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.

 

Truth behind ADAM and EVE

page: 3
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Nyrossius Maxim
 


See, I think you're close, but in this case the religion predates the science. I guess that's my major objection to your theory, but I in no way want to discourage you in your search.

I have often thought about what the whole Adam and Eve and paradise was really all about. Still don't have any conclusions.



The Adam and Eve narration is literal as the lineage of Christ comes through them, as laid out in the geneological "begats". Interestingly, most people don't realize that they are not part of the 6th day creation. They instead see the creation story being given twice, which isn't the case.

Gen.1:26 gives us the creation of mankind, or the races, while Adam didn't come about until day 8 in Gen.2:7. Mankind was created both male and female while Eve didn't make an appearance until after Adam's formation. Mankind was given dominion over animals, etc. but Adam was to be a tiller of the soil.

The "tiller" fits in with the analogies throughout the Bible of the field being the world, planting seeds, harvesting, etc. Adam and his offspring were to plant seeds of truth in the field - the world. Eve was said to be the mother of all living but that doesn't mean all mankind came from her. Rather it means that Christ was from her and you have eternal life if you believe in Him.

There is a difference, in the manuscripts, in the word "man". If it is given with the article, as in "the man", it is Adam, if not it is mankind.

So...they were in paradise and who drops in? The same serpent that will later be cast out of heaven:


Rev.12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.


That is where the conflict began in this age and it continues until the end. Please note that there was no apple mentioned. That wasn't the sin.



A few chapters into Genesis something is mentioned about there being giants in the land during those times ( after eden, before the flood ) as a result of "the sons of God knowing the daughters of man". Very curious verse ( I want to say its in the first 3-5 chapters of Genesis ). Anyways, good luck finding a Christian to satisfactorilly explain that one, but go check out some Zacharias Sitchin, if you haven't already. That's what got him going.



Gen.6:2. That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

4.There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became the mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

7.And the Lord said, "I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth Me that I have made them"



The word "men" in vs. 2 & 6 is Adam. The sons of God, or fallen angels, came to earth and "took" the daughters of Adam. This was one of the attempts to stop the lineage to Christ. The results of the mating of fallen angels and daughters of Adam were giants. When it states that they were "mighty men and men of renown" that isn't a good thing. They were mighty in size and strength but they were renown for lewdness and moral depravity. They were probably the nexus of the gods of mythology. That is one of the reasons for the flood of Noah.

The angels involved in that episode and also later, were cast into chains:


11 Peter 2:4. For if God spared not the angles that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

Jude 6. And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, He hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.



..............Whirlwind



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Thank you Whirlwind, and I appreciate the quality post. I went and read Genesis again last night and looked at it differently now that I'm older and more spiritually developed.

I guess Adam and Eve are about bloodlines. Jesus was from the same lineage as Julius Ceasar and Merovingians doesn't seem to be official since the spell correction here on ATS keeps bringing up that red underline whenever I spell it.

Merovingians? Merovingins? Meravingions? Hmm..

Is this official? Or did Dan Brown make it up?

I think its very official. Afterall, why did the English Monarchy kill Princess Diana? Wasn't it because she sought after a love affair with a being of another race?



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by StreetCorner Philosopher
 



I guess Adam and Eve are about bloodlines. Jesus was from the same lineage as Julius Ceasar and Merovingians doesn't seem to be official since the spell correction here on ATS keeps bringing up that red underline whenever I spell it.

Merovingians? Merovingins? Meravingions? Hmm..

Is this official? Or did Dan Brown make it up?

I think its very official. Afterall, why did the English Monarchy kill Princess Diana? Wasn't it because she sought after a love affair with a being of another race?


It is all about bloodlines and that is much deeper than you understand at present. Julius Caesar WAS NOT from any lineage connected to Christ. the lineage to Christ was guarded and is given in the Bible. He NEVER married or had any children.

Did Dan Brown make it up - Yes, Yes, Yes. It was an interesting novel but that is all it was.

I don't know the story to Princess Diana, as far as if she was killed by the monarcy or not. However, she came to royalty through marriage so I don't believe she would qualify for the reason you stated. Her children would as they are of royal blood so if they attempted to mix their blood with another race an attempt might be made to stop them. I would imagine that the lineage of Diana had to have been thoroughly researched before her marriage so the line she produced with Prince Charles wasn't mixed.

