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.

 

Noahs Ark may have been a Spaceship

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2007 @ 11:18 PM
link   
First of all the bible is a book of fiction. Why in the blue hell do UFO fanatics always include the ufo theory in everything they see. The bible, politics and anything else they feel like.




posted on Jul, 22 2007 @ 11:33 PM
link   
I too am wondering why this discussion is occuring in the the
UFO/ET forum. Wasn't the remnants of the ARK found atop
some Asian mountain in the late 1990's and it was wood, not
something derived from exotic E.T. technology?



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 12:25 AM
link   
This theory tallies with the Raelian description of biblical events. The 'government' at the time (not on the earth), decided to destroy all life on earth with nuclear missiles. Too much knowledge had been revealed to humanity at the time, so the idea was to return the planet to a primitive nature. The now-exiled 'creators' arrranged with Noah to have an Ark orbit the Earth while this cataclysm takes place, retrieving a pair of each species, and a couple from each race of human being. According to Genesis 7:17, 'the ark was lifted above the Earth. It definitely says "above the Earth".. not "on the water".

For more information, you can read the free pdf from the Raelian website "Intelligent Design - Message From The Designers".



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 12:37 AM
link   



You sure your not slighty insane...lol



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Had the Roman Empire not banned and burned thousands of books and sacred texts in order to enforce the Bible as "the word of God" we`d know so much more about our interplanetary, extraterrestrial and technologically advanced distant past. But the whole thing being totally supressed and misinterpreted we have to rely on the scant scraps here and there. the noahs ark passage is a good hint.





The Romans did not enforce the bible. They actually persecuted Christians!

Anyhow, there are many civilizations/texts worldwide that pre-date those from the bible. Also, the old testament is a series of metaphors, and thus musn't be interpreted too literally. I say let's be more scientific when discussing the UFO topic



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 02:05 AM
link   
Well I just read the different translations of Genesis 7:17, and it clearly meant that the Ark was lifted up higher than the ground by the rising waters. It wasn't orbiting in space...



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by xiack

The Romans did not enforce the bible. They actually persecuted Christians!

I say let's be more scientific when discussing the UFO topic



I´ll let wikipedia respond for me:

"Still at the time of Constantine the Great, only 10% of the inhabitants of the Roman Empire were Christian. By the authority of a list written by Irenaeus in the first part of the second century, the Church, under the Eastern Roman Empire, selected four gospels deemed to have preserved the authentic tradition. (Irenaeus writes four is a magical and complete number, etc.) The many other gospels that then existed were deemed non-canonical (see Biblical canon) and suppressed (see Gospel of Thomas). The collection of books, known as the Biblical Canon, was promulgated in 382 at the Council of Rome, and in 1543-1565 at the Council of Trent."



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 03:14 AM
link   
People can discount or ignore the Bible, if that makes them feel comfortable, but when you understand it is a re-telling of older myths, coupled with the fact almost every other civilisation around the globe has an ancient flood myth, then take into account the submerged ruins found around the globe in the Caribbean, Med, Black Sea, Japan, India, Europe and elsewhere, one has to assume that there is truth in there somewhere.

To laugh it off because you don't believe in God, ergo, don't believe the Bible, is to be highly ignorant of available SCIENTIFIC data that actually corroborates the flood myth and lost cities and societies.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 03:26 AM
link   
^I agree

If you don't believe in a God or the Bible, that's fine, that's your choice and I completely respect it. What I hate though is that these same people will say the Ark story never happened and will use sciene to try and back up their story. Science has already proved that there has been a huge flood as mentioned in the Bible and other writings/beliefs. Does it prove there's a God? no it doesn't, but it does prove that an event did happen that resembles the story.

There's also that anomaly at the top of Mt. Ararat. Wood was once found there that has no reason to be there. There's images taken by the US GOVERNMENT that also show a very clear anomaly. If there wasn't anything there the US GOVERNMENT wouldn't have taken pictures then try to keep those pictures safe if they felt it was nothing to discuss.

Just because you all believe in one thing, that doesn't mean that you're always right. That's what I hate about skeptics. No open mind at all and they think everything they know is the truth and they just can't have it any other way. We could be visited by Aliens tomorrow. It would be news everywhere. They'd still find a way to say they're not real because of their arrogant ignorance.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by soulstealer2099
You sure your not slighty insane...lol


That was uncalled for and I hope the remarks are dealt with accordingly by ATS staff.

For the record, I am not Raelian, I don't even hold any religious beliefs whatsoever. The reason I made the post was to simply offer an alternative theory out there, and I am aware of the Raelian literature and they definitely make reference to the ark being a flying saucer and not a dilapidated mess of wood discovered years later. I happened to have the Raelian pdf on hand and I remembered reading about it years ago which is what made me respond to this thread. To be labeled 'insane' is a stretch. I'm interested in aliens and ufos, and open to different theories, as oddball as they may be. But insane? No.

My position on the Bible is that it is not factually correct. I believe it was written by the Illuminati puppet masters to control the human population and steer them 'off the scent' of the true origins of ourselves. But I also think there are grains of truth left in there, facts that have been altered, changed, fabricated. The Raelian position is possibly largely concocted too. But I think that there is something in it worth considering. It is definitely worthy of consideration. Not a smart one-line remark. And by the way, it's you're, not your.


