It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Bible, Man's book or God's Word?

page: 11
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 02:10 PM
reply to post by TruthParadox

I think you are exactly right. God knew and predestined what would happen. However, he was never obligated to save any of us, but he has. He created us without sin, but still able to fall if we disobeyed his word. That's exactly what happened, but he still offers a way out of the mess humans have made for ourselves.

posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 08:03 PM
Creationist Christians think that if the Bible is wrong, then God lied. They cannot accept that God could exist but the Bible be wrong because they can’t distinguish doctrine from deity. So it is a form of idolatry wherein the believers worship man-made compilations as though those books were God himself -because they think it is his word.

posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 08:16 PM
reply to post by andre18

i'm more inclinded to believe that it's a more accurate, although occassionally highly condensed version, of what happened in the ancient past, and what may or will happen in the future, how to handle the present and so on.

comparative analysis with other ancient texts seem to indicate the events happened, but who did what and why, is somewhat modified. i see this as a cultural, language barrier that is only breechable if you assume when reading, that they are not fables, that they are telling the same story, with only slight variations.

posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 08:37 PM
reply to post by jped62

Please re-read my post. I was not bashing the bible. I am pointing out that God still reaches his children even if it (might) be flawed. I use my bible everyday for meditation but I am also discerning in my spirit about what I read.

I am sorry if you misunderstood my point.

Peace to you,

posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 09:18 PM
reply to post by undo

But how can you believe such things have happened in the past when it talks about talking snakes and earth created in 6 days? To take these accounts as literal is a bit insane.

posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 09:45 PM
reply to post by andre18

language my friend, language.
the word serpent, for example. it means many things (hebrew language is like that)
and remember, i don't claim that the bible is word perfect.
my theory is that eve met an upright, bipedal, sentient being
who had snake like features, such as fangs instead of teeth,
scales instead of smooth skin, and so on. in fact,
there's statuary from 4000bc from the earliest known civilization to date,
that depicts several of these snake people, both male and female,
and some with serpent children. they appear to be part mammalian and part serpentine. some features even look a bit amphibious, such as webbed fingers and toes

later, in some attempt to explain where the serpent went, someone
interjected that it became a snake because of the simlitary in skin and eye shape. there's more of course, but i have
artifacts to prove the existence of these serpent people. if found in an archaeological dig, it would be assumed that the bones were from a dinosaur or ancestor of the same and somehow had been mixed in with fish bones and human bones.

they were an entire race that predate homo sapians on the planet.

posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 11:43 PM


By Michael S. Heiser, PhD.
Dept. of Hebrew and Semitic Studies, U-W Madison

(.pdf file)

Iraq Museum (Baghdad)

•provenience: Eridu
• dimension(s) (in cm):
height: 14
• material: clay (baked)
• date: (ca. 4000 BC)
• description:
terracotta, nude male, with 'lizard-shaped' face and pointed head (hair piece?), holding stick in his left hand; shoulders decorated with applied clay pellets

close up - side profile, fang

finger count

• provenience: Ur
• dimension(s) (in cm):
height: 14
• material: clay (baked)
• date: (ca. 4000 BC)
• description:
terracotta figurine with 'lizard-shaped' face, nude, female; shoulders and upper arms decorated with applied clay pellets; hair piece added, made of bitumen; Late Ubaid to early Uruk period" target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

FROM ABYDOS, EGYPT (pre-dynastic)

[edit on 17-1-2009 by undo]

posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 12:32 AM
The purpose of the bible is to confuse and confound all the languges of man.

posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 01:13 AM
reply to post by In nothing we trust

babel means gate of god. the confusion part comes in because the
gate of god was actually the gate of the "chaos" god. it is from the
babylonian - bab-ilu, which is from the sumerian KA.DINGR.RA

posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 01:48 AM

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by In nothing we trust

babel means gate of god. the confusion part comes in because the
gate of god was actually the gate of the "chaos" god. it is from the
babylonian - bab-ilu, which is from the sumerian KA.DINGR.RA

Interesting I didn't know that the babylonian god was the god of chaos. But it does make sense, especially the gate of chaos. The way to heaven is narrow. The god of chaos would be the devil and the power of darkness, yes?

