Chronology of Creation in the Bible... it doesn't start in Genesis!

page: 10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 04:42 PM
reply to post by davesidious

Science deals with all kinds of nonsense concerning things it cannot prove. Don't fool yourself. (Not saying I reject them, but can science prove it?)

Black Holes? Some say proven, but can you really do so with the empirical senses? They are still theories that science is still trying to prove. (Not saying I reject them, but can science prove it?)
Time Travel?
The Big Bang?
Obama's birth certificate?

All these things are theories that science has tried to prove. They may be sound theories, but looking at them in and of themselves they sound pretty crazy.

A quote I read recently also helps a little here.
"Science, by its very nature, is never capable of proving the non-existence of anything" - Gregory Koukl

An example he uses is unicorns. Science can NOT prove that they don't or didn't exist. They can prove something does exist, but they can't prove it doesn't.

So my challenge to you is this...
Prove God doesn't exist.

Can either one of us win this debate, no. I will maintain that I think you are wrong and that I disagree. Believe what you want, but I think its wrong. I have tried to be respectful throughout this but you have returned insult upon insult either to me personally or to my faith in general.

I am done with our communications unless you specifically ask me to reply to something. We are very far from the OP and I am quite surprised these posts haven't been removed already. Farewell, and keep looking for your proof. I hope you find it for your sake.

posted on Feb, 11 2010 @ 05:19 AM
davesidious, please stay on topic. This isn't a thread for faith-bashing just because you don't agree with someone else. Where is your contribution to this thread directly related to the chronology of creation in the bible? I would urge the mods to keep an eye on you and remove off-topic disrespectful comments.

posted on Feb, 11 2010 @ 05:59 AM
reply to post by serbsta

( misunderstood abyss reference. misunderstood abzu reference. misunderstood "portal of the lords of eternity" reference. misunderstood tiamat reference, but by joe, i think you're seeing the same thing i'm seeing!)

posted on Feb, 11 2010 @ 10:11 AM
reply to post by Mykahel

Black holes are hypothetical, but they explain lots of observations. As long as the black hole model is able to explain and predict these phenomena, it is valid.

The same goes for the big bang, evolution, and Obama's birth certificate (which there is absolute evidence of, seeing as it has been produced, but that's another story).

I don't need to prove God doesn't exist. That's not how science works. Until someone can prove God exists, the logical default position is "we don't know".

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". A mystical, invisible, omnipotent, omniscient sky wizard is extraordinary, and yet there is no evidence.

reply to post by Locoman8

Calling out nonsense conjecture is denying ignorance. That helps everyone involved.

Normal programming resumes in 3... 2... 1...

posted on Feb, 11 2010 @ 11:05 PM
reply to post by davesidious

Nonsense conjecture? You are picking and choosing your battles based on something you can't proove is wrong and we can't prove is right. This thread is made for those who believe in a being that created this planet. This thread is for those who follow the bible and opens their eyes to the fact that the earth isn't 6,000 years old. You won't change peoples minds on this thread who believe in God. You're just stirring a brush fire and you know it. Go play in another fire please, or make your own.

posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 12:31 AM
I must admit that with the evidence I am believing more and more in an old earth theory, but the thing that confuses me the most about that is the issue with evolution. I don't see it. Where are the missing links? How can humans claim to be any more special than the rest of creation?

I've got a whole lot of questions that I just don't think can be answered by anyone in this life. Luckily those questions have no baring on my salvation, just my insatiable desire to KNOW how things work.

posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 12:53 AM

Originally posted by SuperSlovak
John 1:1
1 In the beginning was the Word

that being said it appears before god was there was the word

this is strange to me

It doesn't have to imply that the Word pre existed God. Only that The Word existed in the beginning (this would make Stephen Colbert happy

Consider the esoteric meaning of "the word". Could it not relate not to a truly spoken word, in our earthly context. But rather, a "sound", or vibration? The first energy wave the began the quantum universe? The "big bang"? Remember how mystified Pythagoreas was in the relation to the way notes are spaced on a string instrument, and the positioning of the planets. He said something like, "There is music in the placement of the globes". Interesting metaphor to use, when considering the current topic.

OP, i am not Christian. But i enjoyed your thread. Excellent philosophical material, and excellent interpretation of an esoteric script.

posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 01:11 AM
Not being mean, but you didnt finish the verse anyway. Read all of verse 1.

'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God." John 1:1

Next few verses explain that the word also became flesh, which we accept as the incarnation of Jesus on earth. Jesus, the word made flesh, was not always flesh but existed for all eternity alongside of God (the Father) and the Holy Spirit.

