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 Bible Unveiled: Exposing The Very Beginning of Genesis by A Master Teacher

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: Shiloh7
a reply to: BlockBanOutkast

Something that has always bothered me about the biblical creation story is that god supposedly created the vegetation etc which needs sunlight for photosynthesis prior to his actually creating the sun.

So someone who clearly didn't know their botany wrote genesis. Just a little something I got the ruler for for pointing it out at school.


I would have given you the ruler too. It's clear that there was light, 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good. You are aware that vegetation can grow with artificial light right? Of course you probably didn't know that back then so I will spare you the ruler this time.

I find it baffling that people can't clearly see that Genesis 1-2:4 is the intro to the creation story with Genesis 2:5 and on going into more detail. No offence, but come on people, it's basic reading comprehension, you don't need to be scholar in order to figure that out.


Your being fooled to think that God needed to go into more detail about things he had already said. The Bible clearly says God and then Lord God. This right here is a clear distinction that you are clearly not noticing. Why talk about God and then refer to God all of a sudden as Lord God. If you dont know the meaning behind the word Lord here it is.

The Lord has always referred to a MAN of high ranking. This is why many movies use the word Lord when referring to a Man. Movies like Lord of the Rings does this very well.




posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 03:57 PM
link   
a reply to: AnuTyr

I perfectly understand your argument but translations mean nothing if the root of the story is still there. How you translate it doesn't matter but how you understand what is being said does matter.

For example: That girl over there is Bad.

Now you could translate this as me saying that girl must have bad behavior or you can translate this an say that girl looks good.

The point I'm making here is that translations will only confuse you. It is the understanding that will lead you to truth. And the understanding is that I could've been talking about either of the two but as far which one I was referring to the evidence will lie before this statement and after it. This is how you will get your understanding and instead of just a simple translation.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: BlockBanOutkast

You're taking things far too linearly. Or taking things how you want them to be. First, between Cain's birth and the age that he might take a wife, there could have been any number of daughters born. Adam lived to be 930 years old, having Cain at 130 years old, I believe. The Bible never mentions how old Cain was when he took his wife.

Next, you'll probably say he married a woman from Nod. This isn't true either, he simply gave her child in Nod.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Cain was conceived with the HELP of Yahweh. Clones cannot reproduce so Eve needed help. Also if you look the first Elohim creation he created the heavens then earth. When Yahweh did his forming he did the earth then the heavens. There are two distinct creations.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 04:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Excallibacca
a reply to: BlockBanOutkast

You're taking things far too linearly. Or taking things how you want them to be. First, between Cain's birth and the age that he might take a wife, there could have been any number of daughters born. Adam lived to be 930 years old, having Cain at 130 years old, I believe. The Bible never mentions how old Cain was when he took his wife.

Next, you'll probably say he married a woman from Nod. This isn't true either, he simply gave her child in Nod.
Actually I had no intentions on speaking on Nod, neither did I intend to drag this out, all I wanted from you was to explain how Cain's wife got there BIBLICALLY not through your assumptions of what may have happened.

I already told you I agree with son and daughter situation but this is not Biblical proof of why Cain had a wife as you clearly read the story the bible doesn't even speak of a marriage or anything for that matter. The bible doesnt even speak on Adams and Eves marriage. It just say they are wife and husband but how?



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: BlockBanOutkast

I at first thought you were going to link this site, reluctant messenger.

I haven't been there in probably 10 years, until I read the thread title.

It reminds me of this:

Chester spoke first. "You can't have it both ways. Evolution and Creation are not compatible ideas. You have to pick one or the other, thats all there is too it. I have to admit in God because of what I have just experienced, but there is all this scientific evidence in evolution. But you can't have it both ways."

The Master grinned. "Of course you can. You can have both if you know the missing pieces of information."


. . .


The Master left the porch and when he came back he had brought an English King James Bible and a concordance. "Read to me what the first two verses of this bible says and stop."

Chester took the leather book and flipped pages until he found Genesis. Reading he said "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." Looking up Chester shrugged and said, "So?"

