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.

 

Archeologist unearths biblical controversy

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by IComeWithASword
Finally, people are starting to question the whole biblical myths as being Egyptian in origin.


It is obvious to those who are open minded and are not biased by their upbringing.


It certainly is compelling to see the depictions of Isis and Osiris holding the miracle baby Horus, and notice how much it resembles the nativity scene.
Many of the OT stories are Sumerian in origin. The flood, for one. And the ancient Sumerian term for the first God/Human hybrid is Adamae, which meant 'earthling'. Their name for the original garden of paradise was Edenu, and the 7 day week likely comes from there too.




posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII

Originally posted by IComeWithASword
Finally, people are starting to question the whole biblical myths as being Egyptian in origin.


It is obvious to those who are open minded and are not biased by their upbringing.


It certainly is compelling to see the depictions of Isis and Osiris holding the miracle baby Horus, and notice how much it resembles the nativity scene.
Many of the OT stories are Sumerian in origin. The flood, for one. And the ancient Sumerian term for the first God/Human hybrid is Adamae, which meant 'earthling'. Their name for the original garden of paradise was Edenu, and the 7 day week likely comes from there too.



Yes!!! I wonder why Sumerian culture is not a required course considering how important the bible is to western culture. I think you are the first person I have read on any message board that have mentioned the name Adamae and Edenu. Can it be anymore obvious? Heads up.


If only people would realize that this whole bible myths were created to control and categorized people.



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
I guess you know nothing of archeology then, how about math? Odds? things of that nature, creatiionism.....


What does your Bible know of math? It sets the value of pi at 3.0. Check 1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2 (a circular sea, 10 cubits in diameter and 30 cubits in circumference), and don't say that they couldn't measure any more accurately; the Egyptians at the time the Old Test. was being assembled already knew better.

If some Higher Power truly inspired the Bible, why all the inaccuracies and discrepancies? Is the Almighty not perfect?



Darwin had it wrong and that is why evolution is still only a therory....


And it will always remain a theory. As will the theory of relativity. And electromagnetism. You may as well say that Newton had it wrong, nevermind that his formulas got the Apollo astronauts to the moon and back. You show your ignorance of science as method; it is a process of forming an explanation, testing it, observing the results, and either improving the explanation or scrapping it entirely. Science enlarges our understanding of what it's applied to. Religion (as opposed to faith) holds back our understanding and imposes usually outdated beliefs on us.

Faith, on the other hand, attempts to prove nothing -- that's not why it exists. Faith is the candle of hope in the darkness. Science is the candle of reason.



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 07:08 AM
link   
Well if the Bible ia so widely used then why when more then one thing proves to have proof do these same people say its all huey, that some shepard with a dilusion of grandure drempt it up to have something to do, You I can think of three things that where thought to be true in the Bible and where confirmed as true by archeologists yet all you hear around here is that the bible is a lie, or it cant be proven or its some kind of conspiracy , well then how do you explain that even Hitler's people used the Bible to track down the ark of the covenant and what about the fact the Vatican has dated peices from a temple destroyed in 70 ce or ad to those who dont understand CE, that date from the bible era and in fact the very artifacts are in their custody yet today. Or how about this one , what about the fact a city believed to be the first ever where alot of differntly cultured people where supposed to derive from yet shared a common language and goverment etc , named Babylon existed right where the bible said it was
and artifacts all seem to be in the same language but tell of people moving there from other places. It keeps going and keeps going and yet according to some the whole bible iis a farse. weird.



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 07:24 AM
link   

They firmly established that occupation of the site began in the 11th century BC and a monumental fortress was built in the 10th century BC, supporting the argument for existence of an Edomite state at least 200 years earlier than had been assumed.

What is particularly exciting about their find is that it implies the existence of an Edomite state at the time the Bible says King David and his son Solomon ruled over a powerful united kingdom of Israel and Judah.

It is the historical accuracy -- the very existence of this united kingdom and the might and splendour of David and Solomon, as well as the existence of surrounding kingdoms -- that lies at the heart of the archeological dispute.


We found Troy, but that doesn't mean the contest between Aphrodite, Artemis, and Athena ever took place, nor that Paris was given a golden apple for the winner....