Hope that helps.

edit: It's also a beautiful way to start the book as the very beginning of the Bible, in Genesis 1:1, we read that "In the beginning, God..."

In John, we read that the Word was in the beginning, but it clears it up by saying the Word was God. It's also neat to note that the beginning of both books speak of God and creation. John attributes the creation of Earth to Jesus, not just the Father. The picture that comes to my mind is this...

The Spirit of the Lord is hovering over the planet saying something like "here's what we have to work with. We need a way to do this, this and this."

Jesus says, we can do this by making that, and accomplish this by forming that."

God says, "I like it." And then he makes it.

The above is obviously just my imagination and I have no real evidence to support that it worked out that way, but it's kind of cool to think about. The Trinity working together perfectly, as they should since they are one. (Don't ask me how to explain that part lol)

[edit on 12-2-2010 by Mykahel]

posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 04:45 AM
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

Thank you for your kind words and you have interesting ideas going on. You are a perfect example of a non-christian keeping it respectful and contributing your ideas to the thread and relating it to the topic at hand. That's what I want here. Thank you.

posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 04:47 AM
reply to post by Mykahel

Though I'm a Unitarian and not a Trinitarian believer, I do understand what you're saying. God and Jesus working together. I liken it to God as the Architect and Jesus as the (oddly enough) Carpenter. The Holy Spirit is the tool.... not equal with God or Jesus, but very important in the process.

posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 09:09 AM

Originally posted by Mykahel
I havent read every post here, but I am encouraged to see some thoughtful discussion and meditation over God's word. Good going guys.

Some science has shown that earthquakes are directly linked in some ways to the tides, as there are waters moving at a similar motion to the tide under the tectonic plates.

Nice to see your input, and I do echo the encouragement that has left this Topic to a discussion.

Your outlook on the Firmament is quite accurate with one exception, I believe.

When considering the misleading translation of Genesis Chapter 6, it is believed the WHOLE GLOBE was flooded, but I believe it was the WHOLE AREA THAT WAS SURROUNDING NOAH'S WORLD. The infestation of the Fallen with the Daughters of MAN seems to be one that was occuring within the decendants of Cain, or the Serpents Seedline, and those decending from Adam, through Seth.

The question then is where did Noah live?

I'll try this quickly, and please, do not jump down my throat for offering this anyone. It is my view about a great many topics that are truthfully ONE SUBJECT, and this is what I believe would be accurate.

We start in Eden, and the Garden. I frankly believe Eden and Atlantis where found within the same area. (That could be debated in another post.)

Adam and Eve sin, (which is another post) and they are expelled from the Garden and move east.

I was always under the impression, Natural barriers became the "Borders" in Ancient Times, and I have never seen any evidence that suggests otherwise.

If Altantis was within the Atlantic, as Plato asserts in the "Account", I would expect Adam and Eve, would have be sent past the First Barrier, which would seemingly be the "Pillars". I believe they inhabited the area of the Mediterranean Sea. We have that Serpents Seed, Cain, who kills Adam's son, Abel, who is expelled and again goes east, which I believe is the next barrier to be found, the mountians/hills seperating the Med from the Black Sea.

So, the "Regions of Habitation" for the descendants of Adam through Seth, and the Serpents Seedline through Cain and his spawn, would be set in the exact regions that had a flood tale which coincides with a flood event that is believed to have occured around the timeframe we would expect to see Noah alive.

I also believe it is within these areas that we have the MASSIVE lore about gods and deities, and interbreeding with daughters of man producing men of renown such as Hecules for example. In some Cases this breeding was inclusive of beasts.

Be that as it may, exactly what HUGH mountain range is within the Med Region? None, in comparision to say the Alps or the Himalayans. Hills and knolls with some Peaks here or there.

This was the world of NOAH, and it is this region that we should expect the Whole FACE of the Earth was covered. Afterall, a Face is only part of the Body of the Earth.

With that offered, I do not believe there was MASSIVE AMOUNTS of WATER behind the firament. Only enough to cause an increase in global water levels by 300', which historical evidence seems to suggest.

Certainly, the Age factor and the eliminations of dangerous Rays from the Sun, would still be a benefit, and we would have answers to questions like how did the Ancients study the stars, and know of matters we only recently have been able to confirm. The firmament allowed them to view the Stars like a huge Hubble, without the massive costs involved.

And as for your Tidal point, I worked for about 2 years on Night Sercurity, and listened to Noory on Coast2Coast quite a bit. He has a "REGULAR" guest which comes on every month or so, who predicts Quakes and Tremors, with some accuracy to say.

He uses the Moon, along with Tidal motions to point to a period when events would occur, and then points to a specific area where increases in MISSING PETS are notices within the local area papers. Somehow he then tells the C2C listeners where a quake will occur, and he has been quite close to both Size and Location.

