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 Absolute Power of Christianity!

page: 110
7
<< 107  108  109    111  112  113 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby


I know, I didn't say they were. So what God/s were they worshipping?


That would be Lucifer the bringer of light.



By Lucifer you mean The Devil? The big red guy in hell with horns and so on. And under his direction religion was invented by man. So you're saying The Devil actually inspired the first religion. Never heard that one before.


Yes, Lucifer started religion to deceive the world. That's how you are deceived. The religions come from Babylon.



I can't recall dragons or serpents in the Egyptian culture.


Really, There are serpents all over the Egyptian culture. You need to look again. Do a search Serpent, Egypt and you will find all the proof you need if you are interested in the truth.




posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sun Matrix
Yes, Lucifer started religion to deceive the world. That's how you are deceived. The religions come from Babylon.


I was decieved? But I don't believe in those religions.

And that's a lovely little story you've put together there. Shame it's based on no factual evidence whatsoever.


Originally posted by Sun Matrix
Really, There are serpents all over the Egyptian culture. You need to look again. Do a search Serpent, Egypt and you will find all the proof you need if you are interested in the truth.


All over Egpytian culture? Hardly.

Snakes are found on every continent apart from Antarctica, so it's a given that people would often stumble across these creatures. The serpent godess apparently was pictured with the head of a lioness, and sometimes with the symbol of a cobra. And this is proof of what? That people took animals and made them their Gods? It's hardly a fascination with serpents, same with the Greeks, and like I said yes their myths and legends probably do involve some sort of beast with the body of a horse and the top half a snake etc. I'm not exactly sure what your point is.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby


I was decieved? But I don't believe in those religions.

And that's a lovely little story you've put together there. Shame it's based on no factual evidence whatsoever.



There's plenty of facts for those that want to know the truth. Or you can spend your time chasing the bread crumb trail left for you to find and those non existant aliens.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sun Matrix
There's plenty of facts for those that want to know the truth. Or you can spend your time chasing the bread crumb trail left for you to find and those non existant aliens.


You know there are other alternatives.

The facts aren't there to find, because there are no facts. There aren't facts for a world wide flood on Biblical proportions, and logic alone disproves the Noah's Ark theory. As for the Tower of Babel, that's no more factual than Goldie Locks and the three bears. You can find evidence for these, such as The Bible, and choose to interpret that as fact, but just because it's your opinion that they are facts, it doesn't make them facts.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby

Originally posted by Sun Matrix
There's plenty of facts for those that want to know the truth. Or you can spend your time chasing the bread crumb trail left for you to find and those non existant aliens.


You know there are other alternatives.

The facts aren't there to find, because there are no facts. There aren't facts for a world wide flood on Biblical proportions, and logic alone disproves the Noah's Ark theory. As for the Tower of Babel, that's no more factual than Goldie Locks and the three bears. You can find evidence for these, such as The Bible, and choose to interpret that as fact, but just because it's your opinion that they are facts, it doesn't make them facts.


Archaeology seems to agree with the things in the Bible. You can go around chasing non existent aliens if you prefer that to the truth.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sun Matrix
Archaeology seems to agree with the things in the Bible.


That's a nice little statement. Care to back it up? For example I'd like to see archaelogical proof of the world wide flood and the Tower of Babel. As those two points are being discussed.


Originally posted by Sun Matrix
You can go around chasing non existent aliens if you prefer that to the truth.


I'm not sure why you think I'm chasing aliens, at that, non-existant ones. Maybe you'd like to elaborate on why you keep assuming that I'm chasing these non-existant beings.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 02:56 PM
link   
I've never been a fan of two responses on ATS. One is "do some research, it's obvious!" and the other is "show me proof! That's not proof, show me proof! That's not proof, show me proof!" Notice the cyclical arrangement of either and/or both comments. I guess that's why I'm not a fan of them, since they're non-progressive. They're not a great deal of help. Those who demand written evidence should accept written evidence when it is viable/verifiable if that's what is required as proof (and is the reason why I tend not to do homework for people here unless I'm conviced it will move things forward). Those who claim to know the truth should be prepared to not only demonstrate that truth but explain how or why it is the case. Just a pair of observations in the hopes of progress.