I've little doubt that most places mentioned in the Bible are real, but that doesn't mean the events described were. Man of the time didn't understand jack about the processes of nature, and couldn't tell a falling comet from the fiery wrath of God....



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 09:30 AM
link   
Tell me ed, what is it that I know nothing about when it comes to archeaology. What is it since you know?

It is really amazing that there are still people like you on earth.

I bet you that you believe in evolution by the way. You are just too christian to admit it.



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 09:30 AM
link   
[edit on 2/13/2005 by Seapeople]



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 10:01 AM
link   
Actually, the story of Moses was modified, and is related to the Egyptian myth about the birth of Horus, like some has said before.

This was done to give Moses valid claim to the throne of Egypt and to challenge the new installed ruler.

People have to understand that in the Egyptian history the ruling class was exclusive, is not way in their time that they would have taken a salve and turned him into a member of the ruling class.

The story of Moses has also been related to the Mesopotamia legend of the birth of Sargon I, King of Agade or Akkad, who conquered Babylon around 2300 BC and established the first major Semitic kingdoms.

This legend can be seen in some Assyrian texts written long after his reign, the story tells that the mother was a priestess and his father was unknown. Born in secret her mother put him in a basket of rushes sealed with bitumen and cast him in the river, from which he was rescued by Akki. “The drawer of water”

Has been known that the bible stories have been mingle with myths and legends of other cultures.

It’s also another story by the writings of a third century B.C. Egyptian priest named Manetho, Josephus tell of an Egyptian priest that seized the throne of Egypt and had to flee the country with his son, to come back many years later to take back the throne and run the priest and followers out of Egypt.

Now most people will disregard these accounts and take the bible as to have the truth accounts.

But nowhere in any other text of the history of the time names Moses as the one.

Josephus later changed the story and changed the name of the priest to Moses and said that it led (Egyptian followers) out of Egyptian.

At the end it comes to the adaptation of an Egyptian myth to the story of Moses.

Now, on a political level, the Bible depicted Moses as an adopted member of the pharaoh’s family. Now it was Moses Egyptian, well it is told that when the was in his death bed, he identified Moses as the possible legitimate claimant to the throne. Perhaps Moses was the Horus-child after all.



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
But how wonderful this news anyway, the more they find the we get to prove Jews were Egyptians.


This is true.
Well, they lived in what we think is Egypt, anyway.


Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
To say that Jews are Egyptians suggests to me that Egyptians do not have there own identity.


The Jews occupied Lower Egypt, where the pyramids are. True Egypt was south, where Thebes and Luxor are.

[edit on 13-2-2005 by CyrusTheShepherd]



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by CyrusTheShepherd

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
But how wonderful this news anyway, the more they find the we get to prove Jews were Egyptians.


This is true.
Well, they lived in what we think is Egypt, anyway.


Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
To say that Jews are Egyptians suggests to me that Egyptians do not have there own identity.


The Jews occupied Lower Egypt, where the pyramids are. True Egypt was south, where Thebes and Luxor are.

[edit on 13-2-2005 by CyrusTheShepherd]



For a short period of time, yes, the Shepherd Kings did have control over lower Egypt, but that was only a small fraction of the total time that Egyptian records detail. The vast majority of the time lower Egypt was ruled by Egyptians, agreed?



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kwintz
I think people should use logic when dealing with the "miracles" that the bible talks about. Is it logical that Moses parted the Red Sea? No. Is it logical that Christ was born of a virgin? No. Is it logical that Christ died and rose again? No. Is it logical that Christ fed hundreds of people with two fishes and a loaf of bread? No.
[edit on 12-2-2005 by Kwintz]


Is it logical for you to increase your knowledge beyond your own understanding and accept what millions know to be true? No.

Is it logical that you should question anything in the Bible having never received the spirit of God or do not believe in God at all? No.

Is it logical for you to receive the Spirit of God without believing in God in the first place? No

Is it logical that God will never manifest Himself to you until you lose your pride and realize you have not yet begun to learn? Yes

Why argue about the Bible at all? To be amused? You only make yourself a fool to those who see what you lack to understand as basic knowledge. All those who lack in such knowledge such as the simplicity of belieiving that Christ died for your sins will always be 'less' in knoweldge than those who accept Christ regardless of education.