He also reviews papers from around the world which offer strange occurances of wildlife, like say a migration of some spieces from one area to another, that is occuring within the Window of the Moon and Tides at there best time for Quakes and such, and I believe he was quite accurate with this is predicting events in the Far East.

I do not remember who this guy was, but the point was, you are quite right in suggesting Tides and Quakes have some relation to eachother.



[edit on 12-2-2010 by Shane]

posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 09:32 AM

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by Mykahel

Sure they can do that. They will be violating the scientific method, though.

The whole thing is pathetic.

Well, I see some of the dismissive types have piped up and started to spew

Listen my friend, if I can refer to you as such, just what does Science offer that is in contradiction to ANYTHING put forth within thise topic.



Science is a tool used that frankly tends to verify Biblical Teachings.

Certainly some have beliefs that are contray to what Science believes, and they are all welcome to embrace and harbour those views as they see fit.

But the Ignorant Intolerance of Views and Thoughts such as you have offered is the problem and when pointing fingers and stating the crap that you have so far, remember to look into the mirror, because these are truly a reflection of YOU alone, my friend, if I may call you that.

You wish to partake, and be a contributor, offer your views, give your support if you would like with links, so those who do not share your views can at least understand the how your conclusions came to be. Be a Contributor. Not a $#!+ Distributor



posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 01:39 PM
reply to post by Mykahel

'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God." John 1:1

I have seen your interpretation of this before, given my small West Texas town upbringing. From the Christian dogmatic viewpoint, it is a very viable interpretation.

Consider something a little different as a diversion for a moment....

When asked who He is, God responds with "I Am". Being a Buddhist, I have a slightly different take on this. When God says "I Am", he doesn't qualify it. I am what? There is nothing given. This, to me, would indicate that he meant "I Am ." He is the Earth, He is us, He is the air, He is the quantum foam, and all energy signatures.

Take my interpretation of The Word above and apply it here. If "The Word" is the first "noise", or perturbation, or "phonon" (a unit of heat/noise related to actual noise metaphorically in science) that started the univerrse, and if all that exists is God, then it is reasonable that the Word Is God, as well. Consider: "The Word" is energy. It was the initial kinetic energy that began the universe.

Consider, as well, that when "The Word" became flesh, it could be describing the creation of matter from energy.

In esoteric writings, words like "flesh" are often used metaphorically to denote items in the physical realm. Whereas, matters of "spirit" refer to the ethereal realm. In this way, morning dew is held in special regard as it represents both ethereal and physical simultaneously.

All religious ttexts are written for two audiences:

1. The Profane: the simple masses who just want some simple guidance and have no intention to live up to the standards of their faith (this is most people).

2. The Initiated: the philosopher who is capable of understanding on a deeper level. By the virtue of his understanding, he sees the ethical and moral purpose of life, and works towards that goal. There are very few of these people out there. It would be a privilige to meet someone like this.

The profane will look for the obvious meanings in words, while the initiated see the deeper meaning of the symbolism and metaphor.

posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 01:56 PM
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

it dawned on me one day while studying the "I am" statement that he was referring to time. so it would have more of an omniscience to it. In the context of time travel, it answers the grandfather paradox, by simply suggesting that ----

where you go, there you are
you are always in the PRESENT because you are eternal and made in the image of an eternal being. you are always present.

so if you were to go back in time, you would still be you, and the you then would not be the you now (and here is precisely where multiple dimensional strings come in and dr. michio kaku shines like a beacon of knowledge).

[edit on 12-2-2010 by undo]

posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 02:01 PM
reply to post by undo

i really don't mean to hijack this thread, OP...but i need to get this typed out while i am still "on" it.

That is a very interesting concept, undo. There is no paradox because "you" are always where "you" are, needing to previous point of reference.

That is simple, elegant, and follows what seems to be the overall universal design pretty well.

You are what you are, relative to nothing. It needs to qualifier.

thanks for sharing that.

posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 03:33 PM
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

I understand the point you are making, and actually agree that there is significant logic behind it and that it makes sense. While I disagree, I am glad you at least gave good reason for viewing it the way you do and have thought about it unlike so many who reject (or even accepted)the "traditional" understanding of it outright.

I think there is a time and place for metaphor and digging for a deeper meaning in things, but sometimes I think that some of these deep statements that are so simple, are meant to be simple.

I would say that the name "I AM" is one of my favorites for God, as it displays His power so wonderfully. He is the God who Was, and Is and Is to Come. He created time itself at the beginning. God just IS, and if all else would cease to exist, He is still there. I guess I should explain the revelation I had the other day, if you want to call it that. I was thinking about the eternal nature of God vs our concept of time. Here we go...

