page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 15 2002 @ 08:33 PM
hows it going friend, we hav'nt talked for a while, you have been too busy quarrelling with with your best friend Mr TC.

I'd like to put across some info. You quoted from a verse in genesis, right?. You obviously therefore must have faith in that verse to suggest that it speaks of other people being in the world before Adam and Eve. The truth is this verse does not prove at all what you claim. God clearly states that he created two people in the beginning called Adam and Eve. This is the answer to your question and noyhing more. You see, There has to be faith when reading the bible or theres no point in reading it in the first place. It is because of your unbelief that God has left you blind concerning this particular truth. The bible says that those who do not believe and are proud, God hides his word from them. The word of God will not be open to you in a way that you could understand because you refuse to believe what is written in it anyway. Also because of unbelief people are not able to get answers from the word of God. The way mankind thinks is not the way God thinks. So if we go according to our own understanding we will get nowhere.

I do not say any of this to offend or for any other ill feeling towards you. But my wish is to only help people to get a better understanding of the word of God and point them in the right way. You see, by doing this I therefore do not gain anything, but only to serve the Lord is my aim.

posted on Nov, 15 2002 @ 08:41 PM
Well while I shall continue to only read the bible skeptically analytically and "unfaithfully"
Taking it for face value.

You Stewards, have at least shown better showmanship than TC. Leaving room for a debate of a different kind.

You do say that you must read the bible "faithfully" or to at least have some faith in God's word and such to understand that part.

While I choose to see it for what it is, this seeing it through faith is also an interesting concept, I can see how you choose to believe God's word over Cain's actions.

However I see things as actions are the proof, and Cain's actions betrays God's word...something TC has been trying to disclaim with his "they live 900 years" thing...but he fails to understand that this is all occuring at about year 60 something and not over the course of 900 years.

That is where we do differe, stewards, you have given proof based on faith that Adam and Eve are the first people, while I give proof based on observation that they were not.

It will be interesting to see if there will be sides in this....those who take things and believe it, have faith in it, and those who are skeptical such as myself, and view the actions of Cain as proof that Adam and Eve were not first.

Basically I mean....will those who are "faithful" side with you? And those who are "skeptical" side with me?

Or will that not be a factor and everyone will be making up their minds however they wish?

That's something to think about. And only time will tell

no signature

posted on Nov, 15 2002 @ 09:10 PM
Those of faith will agree with each other more or less the same. Us sceptics will see what they don't since we don't have this undying faith and believe every word is true as written. We see it from different unbiased views. We don't believe snd this gives us the chance to truly anylize what is written and gain a better understanding. Us sceptics will also not agree completley on the same views, and this is an added bonus as it allows for stronger debates. Where as religous people can't 'actually' debate since they mostly believe the same thing (within own religion of course).

posted on Nov, 15 2002 @ 09:12 PM
..if there will be sides in this"
Will it? To whom? Is this the customary sense of "interesting"?

Let us remember that the account of Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel is common to Judaism, Islam and Christianity with little significant variation (change of name in Islam etc.). Thats, say, half the worlds population with about 3,000 years available for question-and-answer sessions.
If anything could be added, it would have been added, by now. Do we imagine that the rabbis, the Church Fathers didnt see a possible source of controversy in this? That Augustine, Jerome, Irenaeus or for that matter Martin Luther somehow missed what the eagle-eyed F-M has suddenly spotted.
Its old, old, old hat. There can be no reason to post it other than to annoy its in there with Was Mary a Virgin?, How could the Ark hold all the animals?, How could God tell the days before he made the sun and moon? irrelevant for centuries to non-believers: acceptable to a greater or lesser degree to believers.
Little wonder that T-Cs ire has been aroused (pseudo-bigot a splendid neologism by the way for a deliberate stirrer)
Books of Faith are not reference works, historical texts, scientific treatises: thats why theyre books of Faith to believers and somewhat unreliable to non-believers. To attempt to arouse controversy because the literal numbers dont add up is about as useful an exercise as criticising a telephone directory for its lack of spiritual content.
One can:
(1)believe it literally Thomas has given the case for this (one sometimes finds people straying into other areas e.g. that genes then were "uncorrupted so incest was not harmful TC has spared us this). The literal belief uses the other assertions in Genesis concerning age, Seth and the rest, and will usually say that Cain will have married a half-sister. The account of Sarah, Abimelech and Abraham in Genesis 20 supports this to an extent.
(2) believe it symbolically plainly less solid as one runs the risk of believing that ones own ideas are in some sense gospel. It can then be an account of the Fall of the First Man and leads pretty logically to Christ as the second Adam, the new Man.
(3) not believe it but see it as very significant cultural and anthropological material
(4) not believe it, turn ones back on the Foundation (for better or worse) of Western culture and watch Beavis and Butthead.

Why, O why, would anyone think this old tosh was worth posting in the first place and once T-C had given the case for (the case against would be obvious to a publicly-educated juvenile) would anyone then go on?

posted on Nov, 15 2002 @ 09:16 PM
I dont agree with you JamesG. I can also disprove this claim.

I have been a christian for only 4 years. Before this i hated anything to do with religion. I also put across skeptical views about what the Bible said.

So i have an advantage over what you say, because i have been on both sides of the fence. I know what it is like to be a sinner and think like a sceptic. Also I now know what it is to be a believer in Gods word and to think as a christian. So I'm sorry but I have no choice but to dismiss this.

posted on Nov, 15 2002 @ 09:40 PM

You just proved my point

Doesn't matter when you were what, just the fact that you were and held different point of views.

posted on Nov, 15 2002 @ 09:56 PM
People, we right you wrong arguements don't help or contribute to this board.

Yes Thomas, the bible says that.

But, the bible is an old book, with giants and zombies and immortals and other things that were supernatural that we now know isn't. To them, lightning was god getting pissed and striking at them. A tornado was the wrath of god, a flood, earthquake, natural things were either the wrath of god or satan. Heck, a drought was blamed on satan.

Also, the bible has things like giants. Giants do exist, theoritically. Andre was 7'6. He was a giant, aka Andre the giant. or a basketball player, 7-8 feet tall, they are giants. But not supernatural as some were in the bible.

Zombies/brining back to life. Getting platured at a party and passing out. Or, head trauma that causes a comatose state, caused many to be buried alive. Where do you think the midnight shift came from? So many people were buried alive that they made bells that ran down to the coffins. If the person woke up, they could ring it and be saved.

See, either science or something natural, not god. Then Adam and Eve lived for hundreds of years. Of the years today? Or the years of then? Time has been based on many types of calenders. Heck, in some areas this is the year 24,000 going by moon phases(sound familiar toltec?) Or, it is year 24 by some other calender. So Thomas, what calender did they use? The ones around when bible was written, or the one used today?

posted on Nov, 15 2002 @ 10:10 PM

Originally posted by bluegrl89
ok so then what' the real answer?

The real answer is that this is an emotional issue involving core beliefs of many Christians. Rational discussion involves respect and contemplation, not contempt and challenges.

[Edited on 16-11-2002 by William]

posted on Nov, 15 2002 @ 10:13 PM
The thing is, James, the question was a Biblical question. The answer, in order to be appropriate, must be a Biblical answer.

I'm sorry you see the miracles as zombies and such, but there is nothing I can do about that.

However, answers should be in context, and answered by those who know the answers and not by pseudo-bigoted, hate-filled people who are too busy trying to disspell ideas truths or notions than anything else.

There is a certain character here that personafies what I've talked about to you before. See how ignorant he appears? Popping off about what he knows little of makes him look stupid, and puts his particular clubf with which he "claims" affiliation with look ignorant. Don't fall into that logical trap, though. I've known and befriended many people of that particular club, and they are really nothing like him. As a matter of fact, none of them were bogoted or hate-filled, much less idiotic!

Anyway, remember, answer questions in context , and if you don't know the answer, say so or say nothing.

posted on Nov, 15 2002 @ 10:16 PM
James they used our calendar when they wrote the bible...or rather, our calendar is based off of the bible.

The bible may have a lot of spiritualism in it, but it also incorporates astronomy, the seven days were taken fairly literally and Rome eventually incorporated it into their calendar system.