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by vincere7
All those who lack in such knowledge such as the simplicity of belieiving that Christ died for your sins will always be 'less' in knoweldge than those who accept Christ regardless of education.






You have absolutely got to be kidding me! I can't even believe you typed that! This is your belief...it does not make it truth, you can't prove any of it. Daaaaang! This is not a religious board, it's a conspiracy board. Don't state something as absolute fact without proof. We all the right to believe in what we we believe, we all think that our way is the right way or we wouldn't believe in it...but none of us can say it is absolutely the truth!



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 07:19 PM
link   
Faith is something that clearly does not originate from a logical, scientifically deduced critical thinking exercise. It is something else, and in my view actually requires a certain lack of proof, or else it is not faith anymore. I have seen so many things that have consolidated my faith, but the exact nature of the spiritual world is still a near total mystery to me.
That is okay, though, as I expect that is how it should be. I do wonder why others do not get to see so many miraculous things as I have? I sometimes think it may be cuz I have been a believer in one form or another since 8 yrs. old. Could it be true that if you believe, you see, and if you do not believe you do not see the magic? that is all I can propose as a reason. I really don't know much about this stuff, just that it is very real, to me, and if not to others, that is just as real and true a path as mine I feel.



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadyV
This is not a religious board, it's a conspiracy board. Don't state something as absolute fact without proof. We all the right to believe in what we we believe, we all think that our way is the right way or we wouldn't believe in it...but none of us can say it is absolutely the truth!


We ALL have the right to express our opinions on this site with or without undeniable proof.



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by kinglizard


We ALL have the right to express our opinions on this site with or without undeniable proof.

::::waving hands wildly::::: Hi Lizard.....
:::::end thread jack::::::

Yes, we do....but it was the condescending way in which it was stated as fact (which it isn't), and also done with a a put down....bad, bad form....we all know it...



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043

Originally posted by edsinger

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
But how wonderful this news anyway, the more they find the we get to probvin Jews were Egyptians.


How in the heck do you come up with that?


Edsinger the Jews were under control of Egypt for many years, remember Moses.

How can you tell if it was not mixing of the two groups, plus we know that Egyptians believes were mingle together, bringing the 10 commandments and the banning of worshiping more than one God after moses took his people out of bondage.

Moses lost control of his flock and conveniently the commandments brought them together.



yes marg but they got there from a famine, remember Joseph and his brothers? In no way are Jews Egyptian nor were they ever, they were I guess Sumerian first as Abraham was from Sumer...

[edit on 13-2-2005 by edsinger]



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadyV
::::waving hands wildly::::: Hi Lizard.....


::::Jumps up and down waving::::: Long time no see LadyV



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadyV
This is your belief...it does not make it truth, you can't prove any of it. Daaaaang! This is not a religious board, it's a conspiracy board. Don't state something as absolute fact without proof. We all the right to believe in what we we believe, we all think that our way is the right way or we wouldn't believe in it...but none of us can say it is absolutely the truth!


You have heard of the 1st amendment right? I will say that belieiving in Christ as your savior is the absolute truth - there I just said it. If this be an offense then I'm sorry that truth offends you.



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by stargazernate
And it will always remain a theory. As will the theory of relativity. And electromagnetism. You may as well say that Newton had it wrong, nevermind that his formulas got the Apollo astronauts to the moon and back. You show your ignorance of science as method; it is a process of forming an explanation, testing it, observing the results, and either improving the explanation or scrapping it entirely. Science enlarges our understanding of what it's applied to. Religion (as opposed to faith) holds back our understanding and imposes usually outdated beliefs on us.

Faith, on the other hand, attempts to prove nothing -- that's not why it exists. Faith is the candle of hope in the darkness. Science is the candle of reason.



Funny you would mention Newton, did you know that the vast majority of his time was not spent on the Calculus and such but rather on the prophecy code he understood to be in the Bible?



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by vincere7
If this be an offense then I'm sorry that truth offends you.




Your too funny...why would it offend me, it doesn't...what a ridiculous assumption on your part! I just think it's so sad when someone states a "belief" system as absolute!
noun: any cognitive content held as true
noun: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof
noun: a vague idea in which some confidence is placed



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join