The Master said, "Look up in the concordance the definition of was, right after earth in the second verse. You will see what is translated as the English word was should better be translated as the phrase 'It came to pass'. Or if you want a word for word translation, instead of was it should be became. My Master told me told me the original Hebrew meant And it came to pass that the earth became a wasteland empty and chaotic."

. . .

The Master pointed to the second verse. "I'm showing you the full meaning of verse two in the original Hebrew, not as it was translated into English. Look up the original Hebrew for without form and void. They also mean chaotic and empty. As you can see, there is no word for word equivalence in English for the Hebrew words of hayah, tohuw and bohuw. Taking their full meaning it becomes clear that there was a lot of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.
Link: Genesis v Evolution

I never bothered to look into original Hebrew and translations myself, but this little story made a lot of sense to me. I'm not religious, but all of my family are religious, and my best friend was as well, so we would always have discussions involving The Bible (and the problem of translation) and science..



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlockBanOutkast

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: Shiloh7
a reply to: BlockBanOutkast

Something that has always bothered me about the biblical creation story is that god supposedly created the vegetation etc which needs sunlight for photosynthesis prior to his actually creating the sun.

So someone who clearly didn't know their botany wrote genesis. Just a little something I got the ruler for for pointing it out at school.


I would have given you the ruler too. It's clear that there was light, 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good. You are aware that vegetation can grow with artificial light right? Of course you probably didn't know that back then so I will spare you the ruler this time.

I find it baffling that people can't clearly see that Genesis 1-2:4 is the intro to the creation story with Genesis 2:5 and on going into more detail. No offence, but come on people, it's basic reading comprehension, you don't need to be scholar in order to figure that out.


Your being fooled to think that God needed to go into more detail about things he had already said. The Bible clearly says God and then Lord God. This right here is a clear distinction that you are clearly not noticing. Why talk about God and then refer to God all of a sudden as Lord God. If you dont know the meaning behind the word Lord here it is.

The Lord has always referred to a MAN of high ranking. This is why many movies use the word Lord when referring to a Man. Movies like Lord of the Rings does this very well.



I highly recommend you do a study of the word "Lord" in the Hebrew so you can get a better understanding of how it is used. In short it does not always refer a man, some times it refers to angels. But for the most part the term "LORD" is used instead of the actual name of God (YHVH).

In Genesis 2:4 the writer is clearly telling you that: "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens. 5 When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground.......

So you can see that the writer is now going into more detail about how creation came about. It's not two different stories. Just like when you read a novel, there is always a prologue (most of the time anyway) of the whole story summed up, then you get into the details of how the story came about. It's the same thing here.
edit on 8-7-2015 by RealTruthSeeker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Interesting take.

So what does this mean really? To all of us, on a broader picture?

The authentic God let the False God do whatever the hell they want? Why would he allow that?



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 06:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: BlockBanOutkast

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: Shiloh7
a reply to: BlockBanOutkast

Something that has always bothered me about the biblical creation story is that god supposedly created the vegetation etc which needs sunlight for photosynthesis prior to his actually creating the sun.

So someone who clearly didn't know their botany wrote genesis. Just a little something I got the ruler for for pointing it out at school.


I would have given you the ruler too. It's clear that there was light, 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good. You are aware that vegetation can grow with artificial light right? Of course you probably didn't know that back then so I will spare you the ruler this time.

I find it baffling that people can't clearly see that Genesis 1-2:4 is the intro to the creation story with Genesis 2:5 and on going into more detail. No offence, but come on people, it's basic reading comprehension, you don't need to be scholar in order to figure that out.


Your being fooled to think that God needed to go into more detail about things he had already said. The Bible clearly says God and then Lord God. This right here is a clear distinction that you are clearly not noticing. Why talk about God and then refer to God all of a sudden as Lord God. If you dont know the meaning behind the word Lord here it is.

The Lord has always referred to a MAN of high ranking. This is why many movies use the word Lord when referring to a Man. Movies like Lord of the Rings does this very well.



I highly recommend you do a study of the word "Lord" in the Hebrew so you can get a better understanding of how it is used. In short it does not always refer a man, some times it refers to angels. But for the most part the term "LORD" is used instead of the actual name of God (YHVH).