[edit on 14-12-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 03:05 PM
link   
The comment was ''Archaeology seems to agree with The Bible''. It'd just be nice to see some examples, as I'm guessing the person who said it, obviously 'has' seen the evidence.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
The comment was ''Archaeology seems to agree with The Bible''. It'd just be nice to see some examples, as I'm guessing the person who said it, obviously 'has' seen the evidence.




Conclusion: The Flood Occurred 5000 years ago
C14 is not useful in dating before 5000 B.P. according to the discoverer of the method.
River deltas suggest a recent (ca. 3000 BC?) flood.
All written history begins ca. 3000 BC.
Foundations of cities began then.
Families of mankind began then. Geneologies date back to it.
A 10,000 BC (or earlier) flood wreaks havoc with geneologies.
There is no record of a 10,000 BC flood in ANY of the literature.
The Gilgamesh Epic (and other epics) fit well into a 3000 BC date.
The biblical account did not derive from other literature. It is eyewitness testimony.
It is clear from the biblical account that there was a universal flood about 3000 BC.

www.ancientdays.net...


some as it related to the people of the Bible:
www.artapprentice.net...



David 1 Sam 16:13; 2 Sam 5:3-4 - Second King of united Israel; Killed Goliath Stone inscription found at Tel Dan by Avraham Biran in 1993 which speaks of the King of Israel which was of the house of David.


Just some cursory information to get the ball rolling. Certainly there is more.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God


Conclusion: The Flood Occurred 5000 years ago
C14 is not useful in dating before 5000 B.P. according to the discoverer of the method.
River deltas suggest a recent (ca. 3000 BC?) flood.
All written history begins ca. 3000 BC.
Foundations of cities began then.
Families of mankind began then. Geneologies date back to it.
A 10,000 BC (or earlier) flood wreaks havoc with geneologies.
There is no record of a 10,000 BC flood in ANY of the literature.
The Gilgamesh Epic (and other epics) fit well into a 3000 BC date.
The biblical account did not derive from other literature. It is eyewitness testimony.
It is clear from the biblical account that there was a universal flood about 3000 BC.



If The Bible is to be taken as a historic fact, then we can go to one point of Noah's Ark and the Universal flood. We only need to debunk one part of the story, to allow the rest to fall apart.

The Ark itself was supposedly 450 feet long (Genesis 6:15) It was also supposedly built out of wood. Two points:

Could a wooden ship only 450 feet long, 1) hold two of every animal (including food, and specialist foods such as eucalyptus leaves for koala bears etc). 2) withstand the forces which would have been pretty extreme considering this is a world-wide flood.

I just can't see how anyone could think that a 450 foot wooden boat carried two of every animal for 40 days.

www.talkorigins.org...

A lot of information on that site.

I know I've not addressed the points raised. The only way I could address something such as 'Cities only started being founded after the flood'. That's more relying on coincidence. That's just the time people began to be settlers, rather than the nomadic lifestyles they had once led. As for river deltas suggesting a 3000BC flood, I'll look that up, as far as I'm aware there's no such data suggesting something like that.

Most of those points raised are coincidental arguements. Such as written history starts around 3000BC, therefore there must have been a flood prior. But I'll route around for that river delta thing, geneologies etc.

[edit on 14-12-2006 by shaunybaby]



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
I've never been a fan of two responses on ATS. One is "do some research, it's obvious!" and the other is "show me proof! That's not proof, show me proof! That's not proof, show me proof!" Notice the cyclical arrangement of either and/or both comments. I guess that's why I'm not a fan of them, since they're non-progressive. They're not a great deal of help. Those who demand written evidence should accept written evidence when it is viable/verifiable if that's what is required as proof (and is the reason why I tend not to do homework for people here unless I'm conviced it will move things forward). Those who claim to know the truth should be prepared to not only demonstrate that truth but explain how or why it is the case. Just a pair of observations in the hopes of progress.

[edit on 14-12-2006 by saint4God]


I have spent too much time recovering things I already know. I'm interested in moving forward. I usually just say do a search on Nimrod Marduk (or whatever the subject is) and you will find they are the same. I'm have no time for a closed mind. If someone takes the time to do a little research and still is unconvinced then I'll step to the plate.

When most ancient cultures have documented evidence of a flood story via ancient stone tablets etc. and it agrees with the Bible and we can find archaeological evidence of a flood and someone still doesn't want to believe it, I can't help them. But they are believing in something that the factual evidence disagrees with.

