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.

 

Good Points

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2007 @ 05:33 PM
link   



posted on Jun, 22 2007 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by debater
How come in the Bible, Adam and Eve were white? Where did all the other races come from?


Adam and Even were American Indians, not white. Eden was originally in North America, in Missouri, and then when God kicked Adam and Eve out of Eden, they left and had to cross the ice bridge to Asia, where they wandered until they found Iraq, which was enough like Missouri that they decided to settle there. All the other races were created as Adam and Eve's children mated with various kinds of monkeys. For example, if you shave a chimpanzee, you'll find that they're white. That's where white people come from.




posted on Jun, 22 2007 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by SuicideVirus
Adam and Even were American Indians, not white.


evidence? well, it doesn't say they were white either... but can you prove that they were native americans?



Eden was originally in North America, in Missouri,


bull, it's not even close. first of all, missouri is crap for a state (i know this because i lived there for 16 years) and secondly the euphrates isn't in missouri



and then when God kicked Adam and Eve out of Eden, they left and had to cross the ice bridge to Asia,


again, where are you getting this from? when was all of this?



where they wandered until they found Iraq, which was enough like Missouri that they decided to settle there.


no, iraq is far nicer (especially in mesopotamia.)



All the other races were created as Adam and Eve's children mated with various kinds of monkeys. For example, if you shave a chimpanzee, you'll find that they're white. That's where white people come from.


are you joking?!

1: chimps aren't monkeys
2: humans cannot interbreed with any other primates.
3: you mean the one child that survived?
4: are you saying god condones bestiality with animals?



posted on Jun, 22 2007 @ 06:17 PM
link   
I think he was just joking I hope



posted on Jun, 22 2007 @ 06:23 PM
link   

External Source

Tower of Babel-Genesis 11:1-9

1. Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. 2 As men moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar and settled there.

3. They said to each other, "Come, let's make bricks and bake them thoroughly." They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. 4. Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth."

5. But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building. 6. The Lord said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other."

8. So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. 9. That is why it was called Babel--because the Lord confused the language of the whole world. From there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth.



Once they all spread out, they adapted to thier new homes, which led to different races perhaps....



posted on Jun, 22 2007 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Yea that could be it too. Everyone was scattered



posted on Jun, 22 2007 @ 08:48 PM
link   
al·le·go·ry (āl'ĭ-gôr'ē, -gōr'ē) Pronunciation Key
n. pl. al·le·go·ries

1. The representation of abstract ideas or principles by characters, figures, or events in narrative, dramatic, or pictorial form.
2. A story, picture, or play employing such representation. John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress and Herman Melville's Moby Dick are allegories.
2. A symbolic representation: The blindfolded figure with scales is an allegory of justice.


Basically, the ice age was ending, glacial recession was at its highest, massive glacial waves far higher and faster and 100's of times more powerful than Krakatau's explosion were sweeping down from the North American icesheet and other glacial regions such as Siberia. Evidence for high solar activity, peak glacial recession and massive floods at the same time as tremendous extinction rates leads me to conclude that there were indeed many devastating floods all around the world, covering much of the land where people were living, and ending in the rising of the sea levels which covered thousands of human habitations on the coasts. Deal with it.



posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by uberarcanist
Great, more atheists who do not realize that a large percentage of the Bible is hyperbole and was not intended to be interpreted literally. "All the animals" could have merely been all the animals Bronze Age man in Mesopotamia knew about, which most likely wasn't many. Furthermore, how do you explain the universality of flood legends.


But the bible was taken literally for hundreds of years - then when science proves all the falsehoods it contains, the followers all shout "yes but it's not meant to be taken literally"

You can't pick and choose when it suits



posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski

Originally posted by uberarcanist
Great, more atheists who do not realize that a large percentage of the Bible is hyperbole and was not intended to be interpreted literally. "All the animals" could have merely been all the animals Bronze Age man in Mesopotamia knew about, which most likely wasn't many. Furthermore, how do you explain the universality of flood legends.


But the bible was taken literally for hundreds of years - then when science proves all the falsehoods it contains, the followers all shout "yes but it's not meant to be taken literally"

You can't pick and choose when it suits


You cant use science to disprove the bible look at the people who are doing it. If you have a Christian scientist he will find ways to make the bible true if you have atheist he will find ways to prove it wrong. Science is not reality so stop using it. Science changes to much to believe in it.



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 04:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mrknighttime32
Science changes to much to believe in it.


science isn't about "it changes to much so why follow or support it"
its using logic and making rational sense of the world.
if there is a theory that starts to crumple because new observations are made that don't fit the current theory, a new one is developed in its place and now this theory explains all the current observations.

a scientist will say, this is a good theory.. it fits and explains these observations! it may not be CORRECT, but given the present amount of observations it is.
scientist know this, that theories are just theories.
it sounds to me you don't even know what science is "to believe in it".




[edit on 12/17/2004 by cheeser]



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Great, more atheists who do not realize that a large percentage of the Bible is hyperbole and was not intended to be interpreted literally. "



Ok so alot of the bible is hyperbole. Are you the one who knows what we can interpret literally and what we have to guess about? Not trying to be sarcastic, I'm really curious.


Furthermore, how do you explain the universality of flood legends.



Do I assume you mean the mythos from various cultures around the world telling of flooding?

Well we have that today ! It's called CNN. Of course alot of cultures are going to have flood stories, there are floods all the time even today. I haven't seen any arks being built in new orleans, have you?



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 06:22 PM
link   
If we can't take the bible literally, how do we take it? Are they just stories passed down like ghost stories around a camp fire? If so, doesn't that really make the whole bible a Brothers Grim type book?

If we take some of the bible literally, which parts are marked "Please take this chapter literally" ?

If we take all the bible literally, then we have that whole ark problem. I would think if there's any book in the world we should take literally, shouldn't it be the book that holds the word of god? So, if the entire world was flooded, we would need a huge for the following reasons:

Each animal species would need a significant breeding population. It's a genetics thing.
Each animal species has their own dietary and enviromental needs.
There would need to be a large staff to manage the diets, cleaning and exercising of the animals.

Oh, one more thing; the ark would be made of wood right? NOPE. An ark of this size could not be built with wood. Don't believe me? go look at a skyscraper and check to see if all those support beams are made of wood. The strength versus weight ratio becomes too great so the structure would collapse on itself.




top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join