We have a hard time grasping eternity because we view ourselves as being limited in time. Christians often find themselves trying to explain how the concept of time does not apply to God as He exists in all times at all times. What if time doesn’t really exist at all?

If a person is born, and never gains any knowledge of anything that happened before he came to be, would he not view himself as being eternal? He would have no recollection of a time when he didn’t exist (or his own beginning), and since he has not died he has not experienced an “end.” As far as he knows, he has always existed.

What if all these things we do to measure time are really just measuring events? The sun does not rise and set because time makes it, we manage our events based on the condition of other events that we consider to be normal and regular (the motion of a clock or the movement of the sun and moon in the sky).

We are experiencing eternity every day. The difference is that we did have a beginning and God did not. He simply IS (hence the I AM) where we at one time WERE NOT and now ARE. What happens after death either determines if we will continue to BE or if our eternity ends (we wouldn’t know we has ceased to exist). For all intents and purposes, everyone experiences eternity! (at least by their perception anyway)

Ok… Am I as crazy as I think or does that make ANY sense? I’m not saying this is what I think for sure, but it has been on my mind sense the topic came up.

[edit on 12-2-2010 by Mykahel]

posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 04:29 PM
reply to post by Mykahel

what you say makes sense, and i thinkn is tied in to what Undo was getting at.

If time does not exist in the manner that we percieve (having a start and finish, moving in any direction), but rather exists as a "state of being", or rather, a series of realities each in its own state of being in its presence, then it explains how God is timeless. He exists in all states of being.

Of course, this would support the above concept that "I Am" means just that. "I Am Always", perhaps?

I bring up the metaphorical aspect of religious text due to my study of such, via studying "The Mysteries". I have plugged his book often enough, i think....but a good resource to explain where I am coming from would be "The Secret Teachings Of All Ages" by Manly P Hall. This book is among the most respected book on esoteric teachings ever written. Seen almost as a "Bible" in freemasonry, it is in every masonic library.

[edit on 12-2-2010 by bigfatfurrytexan]

posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 02:46 AM
I really enjoy the argument between people like me who believe Jesus and God co-existed eternally before time and the Jehovahs Witnesses who believe that Jesus was the first created thing by God. The argument comes from a verse that says Jesus was the "beginning of all creation" and that Jesus was the "Only Begotten Son." I think using the words in a deeper meaning defines Jesus being co-eternal with God. If He was the beginning of all creation, maybe it refers to Jesus actually starting the process of creation and BOOM! Time starts with Him. He was the starting poing of creation. Any thoughts on this?

posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 10:35 AM
reply to post by Locoman8

From a Christian centric point of view, the logic works ok. However, when considering that much of the bible discusses events that happened thousands of years before Jesus birth, never once mentioning him.

Was Jesus a great man? It would seem, without a doubt, he certainly was. But his exact role is yet undefined. The actions of Paul during the formative years of the church only occlude the topic more, making defining what Christ was only that much harder.

Now, you do hit on an interesting point, from an esoteric point of view. If looked at it from this angle, it could be that Jesus presence is referred to as basicallyl being Gods first creation, existing as the force that represented the Word (do I understand you properly here?).

To explain, I will use a precious gem as an anology. Consider God is a large diamond, uncut yet smooth and roundish in shape. This diamond represents God, the mass of energy with no direct surface with which to peer into the reality around you.

As you speak the Word into the darkness, the diamond begins to change, to grow. It becomes the seed from which the Universal plant is springing forth, to mix metaphors.

As it grows, our Creator begins to observe the reality that He has just created. The ever expanding ball of energy and newly formed mass. As this expansion begins, facets begin to form on His surface, each one representing a different person/soul/awareness. In this way he is allowed to see each action individually, rather than the mass of "event" that he would see if only peering out through His own eyes.

This first facet that forms, it would have the greatest level of experience, as it had existed since the Word was spoken. The first child of our Creator.

I believe we are all facets of the same being. Personalities observing and experiencing the creation that He spoke into being.

[edit on 13-2-2010 by bigfatfurrytexan]

posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 11:52 AM

Originally posted by Locoman8
If He was the beginning of all creation, maybe it refers to Jesus actually starting the process of creation and BOOM! Time starts with Him. He was the starting point of creation. Any thoughts on this?

Yes I agree with that.

I have said it many times, time and matter never existed until Jesus Christ was created. Then God empowered him with unlimited holy spirit to create the entire universe including all the life in it.
As you say he was provided with the architectural plans, to create and build it all.

top topics
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum