It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


6,000 years: can someone explain this to me?

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 12:23 AM
many people get those verses confused with the creation, those verses are not talking about the creation, they are stating the fact that time does not concern God, also meaning that God is not limited by time. god is outside of time. he can step inside of time if he wants to, but he can be outside of time as well.

and by the way time seems to be the only solution for evolution, without billions of years, or even millions of years. evolution looks pretty dumb.

posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 10:40 AM

Originally posted by B1luetooth
god is outside of time. he can step inside of time if he wants to, but he can be outside of time as well.

and by the way time seems to be the only solution for evolution, without billions of years, or even millions of years. evolution looks pretty dumb.

that's the whole point of evolution and the takes a long time. saying that evolution is confined to a process that takes millions and billions of years doesn't make it less true.

stepping in and out of time? explain...

''steps in and out of time''... like a human would step in and out of a bath? so god has legs now?

''if he wants to''... so god has a conscience?...which would imply a brain, a mind, even a soul...he's sounding more human-like everyday.

posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 01:35 PM
I think there is another aspect to the matter that is worth looking at. Perhaps I'm mixing a little bit some aspects from the alien conspiracy bulletin board.
Some alternative historians (eg: Sitchin) have suggested that the bible and other ancient texts have other interpretations to them. There is the belief among some circles that aliens did exist in the past and freely mingled with humans. Also, that humans were created by aliens in an experiment.
The main argument is that some of these texts have been mis-translated. One such example is the word 'nephilim' which has been translated as 'giants' but which can also mean 'those who came from above'. Another is the word 'Elohim' which has been translated in the singular as 'God' when it can also be translated in the plural from as 'Gods'.
Other arguments include that the bible and other religious texts contain stories that are similar those found on ancient sumerian tablets that predate Judaism, Christianity and Islam. These includes the tales of Adam and Eve, Garden of Eden, Sodom and Gomorrah, Noah's ark and the Tower of Babel. Hence, if these stories existed prior to the emergence of these religions, it could be argued that these religions copied the stories with their own twist to it.
Translations from the ancient clay tablets talk of aliens (gods) from another planet that created man as an experiment. It talks of interbreeding between the races of man and aliens. It talks of 'fiery chariots in the sky' (?spaceships).
The arguments in general are many, and require a lot of reading to take in if you are not already familiar with it.
If we work from the assumption that the aliens did come to earth and did create humans as a genetic experiment. Then the theologians claims that humanity is 6000 years old would be correct. And the scientific community's claims that the earth is billions of years old would also be correct. I think the distinction should be made between the age of mankind and the age of the earth.

posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 02:38 PM
that's a very imaginative theory, and it stops at being just that 'an imaginative theory'.

stories of creation, adam and eve, noah's ark are stories that are not confined to the bible. perhaps sumerian tablets first mentioned these stories, and it is not unlikely that other religions would use them, as they show much devinity. however, i find it hard to believe that those specific names were used as the sumerian theory of creation, hence 'adam and eve'. adam is hebrew for 'man' or 'man-kind'. ben-adam in hebrew can mean 'human-being'. so i very much doubt the names adam and eve were mentioned on sumerian tablets.

''fiery chariots in the sky''... how would one describe a shooting star back in the day when we didn't know what it was? if we didn't know today they were comets, we'd probably call them missles. ''fiery chariots'' imply a burning ship, so if it is any spacecraft, then it's one that's about to crash.

with all the experiments we've done ourselves on genetics i'm sure there would have been some sort of indication that somewhere along the line we were ''interbred'' with aliens or that we are merely that...''an experiment''.

posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 04:31 PM
In the sumerian tablets, it is mentioned that Enki (one of the supposed deities) created Adapa (the first man, synonymous with Adam in the old testament) in the image of the Elohim.

It is too simplistic to say that the stories in the bible are divine. And anyway, the church says that the bible was divinely inspired. If so, how come more complete accounts of stories in the old testament have been found in writings that PREDATE christianity and judaism? And there are actually, archaeological records (tens of thousands of clay tablets - many still not translated) confirming this. To put it bluntly, I say plagiarism...but a softer way of saying it would be that many holy books of today were based on stories that existed long before.

