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.

 

Did God create Iberia in Genesis 1:9? And where was it?

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 09:11 AM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

I did say, "and others".

I was just showing it is not a hyperbaric chamber.

And yes it had more Ozaone than today, but the replenishment of Ozone is possible by limiting the amounts of chemicals that kill off Ozone such as diesel fuel.

the problem with mars unlike our atmosphere it is not in a precise distance from the Sun to sustain life naturally as the earth is.

Some of the new earth theorists will say that there was an ice shield a one time around the earth. That may have acted like a hyperbaric chamber but it is still a thermodynamic. They also deny rain before 3,000BC or so.

Yep, the earth is one big thermaldynamic system




posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 11:53 AM
link   
posted by Utnapisjtim


And God said, “Let the (two) waters (or the two seas/oceans, «Ha-mayim») under the heavens (or The Dual Name of God, «Ha-shemayim») be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. [ESV+my notes] Genesis 1:9
The word translated «Dry Land» here Heb. היבשה «Ha-Yeb-(e)-shah» may actually refer to a nation, and may mean the «Twelvth Land» or the «Land of the Twelve» or even «Land of the Lamb» a totally different word compared to its translation into «the dry land».

KJV
Gen 1:9 And God H430 said, H559 Let the waters H4325 under H4480 H8478 the heaven H8064 be gathered together H6960 unto H413 one H259 place, H4725 and let the dry H3004 land appear: H7200 and it was H1961 so. H3651 ---

היבשה H3004 yabbashah / dry [land] appear ------------- From H3001: dry ground: dry (ground, land.) Used 14 time in the Hebrew MSS.

At this time there were no people or nations to even suggest that היבשה could be construed otherwise. I do believe that you are over reaching there a bit mate. Just one example of your over reaching. Or as some may say, not true at all.

edit on 7-6-2017 by Seede because: simplify spacing of thought



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede

You made no point at all there. It could be hibiscus for all I care.

Besides, you are using a bible based on Medieval documents (mostly Daniel Bomberg's OT and Textus Receptus) with plenty typos and with missing and added verses, translated into English (KJV) by people of spurious agenda (Rosicrucians lead by Francis Bacon) made to please a king (James VI of the Scots AKA James I of England) to revenge himself against the Pope. KJV is only great because its poetic nature is beautifully written, and since these books' (Strong's and KJV) copyrights are outdated, they are basically free and readily available for a penny or a half. NEEEXT!
edit on 7-6-2017 by Utnapisjtim because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

I think before that bit "the earth WAS MADE VOID".

The word chosen implies a judgement passed. Made void through destruction, empty of life.

What follows is a description of a process. Several stages of creation lumped together.

As you suggested earlier, the seven books of sumerian creation became seven days.

edit on 6 7 2017 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

Actually, for as long back as we know, new days started as the sun set for the Hebrews, so Genesis 1 may actually record eight days.

The five first verses actually happens before the first day. Genesis 1:5 (ESV) traditionally goes:

God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.



Before the first day, god created the Day (Light) and the Night (Darkness)....
edit on 7-6-2017 by Utnapisjtim because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim


You made no point at all there. It could be hibiscus for all I care.

Wrong again, as usual. You are beside yourself in your ignorance. If Rosicrucians led by Francis Bacon made to please a king (James VI of the Scots AKA James I of England) to revenge himself against the Pope was true then why is the 1560 Geneva bible agreeing to the same translations some 51 years later in the KJV ?

You still do not get it do you? You insult brilliant minds of brilliant linguists (of which you not either) who translated Genesis 1:9 word for word in the Geneva and KJV bibles. Those scriptures have nothing to do with your Rosicructians or a Francis Bacon of which you cited. We are discussing Genesis 1:9 [which is Torah] and nothing more than Genesis 1:9. That was your OP and it had nothing to do with Francis Bacon. Forget Francis Bacon and try to stay on your own topic.

You are wrong and you know you are wrong and the KJV bible is not outdated source as you have called it. Are you implying that the OT of the KJV bible is outdated? I have read 12 different English renditions of 12 different bibles used today, including the Geneva and the JPS bibles and guess what? They all agree that you are wrong. You need to reexamine yourself and join the human race.



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 06:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Utnapisjtim


You made no point at all there. It could be hibiscus for all I care.

Wrong again, as usual.


That's merely your opinion eh?

The Geneva was made to fix certain things in the KJV that the exiled priests disagreed with. Who is beside who here? You are still referring to primitive bibles based on a mere handful of mostly erroneous and often Medieval MSS, while today, we have about 12 000 MSS many of which date back to the first couple of centuries AD, and when put together yer favorite but oh so erroneous bibles fall like dragons from the sky.
edit on 7-6-2017 by Utnapisjtim because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 07:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Utnapisjtim



And God said, “Let the (two) waters..."


