Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why did Man lose over 90% of his life spand after the greate Flood

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
Please remember one thing. The bible as we know it, Has been interpeted so many times. By the actual authors, the various translations, the various editors, that to use the bible as something to be 100% true, would be a misconception. This is why I asked for sources other than the Bible.


Says who? People who don't want to accept/believe the Bible and are biased against it. So of course that is going to be the answer/excuse they come up with.

You either believe all of it, or you might as well believe none of it. Those who have truly accepted Jesus as Savior and read the Bible, have tested what the Bible says and know that it is true. So did some people live to be over 900 years old? The Bible says it, I believe, so there you have it.




posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
Also, the deluge that you describe first occuring at the poles, would have left a definitive mark on the Earth. There would be evidence of this everywhere instead on only in a few specific areas.




19. The top 3,000 feet of Mt. Everest (26,000 –29,000 feet) is made up of sedimentary rock packed with seashells and other oceandwelling animals.

20. Sedimentary rock is found all over the world. Sedimentary rock is formed in water.

21. Petrified clams in the closed position (found all over the world) testify to their rapid burial while they were still alive, even on top of Mount Everest.



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 12:36 PM
link   
DB,
Question, who wrote the bible? Did God or was it written by various men throughout history?
Who has edited the contents of the bible, God or man?
How many translations has the bible gone through to get to the version that we accept today as God's word?
I do happen to be a man of faith and a beleiver in what Christ has brought to us. Does that mean that I accept what the church espouses, NO. The various sects that call themselves christians have adapted the bible to promote the parts which support their beliefs.

I offer you the same thing that I offered BadMoJo in an earlier post. If you wish to debate the veracity of the bible, I will do so with you. This would not be an attempt to deny your belief nor disway you in your belief but as an attempt to open your eyes.

I do not attack your belief. Please do me the same favor.

As for the fossil findings at the top of Mt Everest,



Everest is the tallest of many extraordinarily high peaks in the Himalayas, including neighboring Lhotse (27,890 feet, 8516 m) and Nuptse (25,790 feet, 7885 m). The mountain range was formed when a large land mass broke off from Africa roughly 200 million years ago and was carried by plate tectonics across what is now the Indian Ocean. When this land mass came close to Asia, it started to push up the land ahead of it, forming a large shallow ocean with rich ocean life. The bones and shells of the plants and animals in this shallow ocean formed limestone and left fossils. As the land mass continued to plow north and collide with Asia, the ocean was slowly raised up and drained, eventually being lifted up to form the Himalayan Mountains. The land mass, which is still moving north and forcing the land ahead of it upwards, is known as the Indian subcontinent. The presence of limestone and ocean marine fossils at the top of these mountains is one of the key pieces of evidence cited that advanced the idea of plate tectonics (large chunks of the Earth’s surface moving over molten rock in the Earth’s core) when it was first proposed as a theory in 1915.


Earth Observatory



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
DB,
Question, who wrote the bible? Did God or was it written by various men throughout history?
Who has edited the contents of the bible, God or man?
The mountain range was formed when a large land mass broke off from Africa roughly 200 million years ago and was carried by plate tectonics across what is now the Indian Ocean.



The originator and editor of the Bible was God, and He used men lead by the Holy Spirit(God) to accomplish this. God then preserved it through the ages.


1Chronicles 1:19 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of the one was Peleg; because in his days the earth was divided: and his brother's name was Joktan.

Peleg was born about 2219 BC and lived to for 239 years so that would be 1980 BC. So it was between that time that the land masses were divided, not 200 million years ago.



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 03:11 PM
link   
so db, if God is the origionator of the biblical text, and I grant you that. Then what you are contending is that the men who have written the bible have not put their own personal spin on it? Anyone who changes biblical text is a blasphemer, correct?
Also, if God has preserved it throughout the ages, then please explain the changes that have occured in the 10 commandments. Review the 1st commandment. What we know today IS NOT the same as what was preached 30 years ago. There are a couple of very important lines that have been omited from just the King James version to the New World bible which is the accepted version. (Hint, where is the craven images line?)
If God is omniscient, then why has this important passage been changed? Would not God have know of the need to change it and thus written the version that it is in todayI doubt God had anything to do with the changes. The changes were done to better fit the organized religion's theological ideals.

