomy, and expect that it just arrived full blown in the 20th century.



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 06:17 AM
link   
a reply to: nenothtu

Talk about back peddling. Face it, there is nothing of scientific merit in the bible. In fact, a good chunk of the claims about the universe are incorrect.


When did the conversation swing around to modern astronomy? I thought the discussion was on an ancient book - why would you expect to find modern anything in it?


Because that was the topic of my post that you responded to? But now when pushed to back up your claims you try and change the topic or use a simple typo as an excuse not to engage.
edit on 25-3-2015 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 06:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: nenothtu

Talk about back peddling. Face it, there is nothing of scientific merit in the bible. In fact, a good chunk of the claims about the universe are incorrect.


When did the conversation swing around to modern astronomy? I thought the discussion was on an ancient book - why would you expect to find modern anything in it?


Because that was the topic of my post that you responded to? But now when pushed to back up your claims you try and change the topic or use a simple typo as an excuse not to engage.


i think there's evidence of precession in revelation.



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 06:41 AM
link   
a reply to: undo

I think there's evidence of people retrospectively trying to link a statement in the bible to a scientific understanding of a phenomena.

Why is this? Why do you really need to try so hard to make the bible seem scientifically "credible"? Is your faith that weak that you have to try and bolster it with faulty retconning?



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 06:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: undo


Why is this?


you asked nenothu for it. i was giving an example.



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 06:51 AM
link   
a reply to: undo

Care to cite your source then?



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 06:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: undo

Care to cite your source then?


sure, give me a few to gather it up.



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 06:54 AM
link   
a reply to: eisegesis

Excellent post, very well researched and presented.


The problem with the creationist theory is that it has remained relatively unchallenged for far too long. I believe it remains because of several factors.

First of all we have people who actively believe in fantasy, even when scientific reality contradicts the belief. There is no reason to believe that an omnipotent God exists, none at all, yet millions of people will believe that it does while actively rejecting all available evidence to the contrary.

This lends credence to the notion that there is something in the Human brain which demands "faith". I'm inclined to believe that it's some form of misplaced and misunderstood survival instinct. Perhaps this "faith" was once a useful tool to aid in survival, allowing you to trust yourself on an instinctual level, but evolved (when Human life became more comfortable) to be outward belief rather than self belief.

We then have the rejection of education on these subjects. Even thought we know what we know, and we know that scientific reality utterly destroys any creationist theory, schools will still refuse to broach the subject because they fear the wrath of ignorant parents. Even growing up in the UK I saw this first hand, in the morning we would have assembly, singing hymns, and in the afternoon we would be learning about Dinosaurs. This contradiction was never broached, never challenged, kids were left to manufacture their own explanations.

We take in everything, whether we understand that we do on a conscious level or not, so when confronted with two things which oppose each other your subconscious mind is going to have a hard time coming to terms with it. I believe this nonsense and confusion in the child, when the brain is still developing at an incredible rate, creates more confusion in adults, having never considered it on a conscious level the brain just kind of files it away on a shelf but it's always there ready to infect other developing thoughts. It's kind of like a looping bug in a computer program, one little thing failing to function as it should and then affecting all future thought processes.

Finally we have a culture that has, for a long time, been almost entirely devoid of individual learning and development after the teenage years. Sure, some people go to college, and an even smaller number of people continue to actively study what they're interested in for the rest of their lives, but the vast majority of people seem to have no interest in developing their opinions or thoughts on anything after perhaps the age of 17.

What they learned as a child is just left there as if it's all there is to know.

For those poll results, I don't think it's necessarily that so many believe in creationism, it's that they have little interest in actually learning about anything for themselves, and belief in God is a "default" response because of it.

Ultimately I do think we need a lot more information out there about the scientific reality, and I firmly believe that there should be no religious schools at all. I believe we should teach kids what is real, not what is fantasy as though it is real. It should be considered abuse to be telling kids about Heaven and Hell, God, the Devil, Creationism, as though these things are fact, they are not. It's no better (in my opinion) than the Taliban refusing to allow girls an education or teaching boys that they are the masters of their women. It's all a nonsense, and it's all damaging to the developing mind. We would not accept this from any random cult in the Arizona desert, so why do we allow such "mainstream" cults to brainwash kids with their brand of nonsense?

I still have hope that the Internet is going to result in a revolution of thought and a degrading of religious belief overall. I think we only have perhaps one or two generations before he desire to learn for yourself and reject fantasy becomes a mainstream concept and people spend more of their lives developing their thoughts and education. We are seeing a decline in Church attendance, and this shows that the religions are being rejected more and more in favor of science. Now all we need to confront is the default belief in a God that so many willfully ignorant people cling to despite not being religious in any other way.



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 07:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Rocker2013
The problem with the creationist theory is that it has remained relatively unchallenged for far too long. I believe it remains because of several factors.


You've got to be kidding me.

Creationism isn't even taught in public schools outside of the US.


Also it's a fallacy to equate religions and creationism.
edit on 25-3-2015 by Develo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 07:18 AM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped


Rev 12:3

And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.


Rev 12:4

And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

=


the dragon is draco, the constellation. it's a northern, circumpolar constellation. it acts like a hand on a gigantic watch. when its tail eventually tips over (from precession) so that it appears to be dumping stars onto the earth, this marks a timeframe that is measured in precessional increments (meaning large spans of time, instead of just a single year /day /month). the purpose of these types of verses is to point to a general time frame on earth, but not necessarily a specific day/month or year.



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 07:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: GetHyped


Rev 12:3

And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.


Rev 12:4

And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

=


the dragon is draco, the constellation. it's a northern, circumpolar constellation. it acts like a hand on a gigantic watch. when its tail eventually tips over (from precession) so that it appears to be dumping stars onto the earth, this marks a timeframe that is measured in precessional increments (meaning large spans of time, instead of just a single year /day /month). the purpose of these types of verses is to point to a general time frame on earth, but not necessarily a specific day/month or year.


Draco constellation doesn't have 7 heads and 10 horns and 7 crowns.

Selective reading like that is a symptom of self-delusion.



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 07:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Rocker2013
a reply to: eisegesis

Excellent post, very well researched and presented.


The problem with the creationist theory is that it has remained relatively unchallenged for far too long. I believe it remains because of several factors.


Not sure what reality you live in, but the one I live in, Creationism is pretty much challenged at every level pretty consistently. The scientific community doesn't even entertain it as an idea outside of "creation scientists" but that's not really a thing. Most schools don't teach it either. Creationists WANT it taught, but smart people have prevailed so far there.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join