Someone pretending to speak for God said that. Nobody knows the mind of God.


It says "And God said" because God instructed those words be written when it was written. Who are you to say someone only pretended to speak for God? That's just what you did though, by saying someone pretended it all, while that is outside of your knowledge. It isn't outside of everyone's knowledge who know God can speak and instruct anyone he chooses.



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim


Text Actually, for as long back as we know, new days started as the sun set for the Hebrews, so Genesis 1 may actually record eight days. The five first verses actually happens before the first day. Genesis 1:5 (ESV) traditionally goes:

There were no Hebrews involved in creation. The first three eras [days] of creation were not governed by the heavenly creation.] The first three lights were the Primeval Light of The Most High EL. The Most High did not create the sun at this time but placed the created sun in this universe during the fourth era of His creating. As He hung the greater light, of two lights, they then began the creation of time. Till the fourth light there was no time. Time was created for this creation only.



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Perhaps if you are schizophrenic and hear the voice of God in your head ordering you to quit the bacon and rather eat sausages with mustard on top....

If you hear the voice of God in your head, you should probably see a therapist and get some proper medication to fix it. honestly!



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 07:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Utnapisjtim


Text Actually, for as long back as we know, new days started as the sun set for the Hebrews, so Genesis 1 may actually record eight days. The five first verses actually happens before the first day. Genesis 1:5 (ESV) traditionally goes:

There were no Hebrews involved in creation.


Then who the hell wrote the Hebrew bible? Besides, the verb Bara means to Father a Son, as in the name Bar-Abbah, it means «Son of the Father», much like how John-son means son of John.

And as for your silly KJV, read this post I posted in another thread ==> www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 06:42 AM
link   
There is no Iberia in ancient Hebrew language so how does this make sense?



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
There is no Iberia in ancient Hebrew language so how does this make sense?


I also mention Eber, the Noahic ancestor of the Hebrew nation. However, I am talking about that the name Iberia, which is ancient and its etymology remains elusive and I theorise whether its semantic meaning originally alludes to a land/people existing between to seas/oceans. I HAVE to be a better company for the lady of the house at present. See you around.



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim


Then who the hell wrote the Hebrew bible? Besides, the verb Bara means to Father a Son, as in the name Bar-Abbah, it means «Son of the Father», much like how John-son means son of John. And as for your silly KJV, read this post I posted in another thread ==> www.abovetopsecret.com...

I don't believe Adam was a Hebrew yet.
-----------------------

Bara' TWOT - 278
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
baw-raw' Verb

Definition
1. to create, shape, form
a. (Qal) to shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject)
1. of heaven and earth
2. of individual man
3. of new conditions and circumstances
4. of transformations
b. (Niphal) to be created
1. of heaven and earth
2. of birth
3. of something new
4. of miracles
c. (Piel)
1. to cut down
2. to cut out
2. to be fat
a. (Hiphil) to make yourselves fat

NAS Word Usage - Total: 53
brings about 1, clear 2, create 6, created 32, creates 1, creating 3, Creator 4, cut them down 1, make 2, produced 1

created ברא H1254 bara'



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 06:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede

Again you refer to modern translations born and descended through dogma and precedence. Genesis 1 is not like the rest of the bible. If you ask me, it was written by a foreigner, the syntax and grammar is everything but understandable. That, or the whole thing is a code.



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede

The most fun part is that heb. «Beresheet» (the name of Genesis in Hebrew and supposedly means «in the beginning». Given the humour, it's probably genuine), 'cause said in Norwegian means «Only Crap». When God put the rainbow «Rimfrost» (spectrum seen in hard snow) in the sky he promised that as long as we could see the rainbow there would not be another Flood Deluge-- naturally, Rainbow in Hebrew is «Hackeseth», read as Norwegian it means «Haven't seen» [Men talking to god in one of me lyrics]: No: «Hakke sett Regnbuen vel, Gud?» -- God: «Jo, helt korrekt» Eng. «Haven't seen the rainbow ey, God?» -- «O yes, exactly, that is correct!» lol. There are plenty more, so the ancient Norse peoples were definitely blood related to the Judeans via their Syrian/Asia Minor Caucasian origin and ME descent. Post-exilic Judeans who wrote the OT the way it remains today with all its monotheistic BS. Maybe its for the better. The Bible is about all the gods, and they live in the sod in between the official words, in between the Judean Rabbinical tradition without division and vowels.

The Norse main Patriarch and Origin of the Feudal System is Heimdall, he is Noah. Thor is Zeus or Baal. Odin is Adonai &c &c Njord lives at Noastrand. Noa means ship in Old Norse. Heimdall had 9 mothers. There are 9 mothers from Eve to the mother of Noah. plenty more similarities.

The old Norse name for our ancient gods is Æser or Aeses in English. Same word as in the Roman province Asia.
edit on 8-6-2017 by Utnapisjtim because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join