Matthew 7:13
"Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.

There is only one masonic temple in every town, (Maybe) but there are probably hundreds of churches.

You seem to be knowledgable about the bible undo, what is your input on these two threads?

Bank for International Settlements in Switzerland controls the Federal Reserve (Lifting the Veil)

Are the true followers of christ travelling through time?

[edit on 18-1-2009 by In nothing we trust]

posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 02:45 AM
it gets pretty tangled up right about here but the babylonian god wasn't the chaos god. the gate was the chaotic void over which enki presided. at the time of sumer, it was called the abzu, it was also called the nun and abdju (egyptian) and in greek, abydos. later, a larger version was known as the abyss and bottomless pit and also, theoretically, the eye of ra. we're talking thousands of years of languages. in babylonian mythos, such as enuma elish, part of it became known as tiamat, who was thereafter called the goddess of chaos.

ANYway, the tower of babel housed a chaos gate, which apparently had something to do with it getting shut down.

so really, enki was the chaos god. i think.....maybe.

[edit on 18-1-2009 by undo]

posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 03:42 AM
reply to post by undo

When it comes to the tower of babel story, this is how I understand it.

Man on earth was united and had 1 language. In doing so, they came together to build this tower. This sounds all good doesn't it?

When I first read the story, it sounds like - uh, whoever confused our language and such is the bad guy! I was like, why in the world did these "gods" do this to us, they must be evil! They cause all this war on earth! But thats not the case.

The problem is that we are still evil. It was because we shared a single culture and a single language that we got along. If we were to force ourselves back into the garden, or the universe then we would start encountering those who are not of our language, and not of our culture.

And we exhibit what we do to people who don't belong to our language and culture in the world today. By confusing the languages and cultures, the people no longer worked as 1, and instead turned on each other. If it hadn't been done, then we would have been out and about trying to enslave and war with those not like us, just as we do on earth.

So this is done to protect the rest of the life in the universe. Just as we were removed from the garden in the first place to protect the tree of life(life in the universe).

Seems to me that if we can learn to get along with other cultures on earth(not forcing the world into 1 culture and getting along that way as the NWO wants), then that is the point. Rather than "unity", it's more about learning how to get along with those who aren't like us.

posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 03:47 AM
Well one thing is for sure,and that is that something has created everything that exists out of just nothing. Because everything must have had a beginning. And before the beginning there must have been nothing.

But still something must have always existed or nothing could ever have been created. This tells me that there can only be one source One infinite source. There can only be one source before all the others that we humans have created.

This one infinite source has been given the name "God".

We humans live inside a infinite big dimension. And inside this infinite big dimension we are surrounded by finite dimensions like Matter. We are surrounded by all the finite dimensions that is needed to create and sustain life.

If we live in a infinite big dimension "space". Who can put finite things "Dimensions" into it!

A finite dimensions is a shape of a matter. A finite dimension is just a shape of an object or source.

If space is a infinite big dimension it can not be related to finite things. That means.... first something or someone must have created space first, So it could be possible to put things inside it. Who can do such a thing! Besides a God.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 04:07 AM
reply to post by spy66

Remember this. The only thing that creates something out of nothing is a thought. Consciousness creates logic, logic can not create consciousness.

You can use Science to understand logic and creation. But no logic can understand or explain the consciousness that views and sees it.

Important to keep things in their proper place.

posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 05:53 AM
reply to post by badmedia

I know. But something or someone has to "Be" existing to create a thought. And it has to be really intelligent and have infinite resources to create something just from a thought.

I do believe in God. Science just makes God more real. Science can just prove and study whats inside the created space. Science cant tell us how space was created.

Now i got a question.

Is our infinite dimension space and everything inside it just a thought in Gods mind?

Is our reality just a event happening inside Gods mind.

Or did God create a reality apart from him self from just a thought.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 07:07 AM
reply to post by undo

The talking snake is a reptilian, lol aliens? Early Renaissance Christians believed the serpent in the garden was a female character. Often taken to be the dark maid, Lilith, Adam’s first wife in Talmudic Legend.