As for translation errors, There are numerous words that were used in the origional ancient hebrew that had multiple meanings. I cited one such earlier in this thread. The word that was used in Genesis, Yom has a couple of meanings. One meaning is day (which is what we see today. There is another translation where Yom can also mean ERA. What is the correct translation? Can you tell? Neither can I. Now add to the fact that the bible has not been directly translated from ancient hebrew, but has actually been translated through a number of other intermediary languagessuch as from ancient hebrew, to ancient Greek, to modern greek to latin to german to english.
The following site is for the Transparent bible.
What the project is for is to gather as much of the origional text and to modern english.
The Bible Project
Again, I am a believer in Christ's words but I do not follow any church's dogma.
[edied to add]
But debating of the bible is not what this thread is about, if you wish to debate this, then I again invite you to debate this one another thread or on the debate forum. I would like to get back to the topic of the forum which is Why did man lose 90% of his life span post deluge.

[edit on 12-6-2005 by kenshiro2012]



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
so db, if God is the origionator of the biblical text, and I grant you that. Then what you are contending is that the men who have written the bible have not put their own personal spin on it? Anyone who changes biblical text is a blasphemer, correct?
Also, if God has preserved it throughout the ages, then please explain the changes that have occured in the 10 commandments. Review the 1st commandment. What we know today IS NOT the same as what was preached 30 years ago. There are a couple of very important lines that have been omited from just the King James version to the New World bible which is the accepted version. (Hint, where is the craven images line?)


So the new world translation, is that a jehovahs witness or a catholic version? Either way neither teaches the truth about salvation.

I certainly believe there are some who have taken some translations of the Bible and changed it in some places. Look at the NIV, it has taken a name that belongs to Christ and given it to satan. It also has omitted some important verses to a footnote. They even had an admitted homosexual on the group that translated it. This is definitely the work of men and women.

What I know is a person can take the KJV and along with a concordance grow in the knowledge of Jesus Christ. I have also read the NIV and learned from it, but I have to be grounded in the King James and have the Holy Spirit convict me when something doesn't seem to be right. I have also read the Living Bible and learned but need the same guidance from God.

The number one thing I hear people say on ats is, "The Bible has been changed , too many times, by too many people over too much length of time to be right. That's just a stupid excuse. If the God who made the universe out of nothing can do that He can certainly get us a Bible we can use to know Him.

I know better than that because I live it everyday and read the Bible and grow and learn from it. I also know at least 100 other people in my church who could agree with this.

So my advice is to get a KJV Bible and start reading it. Get grounded in it. Ask God to reveal the truth to you. The best situation is to be saved, because then the Holy Spirit is living inside of you, and the greatest growth in the things of God can happen in this situation.

People in the US especially, want something and they want it right now. That's not something that can happen with the Bible, it is a lifelong learning book. No one will ever know all it has in it to tell us.



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 05:05 PM
link   


So the new world translation, is that a jehovahs witness or a catholic version? Either way neither teaches the truth about salvation.


So what organized religion is correct? Which actually teaches salvation as was written in the unadulterated text?

The New World Translation I referenced, is what modern day people who call themselves christians follow, not only in the US but world wide.

As for the King James version of the bible, I was schooled in this version as you seem to have been. Is this assumption correct?
This also was altered from origional texts. Here is a history of how the KJV of the bible came about.
History of the King James Version of the Bible

Notice that these 57 men were to alter as little as possible and that it was to be based off of the Bishops Bible.
As these men were under the auspices of the King, how were they to determine which version was the real one that should be promoted?
Also notice that this version actually had to go through many editions and revisions. If God, lead these men in putting together his word, why would this have to be done?
Why are there so many variations of the bible then as there are today? I do not mean in language but in actual text?

I am not trying to put forth that God did give man the word directly. I do contend that man through his fallacies, have adulterated the word of god throughout the ages, weather they meant to or not.
As I earlier contended, is not any editing, or changing the bible not blasphemy? How are we, mere mortals who are seeking the light and God's true word, expected to know which is the true word and which is false?

What are the 10 commandments? Which are the real 10 commandments?
The ones listed in Exodus 20:1-17? How about the ones listed in Deuteronomy 5:6-21? Which are the correct ones? How many commandments? How many commandments are there? There are some who say yhat there are actually 29.