In Genesis 2:4 the writer is clearly telling you that: "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens. 5 When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground.......

So you can see that the writer is now going into more detail about how creation came about. It's not two different stories. Just like when you read a novel, there is always a prologue (most of the time anyway) of the whole story summed up, then you get into the details of how the story came about. It's the same thing here.


If you feel the need to think this way then go ahead. Knock yourself out but I'm not the one who hasnt activated inner christ yet.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 06:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: truthseeker84
Interesting take.

So what does this mean really? To all of us, on a broader picture?

The authentic God let the False God do whatever the hell they want? Why would he allow that?


No there is punishment for the False God for Hell and Death shall be tossed into the Lake of Fire.

But the false God has probably used Cloning techniques on himself to try to avoid this.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 06:33 PM
link   
...for a 'Master Teacher', you're pretty ordinary.

Genesis 1 and 2 are not sequential accounts.
Genesis 1 is an overview of the creation week.
Genesis 2 is the *same story*, retold, but with a focus on the creation of Adam and Eve.

One does not follow the other. They overlap.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

I think I already told everyone that translations mean nothing to me. I used to be like yall. At one point I was stuck on reading only the Jewish Bible/Hebrew or the KJV but the creator has shown me different. The translations do not matter but the understanding does. The translations will always change but the meaning of whats written will never change.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 06:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Awen24

LMAO. Focus on Adam and Eve I mean we don't even get any real history on them except that they had children, they married which I have no clue why this marriage wasn't recorded but anyways they disobeyed this False God and that's pretty much it. What other DETAILED history do you have on them? I would surely love to hear.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 06:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlockBanOutkast
.........I'm not the one who hasn't activated inner christ yet.


What on earth does that have to do with Genesis? Seriously.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 07:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlockBanOutkast
a reply to: Awen24

What other DETAILED history do you have on them? I would surely love to hear.


Have you ever read "The Forgotten Books of Eden"



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

Yes I have read those books. Interesting to talk about but these books are not in the Bible I'm afraid.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 09:49 PM
link   
The Old Testament is a shortened version of what's in the Torah
What's in the Torah is a shortened version and has been traced back 000's of years to Sumer/Mesopotamia
Go check out the epic of Gilgamesh or certainly consider that the Old Testament has been copied ,mistranslated, copied, misinterpreted, copied and taken from much older documents and beliefs after being copied some more
Just spent the last year really and I mean REALLY kicking the ass out of looking into ancient civilisations and recent archeological finds that throw accepted history on the fire



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 11:44 PM
link   
a reply to: BlockBanOutkast

Apparently you do not read Hebrew?

The Lord God has many names in the bible in the Hebrew language not one name. In order to read the names of God you would have to read the bible OT in Hebrew.

Your theory is full of holes.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 06:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlockBanOutkast

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: BlockBanOutkast

So if I'm reading this right, you are taking the obvious contradictions within the Genesis account and saying that they are the work of two "gods", one the real god and another a deceiver? Thus that is why they are contradictory? Why couldn't it just be sloppy book writing?


Read this scripture I hope it will help you better understand this false God plans.

Isaiah 14:14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High."


So is that a yes then? I mean I can see where you are coming from. Many of the actions in the bible done by "god" aren't exactly what you'd think an all loving god would do, so it's not like I'm disagreeing or anything. I just don't believe in the bible, but if I did, I'd say that you'd be somewhere on the right track(ish).



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 08:53 AM
link   
a reply to: BlockBanOutkast

Maybe you shouldn't call your self a master teacher lol. As you said the Bible is helpful to those who understand it and worthless to those who don't. From my perspective you have no idea what your talking about lol. Genesis is Hebrew poetry and it is really somewhat of a polemic against the Egyptian creation myths. I think it is quite clear that Genesis one is a more broad description of creation, and Genesis 2 visits the specifics a little more clearly. You conclusions are silly. If you want to see a master teacher on Genesis go watch Chuck Misslers series on Genesis on youtube you might learn something real..



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join