The bible is historically and scientifically dead wrong about damned-near everything back-to-front. We’re talking about people who believed

Snakes and donkeys can talk, Numbers 22:1-35 Genesis 3

Incantations, genesis 1: 3,6,9,11,14,20,24,29

Blood sacrifice, genesis 4:4 & 31:51 Leviticus 1:9 & 9:18 2nd kings 16:15 Ezekiel 39:17

Ritual spells, Leviticus 14

Enchanted artifacts, 1 Samuel 5:6-9 exudes 7:8-12 1 Samuel 5:69, 6:19

Human sacrifice is condoned in Leviticus 27:29 judges 11:29-39 numbers 31:31-40

They thought that if you use a magic wand to sprinkle blood all over someone, it will cure them of leprosy Leviticus 11:6

We’re talking about people who think that rabbits chew cud, and that bats are birds, Leviticus 11:13-19 Deuteronomy 14:11-18

And whales are fish, Jonah 1:17 Mathew 12:40

And that Pi is a round number 1st kings 7:23 2nd chronicles 4:2

These folks believed that if you display striped patterns to a pregnant cow, it would bare striped calves genesis 30:37-43

How could anyone say that who knows anything about genetics? Obviously the authors of this book didn’t – nothing to do with stargates or aliens. If the Bible had been written by a supreme being, then it wouldn’t contain the mistakes that it does. If it was meant to be read as a literal history, then the Bible wouldn’t contain anything that it does. The only source for any of the fables in the Bible is the Bible itself.

Archaeology certainly doesn’t support any of these stories. Instead, we have many earlier versions of many of them coming from myriad myths of polytheism, some of which written by the very ancestors of the Biblical authors. They apparently conceived all the original, but as-yet unassociated elements which were eventually “blended together” into the fables we now know as Genesis. These stories can be interpreted wildly differently by anyone who reads them.

In the Sumerian Enuma Elish, the oldest of all creation myths the world is created – not in six days but by six generations of gods. The sixth generation created man out of their own blood to continue the god’s work, so that the seventh generation of god’s could rest. The name Adam is derived from ‘adamah’ which means “red dirt” in the context of these myths.

In the Akkadian epic of Atrahasis a group of gods called the Elohim gather together and decide to create man in their own image and out of their own bones and flesh. The first people were madeof clay. Male and Female made by them so that men may toil in the field in service of the gods. Then one of the deities was killed so that these golems can be purified in the blood of a sacrificial god.

In another tale, Enki, one of the creator gods of Sumer, trespassed on a sacred garden, Ninhursag cursed Enki and he fell. Later she forgave the fallen immortal and bore seven daughters to cure his seven wounds. One of them, Ninti, was the “daughter borne of the rib” for she was meant to close the wound to his side.

posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 07:37 AM
enuma elish is not sumerian. sorry.

the oldest stories agree pretty much with the biblical version, only the names and some of the cirucmstances are different.
the first five books of the bible are a condensed version of a few thousands years of oral history, compiled by people who were descendants of Noah, survivors of the black sea flood.

and one more time before you fly off the handle again--if you recall, i said, i don't believe the bible is word perfect. in fact, i'm pretty sure i made it clear that i think there are several words in the old testament that are mistranslated because the translators had no idea what the people were trying to say. did you read the .pdf file i attached to the post?

don't come in here swinging unless you're gonna read my answers and the supportive data. also, don't blame me if THE ONLY STATUES ANYWHERE, PRIOR TO 3000 BC, ARE ALL SERPENTINE HUMANOIDS. That, is not my fault. Take it up with the artists.

posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 07:52 AM
arnebeth = animal of unknown derivation. so apparently the translators ..guessed and called it a "hare". strong's concordance says that it was probably an animal that was extinct by the time the text was translated from its original language.

that's just an example. this happens alot in translation of the old testament.
such as the word "images," which in some sections of the text actually are not images at all but mastabahs. big difference, i'd say.

[edit on 18-1-2009 by undo]

posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 07:55 AM
reply to post by undo

And the artists are basing their statues on real life or fantasy? Reptilian statues...what about Egyptian statues, what about these statues depicting half human half dogs, cats and birds...?

All fantasy creations

posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 07:57 AM
this an incantation?

not that i'm saying a computer was used in genesis 1. just illustrating that you have no idea what an incantation is.

[edit on 18-1-2009 by undo]

new topics

top topics

<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in