Go figure. The proof is there, but they don't accept it. I can't accept believing against the evidence.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sun Matrix
When most ancient cultures have documented evidence of a flood story via ancient stone tablets etc.


The Biblical account of a flood, is a mere stolen idea of an ancient concept, The Epic of Gilgamesh. I never said ancient cultures didn't document flood stories. The world was a much smaller place back then. A world-wide flood to ancient cultures, could have been a very much localised flood, they wouldn't have known that it didn't stretch any further than their eyes could see.


Originally posted by Sun Matrix
and it agrees with the Bible and we can find archaeological evidence of a flood and someone still doesn't want to believe it, I can't help them. But they are believing in something that the factual evidence disagrees with.


I've heard and read arguements such as 'The Grand Canyon' as proof of a world-wide flood. I do hope that's not in your armoury.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sun Matrix
Go figure. The proof is there, but they don't accept it. I can't accept believing against the evidence.


the proof is there?
i did a search, and i think i'm going to agree wtih someone else on this board and say that your name is BRYCE

also, those aren't exactly... scholarly sources

they seem to be very sketchy



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by Sun Matrix
Go figure. The proof is there, but they don't accept it. I can't accept believing against the evidence.


the proof is there?
i did a search, and i think i'm going to agree wtih someone else on this board and say that your name is BRYCE

also, those aren't exactly... scholarly sources

they seem to be very sketchy


I don't know who Bryce is but I suspect it was someone who continually kicked someone else in the teeth. He hasn't quite figured out the Nimrod is Marduk..........GO FIGURE.



posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 03:59 AM
link   
in response to saint's 'river deltas' showing a trend of a flood..

I found this site: www.mystae.com...

It mentions a few places around rivers where there were layers 10 feet thick, and another 2 and a half meters deep, that was found in an area the size of 100,000 square kilometers.

These show evidence of localised flooding, but nothing suggests a worldwide flood.



posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
www.mystae.com...[/url]


I'm glad you've posted something other than talkorigins (which has been demonstrated to have skewed information). However, interestingly enough the "expert" on refuting this archeological evidence is Isaac Asimov. I'm not sure if you know who Asimov is, but if/when you do that should answer the question of credibility.

[edit on 15-12-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
Could a wooden ship only 450 feet long, 1) hold two of every animal (including food, and specialist foods such as eucalyptus leaves for koala bears etc). 2) withstand the forces which would have been pretty extreme considering this is a world-wide flood.


Well, as I have said elsewhere, in Judaism there are 4 levels of understanding...
the flood is kind of like a story. If anything like this remotely happened, more like a scientific lab full of dna, etc (kind of like theme from the aliens in Mission to Mars) where the earth could be repopulated.

Someone mentioend that the flood is a tale ripped off from another religion, seems like with the Bible, this is true for quite a few stories...none the less there is enough truth perhaps, to act as a light to point beyond itself.

Peace

dAlen



posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
I'm glad you've posted something other than talkorigins (which has been demonstrated to have skewed information). However, interestingly enough the "expert" on refuting this archeological evidence is Isaac Asimov. I'm not sure if you know who Asimov is, but if/when you do that should answer the question of credibility.


And how credible is the author of Genesis? Moses is the suggested author. However, it's questionable whether or not he was even a real person. If you want to discuss credibility, then let's do so.



posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by dAlen
If anything like this remotely happened, more like a scientific lab full of dna, etc (kind of like theme from the aliens in Mission to Mars) where the earth could be repopulated.


So a 450 foot wooden boat, yet what you read is 'scientific lab full of dna'. Is that called reading inbetween the lines?

Let's not get ahead of ourselves and throw out guesses such as 'maybe they took samples DNA on a alien spaceship'. It doesn't really get us anywhere, especially when Genesis states this was a 450 foot long ship, that at the time the materials used would have been wood.

[edit on 15-12-2006 by shaunybaby]



posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
And how credible is the author of Genesis? Moses is the suggested author. However, it's questionable whether or not he was even a real person. If you want to discuss credibility, then let's do so.


Sure. We can take Moses as A author just like any other. The question then becomes can we validate what Moses is saying with a living source who was there at the time. That answer is yes. If you want to read books by dead people about dead people you can certainly do so, but not sure how that "validation" would trump the Living Presence.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 107  108  109    111  112  113 >>

log in

join