Like I said earlier, there is a lot of material out there. Read it first. Then it would be worth discussing. For starters, Zecharia Sitchin has written books based on his interpretation and translation of the sumerian tablets. A good start to doing your own reading about Sumerian history is to read the Epic of Gilgamesh. Original version in Akkadian still survives with many translations into English. Then of course there are other 'lost' gospels such as the Book of Enoch which the church has deemed to controversial to include in the bible, yet, still survives in Ethiopian bibles that predate the catholic church. Also, the first and second books of adam and eve. It has been discarded by the church as unreliable, yet parts of these books are contained in the Koran and the Talmud. The material, books and resources to educate one in ancient history (specifically Sumerian) are too numerous....I have been doing my own research for years, and still have a long way to go.

posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 04:44 PM
none of this really means aliens brought us here or we're one experiment for aliens etc.

i'm quite sceptical of the bible myself so i'd much rather believe the stories were stolen from ancient beliefs that had existed for thousands of years. even the fable of jesus christ has many parallels to the egyptian horus and i believe many other messiah type figures.

posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 06:04 PM
Interventionist theory is nothing new, and there is alot of circumstantial evidence to support it. The common basis for nonacceptance seems to be tied more often to what people perceive an "alien" to be. According to the Sumerian scriptures, they were very much as we are (or, rather, the other way around). -hellfire3- is correct in his observation that this is not a topic that is easily discussed unless you really have done the background research. Here are just a very few references:

von Daniken's writings
Sitchin's entire series (Earth Chronicles), including all major references given.
Alan F. Alford's Gods of the New Millenium (since has reneged on his initial work, but this is very suspicious considering the content), including references.
Graham Hancock's Fingerprints of the Gods; also Underworld, including references.

I'm not saying to take any & all information in these books as unmitigated fact; rather read, compare, evaluate, and if you use intelligent analysis and deductive reasoning, a fairly clear picture will definitely emerge.

posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 06:17 PM
Lordling, the reading list you supply would indeed initiate the uninitiated. Yet I would be quite suspect of von Daniken's writings. Some of them seem too far fetched and I feel based on an over active imagination rather than solid research.

And Alan Alford's books; Gods of the New Millenium was certainly quite plausible. In his subsequent books The Phoenix Solution and When The Gods Came Down, I actually found it quite boring to be honest and he was even contradicting some things he presented in his first book. Any ideas on why?

posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 07:04 PM
Hellfire3, I agree about vD...I suppose I felt I needed to put von Daniken in the list, as he sort of launched the modern movement in regard to Interventionist Theory. In addition to this, his work was one of the first which I encountered on this topic, some 30 years ago. He has, long since, been surpassed by a wealth of information from brilliant authors due to breakthroughs in astronomy, archaeology, corrected historical accounts, etc. etc.. His source materials, as well, are still worth a read.

As for Alford's about-face, all I've ever been able to find is this:

In 1998, Alan Alford’s second book ‘The Phoenix Solution’ was published by Hodder and Stoughton. In this book, Alan focused his attention on the mysteries of ancient Egypt and argued that Egyptian myth described a catastrophic creation. This remarkable discovery – supported by the eminent historian Michael Rice who wrote the Foreword to the book – has shaped all of Alan’s subsequent work, and caused him to retract a key portion of the ancient astronaut ‘evidence’ which he cited in his first book.
(emphasis added)

It seems to have occurred at about the same time that he signed his publishing agreement with Hodder and Stoughton (the second publishing of Gods of the New Millennium). I'd say he got pressured somehow into compromising his earlier research, in return for greater benefits. Very sad.

On topic, the relationship to the 6,000 yr question is addressed in the aforementioned works, with one theory being that the measurement of time (years) is mistranslated from the original Sumerian tablets, through successive translations to current times (including biblical translations). Proposed was the original period of time, called the sar, and it's composition & subsequent redefinition after the Cataclym (Great Flood), from 3,600 yrs to 2,160 yrs. Using the original value, Sitchin displayed a timeline which fit fairly well to most of history, removing most apparent anomalies. Alford noted some discrepancies, and figured in the effect of a pole shift & the Earth's wobble, and concluded that prior to the Cataclysm sars were 3,600 yrs, but changed to 2,160yrs afterward to accomodate for the effect of the precession. Once this was done, a uniform timeline emerged which accomodated every major event in history, including The Egyptian Kings List, and many other chronologies.

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in