[edit on 23-7-2007 by RiotComing]



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 05:09 AM
link   
When taking what most ancient myths, legends, stories, teachings and even some of science agree upon, I think we can easily establish the following things as fact:

1. There was a great flood.

2. The technology of times before the flood was a bit higher than religion and archeaology will acknowledge.

A side-note on Atlantis: It is not true that Plato's descrption was the only source reference for atlantis tales. This lie has been continually repeated by the mainstream until it was taken for granted. You can easily find hundreds of ancient references to atlantis, some even using the same linguistic terms. One (of many) examples are the Basque people in northern Spain who's legends say that they came from the sunken land of "Atlaintika". I do not see in which way Plato has "the only known account of Atlantis".

The Great Flood Accounts as told by the native indians of north and south america, the basques, the guanche of the canary islands, the celts, and many others all tie in very well with the story of noahs ark.

The biblical story fitting to these other accounts does not validate the bible though, because the bible "borrowed" from these accounts at a much later date. The bible was published around the year 500. The term Christianity started being used around 1500, as far as I know.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 05:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by xiack

The Romans did not enforce the bible. They actually persecuted Christians!

I say let's be more scientific when discussing the UFO topic



I´ll let wikipedia respond for me:

"Still at the time of Constantine the Great, only 10% of the inhabitants of the Roman Empire were Christian. By the authority of a list written by Irenaeus in the first part of the second century, the Church, under the Eastern Roman Empire, selected four gospels deemed to have preserved the authentic tradition. (Irenaeus writes four is a magical and complete number, etc.) The many other gospels that then existed were deemed non-canonical (see Biblical canon) and suppressed (see Gospel of Thomas). The collection of books, known as the Biblical Canon, was promulgated in 382 at the Council of Rome, and in 1543-1565 at the Council of Trent."



Of Christians lived in the Roman world, but the Romans had their own Gods. This is one of the reasons they fed them to the lions! If you actually READ your own quote, and also looked into Roman religion, you would understand that you have made a gaffe.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 05:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by xiack



Of Christians lived in the Roman world, but the Romans had their own Gods. This is one of the reasons they fed them to the lions! If you actually READ your own quote, and also looked into Roman religion, you would understand that you have made a gaffe.



My original post referred not to the cults and sects of ancient rome, which you call Christians, but to the ORIGINS OF THE BIBLE. I know that the Roman Empire fed these people to the lions. Rome wanted to solve the problem of all these cults and christians by uniting them in one religion under one scripture. Dont shy away from looking into the exact ORIGINS of the bible.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating


Originally posted by xiack



Of Christians lived in the Roman world, but the Romans had their own Gods. This is one of the reasons they fed them to the lions! If you actually READ your own quote, and also looked into Roman religion, you would understand that you have made a gaffe.



My original post referred not to the cults and sects of ancient rome, which you call Christians, but to the ORIGINS OF THE BIBLE. I know that the Roman Empire fed these people to the lions. Rome wanted to solve the problem of all these cults and christians by uniting them in one religion under one scripture. Dont shy away from looking into the exact ORIGINS of the bible.



You still haven't acknowledged that the Romans had their own gods, not too dissimilar from the Greeks.... but......

Come on, give me a break, you want to get technical, yet you use wikipedia to support your statement
"we`d know so much more about our interplanetary, extraterrestrial and technologically advanced distant past".
Oh, the irony....
You can't have it both ways.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 05:55 AM
link   
so because I believe in ancient astronauts I cant use wikipedia to back up my claims? interesting.

alright: I hereby acknowledge that the Romans had their own gods such as Apollo and Zeus. Happy?



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 06:21 AM
link   
I didn't want to knock your beliefs.

Perhaps the most disappointing was what the Spanish/Portugese destroyed in South America.... who knows what was lost

For the record, I have read Graham Hancock's "Fingerprints Of The Gods", and am certainly intruiged by some of the discoveries



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 06:26 AM
link   
I still insist that the bible is a creation of the roman empire (who mixed up a book from various sources and supressed other sources), so you did not succeed in knocking my beliefs. You did succeed in evading the entire issue of looking into the bibles origins. But thats alright, case closed.

Yes, the Hancock book IS interesting.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 06:37 AM
link   
I frankly don't have time to look into the Bible's origins right now. For a start, there is pretty much zero on this thread which would add weight to Noah's Ark/ extraterrestrialism. Feel free to believe what you will, but what I originally objected to was the wild and very general statement that was made earlier. What EXACTLY did the Roman's destroy? For me, using ancient scriptures to justify aliens or whatever, is no better than using them to justify a supreme being....

Anyhow, you are obviously rock-solid in your beliefs - maybe you would do better for the community as a whole by elaborating on specifics, rather than makeing grandoise sweeping statements.....



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by xiack
I frankly don't have time to look into the Bible's origins right now.



Alright, fair enough. Thanks for the discussion anyway.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 08:06 AM
link   
The passage regarding the "tilt of the earth" prior to the cleansing seems to point me toward the polar shift theory. Even the idea of Nabiru coming near and stopping our rotation and reversing it, which would cause another deluge. Seems we have had many. Either that or many cultures just decided to write the same story. Does anyone have anything that might link the Annunaki helping with the Ark? Or maybe something relating the deluge to the timeframe of the last passing of Nabiru through our area in the solar system? Epiphany!



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join