Which version of the 10 commandments are the correct ones? The ones that are listed in the King James version? Luthern? Charlton Heston Ten Commandments? New Revised Standard Version Ten Commandments, and they don't all agree as to which commandment is which -- or what they really mean. What gives one version more veracity over the others? Which are the true word of God? How can we tell?
Here are a couple of links to help






www.religioustolerance.org...

www.religioustolerance.org...
www.sfgate.com.../c/a/2003/08/26/MN2741 26.DTL

Again though, I do not believe that debating the veracity of any version of the bible is what this thread is all about. That should be held for a different thread. If you wish to discuss this, let me know and I will be glad to discuss it with you.
How about we go back to the topic of this thread?



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 05:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street

There was a ring of water that surrounded the entire earth.

Do you have any evidence for this astounding assertion?

I certainly don't know all it did. Some of the things it did were to block out harmful radiation. Someone mentioned the oxygen level in this type of greenhouse atmosphere was greater, I've heard that also.

Where did you hear such a thing, and what evidence does this source bring to the discussion?

It was close to a perfect environment. This ring of water was probably part of the water that rained down on the earth during the GLOBAL flood. After the flood it was no longer there.

What was it that held this "ring of water" up, and how did it get up there in the first place?



ots - just wanted to throw in that Isaac Newton believed exactly this. He believed there was a layer of moisture that remained contained in the atmosphere until the time of the flood. If you can get hold of any of his writings read the letters he wrote while holed up on his estate during the plague...this is included in them.

And I'm sticking with the meat theory by the way. Before the flood man was a vegetarian and it wasn't until after the flood God made the following weird combination of statements: you can eat the animals now, and by the way - I'm capping you at 120 years.

Kind of a cause and effect statement in my eyes.



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 08:14 AM
link   
Surely inbreeding would be a primary reason for the dramatic decrease in lifespan?



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 06:20 PM
link   
And I'm sticking with the meat theory by the way. Before the flood man was a vegetarian and it wasn't until after the flood God made the following weird combination of statements: you can eat the animals now, and by the way - I'm capping you at 120 years.

Kind of a cause and effect statement in my eyes.






Your right on about the Meat, In fact Noah and his Family Had to learn how to eat meat wile They were still on the Ark, Because they did not have a way to store fruit and vegetables, over the time they were on the Ark

You always hear that Noah only took two of every animals but that was not True..

The Bible says that he had to take with him Seven of every kind of Clean animals, A male and its Mate and Two of every kind of unclean animals, a male and its mate..

He also had to take Seven of everykind of Bird, Male and females to keep thir various kinds alive throughout the earth..

The reason for so many of the clean animals was because they were used al food wile on there trip...



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Actually, if you attend to the scriptures, God did not give him (and mankind) permission to use the animals for meat until AFTER the sacrifice that was made once the flood receded.



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 10:38 PM
link   
Four things:

Firstly: the earth was not encircled by water, genesis clearly states that there was water above and water below (1:7) Considering that it was not so long ago man thought the earth to be flat, we either accept that this concept was accepted back in the day of those who penned Genesis, or the knowledge of a round earth was lost. To be sure I make my point that it is the former and not the latter, 1:7 speaks to water under and above, which is applicable only to the act of looking up and down from whatever perspective. In other words, one looks up toward the sky down toward the earth, on the opposite side of one’s position, up then should be earth and down the sky, but it is not. Hence, a flat earth.

Secondly: The age of man, antediluvian and otherwise: God’s math was based on multiples of 5 or multiples of 5 plus 2 or 7:

20 generations to Abraham
14 had sons at an age divisible by 5; 4 by 2; 2 with plus 7
13 lived after the birth of their firstborn for a number of years divisible by 5
9 died at an age divisible by 5; 6 with a remainder divisible by 2

How many 40’s, 7’s and multiples of 5 are represented throughout the OT?

Thirdly: God declared in the days of Noah that man would not live past 120 years, yet it took until Moses for the first elder to die at such an age some 700+ years after his declaration, and even after that, two sons of Jacob lived well past that age.

Fourthly: If God initially created man to live forever then he would not have been worried that man would eat of the tree of life and live forever.



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 08:44 PM
link   
somewhereinbetween

Hay Bud,, You numbers on a generations just through me right off the bridge, I was lost on the first line HA HA HA ....

The age of Moses at his death, Well your a little off there, In Deuteronomy; 34:7 it says that Moses was one hundred and twenty years old when he died.

I Can't see you making a mistake like this, So I think that it was real late and you were thinking of something else at the time,,, I do that all the time........