............Whirlwind



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 06:25 PM
link   


Did Dan Brown make it up - Yes, Yes, Yes. It was an interesting novel but that is all it was.


The only way a book like that gets published is if the Vatican sanctions it. THere is an abundance of truth being given out to scientists right now. Pandora's box is opened every so often and the DaVinci code boosted tourism at the Louvre, St. Peter's basilica etc. The Vatican allowed that book to come out, or it would have never been published.



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by StreetCorner Philosopher
 




The only way a book like that gets published is if the Vatican sanctions it. THere is an abundance of truth being given out to scientists right now. Pandora's box is opened every so often and the DaVinci code boosted tourism at the Louvre, St. Peter's basilica etc. The Vatican allowed that book to come out, or it would have never been published.



Why do you believe this to be true? The novel was very anti-catholic and essentially tells us they have lied through the centuries. Surely the money they make on tourism wouldn't warrant the release of the book.

Your above statement sounds as if you know more than you are writing. If that is true, is it something you are free to discuss?


.......Whirlwind



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 10:36 PM
link   
This theory is stricking resemblence to the tv series Stargate SG-1.

The serpent race (goa uld) came through the stargate (like the goa uld) and binded with apes (also like the goa uld).



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 04:01 AM
link   
Yes Whirlwind, and I will tell you more.

As far back as the 70's this Vatican hollywood campaign has being going on. Films like the Omen, and the Exorcist were also sanctioned by the Vatican.

I know you find it hard to believe, and claim that the films are very anti-catholic, which I also believe, but money is what matters. The messiah was a threat to the old world order. Eyes must remain shut, the masses must remain ignorant. The one who is illuminated into knowing what the masses do not pose as a threat. The freethinking man has been chastised for centuries. Freethinking women were burned alive.

It's been this way forever. An illuminated soul lives like a monk, in harmony with nature, free of possessions and they are not slaves to their own Narcissism. This person will not contribute to the corporations. Or pay taxes for that matter.

Jesus stands for this type of man. That is why he died on a cross. He was a threat to the bankers, the Jews, the Romans.

Hypersensitive people like Jesus become possessed. Possessed by the cosmos, men who speak to the stars, the planets; But the church creates films that show hypersensitives to be hosts to demons, and are wicked evil people. Disinformation. If you recalled the recent exorcism movie, "The Exorcism of Emily Rose" the possessed girl was a hypersensitive, who simply had a nervous breakdown from trauma to her psych from her hypersensitivity to the horrors of the world. Jesus was stronger than her of course, and he constantly had to shun away the devil in all of its forms.

The elite of the world want drones....zombies, they don't want fearless people. They want frightened, low self esteemed people. And fear is what these movies install. A coward and egocentric person with money will decorate himself and sell his soul.

Adam, the whiter man, was given reptillian DNA. We all have a "Reptilla" A part of our brain under the cerebal cortex. This part of our brain is responsible for all our aggression. It is instinctive and makes us a slave to our environment. This reptile gene affected this part of our brain, making it the dominant part, therefore turning man from a humble mind, to an aggressive one.

Fingers hurt...its late, sorry if It was TMI...but it is all IMHO.



[edit on 9/30/2007 by StreetCorner Philosopher]



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 10:41 PM
link   
BTW, the term ..... "Adam's Apple"

After intense meditation tonight at a bookstore, I wondered about the Adam's apple and why it is called that. I came up with one theory.

After studying the differences between modern man and Neanderthal, I realized that the main difference was the voice box. Studies show huge differences in the voice box which all lead to survivability. Advanced communication was essential for survival, and so the neanderthals were wiped out.

When the creators found Earth, or the fallen angels had found it, they called it "The Planet of the Apes" Hence the modern cult classic. That TV show and film was subliminal more than truth.

There for the Adam's Apple is the #1 most important part of the anatomy changed in the genetic modification of Neanderthal to Adamic man. The apple of knowledge or "Pandora's Box" was opened when we became a planetary consciousness and were given the ability to transmit information in such a complex way. String theory anyone?







 
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join