Egypt in 1000 BC used an 8 day week for instance, but I do believe our 7 day week is strongly influenced by the bible.

It has been around since at least the beginnings of the church, am I wrong in this? TC? Stewards?

no signature

posted on Nov, 15 2002 @ 10:33 PM
What calendar do we use?

posted on Nov, 15 2002 @ 10:38 PM
A lot of emphasis is placed even today on the Lunar Cycle. 4000 or 6000 years ago it probably was the standard for what we today call a Year. 900 divided by 12 does equal 75 which is a very long life without the current medical technology (more than likely impossible in those days without some type of intervention).

More so was this accepted the further back in time one goes.

posted on Nov, 15 2002 @ 10:56 PM
Actually long life was not so uncommon back then, 75 - 80 years...granted probably rarer than now, but nothing like the middle ages whose average life expectancy was 25.

Now....I must say that is a remarkable idea, that the years are based on the cycles of the moon....but a full lunar phase is about what? 26 days, so if that meant it was a year then...they'd only need to live to be about...64 years of age.

900 years divided by 365 days in a year, timesed by 26 days in a lunar year = 64.1 years which is perfectly doo-able for the time period.

Remarkable hypothesis.

no signature

posted on Nov, 15 2002 @ 11:38 PM
Again FM thanks for going into the specifics. Actually death could occur very easily in ancient day's, besides the issue of accidents. There were the problems of Bacteria to which the discovery of sulfur drugs did help somewhat. Methuselah was acclaimed to have lived even longer than Adam. Which is strange given that Adam is in the biblical text accepted as the first (and therefore more perfect) man.

If memory serves the first books of Genesis were alleged to have been given by God to Moses. As such if God told Moses that Adam lives 900 years the basis for Moses's interpretation could very well have originated from what the Egyptians in those days accepted as a Year. To my knowledge there are legends which speak of extremely long lives (on the scale of 900 to 1000 years) not of course related to the bible in relation to text. But in relation to the timeline they all do seem to be stories that occurred around the same time (give or take 2000 or 3000 years).

Meaning that potentially it is based on the same methedology of time keeping.

posted on Nov, 15 2002 @ 11:48 PM
God made all in seven days. Our week is seven days.

The lineage between Adam and Noah does not allow for much difference in any earthly cyclic change to account for lifespan differences. After disembarkation, we are told that we could no longer expect long lifespans, but lifespans of an average of 70 years. Assuming we are obedient. As it urns out, our lifespans have been about that, depending on location and circumstance. At any rate, the centuries-long lifespan no longer occurs. That is probably a good thing.

posted on Nov, 16 2002 @ 07:46 AM
what calendar do we use please... Gregorian, Julien, Lunar. what?

posted on Nov, 16 2002 @ 09:47 AM
In the same book that speaks of lifespans hundreds of years long, it also tells us that after the flood, along with other things, God shortened our lifespan to around 70 years. Apparently, they measured time much like we do.

posted on Nov, 16 2002 @ 11:40 AM
Yes, it was a biblical question. But, it should also be answered in both ways, not just biblical.

And Thomas, the calendar we use today came around when? End of Roman Empire? That is a wee bit to late for bible. But, Toltec, FreeMason, good job. Even more to FM for figuring out exact days.

And Thomas, me, Fm, and Toltec are asking questions, not blindly following the bible. Of course, in the old days, asking questions got you killed. But thankfully, people like JM/truth/TOT don't control the world.

Yes, the moon phases might have been used as a year. Or maybe the seasons. when it gets cold, its the cold year. it gets warm, warm year. So two years for every year we use. So 900 knocked down to 450. Still to long, but still more easily believeable then 900 years.

posted on Nov, 16 2002 @ 01:31 PM
We use the Gregorian calendar.

posted on Nov, 16 2002 @ 01:40 PM
Link to the origin of the calendar. I thought it was the gregorian... just wasn't sure...


Our civil method for reckoning time, then has a mixed origin. Our division of the hour into minutes and seconds is derived from the sexagesimal system of the Mesopotamians; the division of the day into 24 hours originated with the Egyptians; the seven-day week originated in the ancient Near East, while the names are derived from a Greek convention developed during the Hellenistic period.

new topics
top topics
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in