But you were talking about the first elder, who was that,,,

[edit on 02/20/2005 by jfdarby]



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 08:59 PM
link   
Fourthly: If God initially created man to live forever then he would not have been worried that man would eat of the tree of life and live forever.





God put the tree in the Garden to see if Adam would take the advise of another over what God had told him, and sure enough he Did and we have been doing it ever since..

It was no problem that Eve had taken the fruit becaues God had not told her but Adam told here and he knew better and God himself had told Adam not to eat, and that is were the first Sin can into Man...



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfdarby
somewhereinbetween Hay Bud,, You numbers on a generations just through me right off the bridge, I was lost on the first line HA HA HA ....
Sorry to confuse you, but I do not understand what is confusing about this:

Thirdly: 1) God declared in the days of Noah that man would not live past 120 years, 2) yet it took until Moses for the first elder to die at such an age 3) some 700+ years after his declaration,...
Let me qualify my statement for you, I have numbered the relative portions of my quote to correspond with below:

1) God declared during the days of Noah that man would not live more than 120 years. Gen 6:3

2) The first patriarch to live only to that age was Moses, which for edification was 120, and which is in agreement with the age you provide.

3) Moses' existence was some 700+ years after Noah. he therefore was the first 'elder' (Biblical patriarch) to die at that age.


I trust that clears it up for you.



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 10:11 PM
link   
Somewhereinbetween,,,

Oh,, I do understand it better now, You are saying that Moses was the first to live to 120 years since Noah..

Gotya,,, Thanks...



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 10:21 PM
link   
Well, this is going to sound odd, it still does to me. When I joined a new church about two years ago I had to attend newcomers classes. In those classes the flood was discussed. It was explained to me that prior to the flood there was really no rain on earth but rather a mist. There was some type of ring of water above the earth "between earth and heaven". When the flood came it included the opening up of this ring of water that flooded the earth. This ring had also protected humans from the sun and once gone exposed us to more eliments that in time have reduced our life span.

Now, I will say, this was told to me by a Lutheran Pastor. I was raised Catholic and had never heard of this before. I cannot say that I am 100% gun hoe on the theory but hey, you asked, I provided a theory I had heard.



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Memorialday1999
Well, this is going to sound odd, it still does to me. When I joined a new church about two years ago I had to attend newcomers classes. In those classes the flood was discussed. It was explained to me that prior to the flood there was really no rain on earth but rather a mist. There was some type of ring of water above the earth "between earth and heaven". When the flood came it included the opening up of this ring of water that flooded the earth. This ring had also protected humans from the sun and once gone exposed us to more eliments that in time have reduced our life span.

Now, I will say, this was told to me by a Lutheran Pastor. I was raised Catholic and had never heard of this before. I cannot say that I am 100% gun hoe on the theory but hey, you asked, I provided a theory I had heard.




Thanks 1999,,,,


Sorry it took so long for you to hear the Facts of the Beginning,, It got my intrust when I was young and thats why I have read it so many times and then started to listin to others that were on about the same track that I was headed in..

But to listen to the Hole story put together is very interesting and it seams to put 2+2=together and adds up to 4 for me...



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 07:48 AM
link   

I would like to get some input into what happen to man after the great flood that would make man lose over 90% of his life spand..

Before the flood, Man seam to live over 900 years, But now it's something great if you make it over 100 Years..

You Guys and Gals that's is heavy Science should have some great ideals on what happen to Man and the Earth During the Flood....


This is an easy one. G-d didn't give man the calendar until Exodus 12. Before that time period was G-d's calendar and G-d only knows how many months, days, years, second, minutes, hours, etc that consisted of. That would be why also that evolution does not conflict with the story of creation. We don't know what G-d's six days were.



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 07:53 AM
link   

When Eve ate from the tree of life, maybe it was not an actual tree, but more of a family tree. God did say "who told you, you were naked". Pretty silly question if they were the only ones there. One of the angels also said if they ate from it again, they would have everlasting life (or something to that degree). That was why they were tossed out of the garden of eden. So basicly, if she had dealings or what ever you want to call it, with one of the angels, it caused their life spans to be much longer.

-just another thought.


Eve didn't eat from the tree of life but from the tree of knowledge. Had she eaten from the tree of life, they would have been eternal like G-d. There were two distinct trees. G-d had cherubs watch the tree of life while Adam and Eve were leaving so that they did not partake of that tree.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join


Help ATS Recover with your Donation.
read more: Help ATS Recover With Your Contribution