Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 11
53
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


that sounds like the race of angelic being called a zoa, i do believe, that is covered with eyes. and the 4 rings of the cherubim, covered with eyes, in ezekiel.

[edit on 13-2-2010 by undo]




posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
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.

[edit on 13-2-2010 by bigfatfurrytexan]


Well, I disagree (kind of). There is no mention of the name Yeshua (Jesus' actual name more appropriately translated as Joshua) in the Old Testament as far as him being the savior.

There are, however, numerous scriptures from the OT that point at a Messiah, Savior, and Christ that Jesus did fulfill. In this sense, the OT spoke about Jesus on a very regular basis. One of the things he would be called was Immanuel, meaning "God with us."

This is only theory and is not accepted by doctrine nor is it necessarily what I believe, but some have suggested that the Angel of the Lord mentioned throughout the Old Testament is actually Jesus. I haven't looked into this theory too much as I don't think it has any real significance on the salvation story, though it is interesting.

I can, however, not accept Jesus as not being co-eternal with the Father. Partially due to what was read in John 1. As was mentioned though, this can also leave room to believe that perhaps Jesus was simply the first creation and then everything else was made through him. I disagree on the basis of Jesus calling himself the Alpha and Omega, as well as the previously discussed "I AM", when both terms are reserved strictly for God. I see no way to explain this other than they are one and have always been one.



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 04:29 PM
link   
When Moses asked to see the glory of God was he seeing the Angel of God (possibly Jesus) or the Father?


Exodus 33:18-23


Many people have seen angels in Bible times and lived to tell about it. In this special case with Moses he was not allowed to see this being directly. I would imagine it’s like looking directly into the sun. With the sun your eyes would be burned out. With God your whole body would burn up.

So who was it that really passed by Moses?

I wouldn’t think the earth could handle the physical presence of the Father. With him being the ultimate source of power that put stars, black holes and galaxies together. I would say the glory that Moses saw was a reflection of what the father may look like. I imagine for our safety he has representatives come to earth in his behalf because he is too powerful to be in our solar system, let alone the galaxy.

I believe it was an angel that represented God when Moses was on Mt. Sinai. That angel could have been Jesus but he spoke as if he was YHWH’s mouth piece.



posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by lostinspace
 


yet Jehovah appears before Abraham, along with Adonay , and has a conversation with him. THEN leaves Abe and goes to Sodom and Gomorrah and visits Lot.

something's up with that. cause it says elsewhere that God's glory had to be veiled because it would destroy the viewer. NO MAN HAS SEEN GOD AND LIVED.

i'm thinking we have a case of two different things being described in the text , concerning the appearance of God.



posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by lostinspace
 


while what you say may seem logical, the only issue i have with it is that it is extrapolation and has no direct basis in anything mentioned scripturally. At the end of the day, we are still left with some very contradicting information contained in the bible, with no viable explanation as to how to reconcile the contradiction.

Unless you see it metaphorically, perhaps. But i will not go into that as an ad hoc right now.


Regardless, this is the issue I have with Catholicism, and much of the concepts created during Nicene councils (such as Purgatory, which may be logical but has no basis in the religion it is representing).



posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


Yes, I know your view on this. I, however, don't see Jesus as being a created thing. He was eternally with the Father. The two of them make God. Jesus (as the Word of God or "Spokesperson") started the creation process by order of the Father thus making Jesus the beginning of creation. He did begin the creation process, not by being created but by being the Creator by order of the Father.



posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Locoman8
 


Does a son ever exist at the same time when his father is 5 years old?

How can the father (God) be co-eternal with the son (Jesus)?

Sons always come after their fathers.
There is a reason for the father & son relationship spoken of through the entire bible.



posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by Locoman8
 


Does a son ever exist at the same time when his father is 5 years old?


When time is not a measurement, sure. All things are simultaneous.




How can the father (God) be co-eternal with the son (Jesus)?


When they both were formed of the same primordial essence, existing separately from time.

Pssst....your soul is eternal/co-eternal, too.




Sons always come after their fathers.


On Earth, yes. but "after" implies time, which does not apply in this case.



There is a reason for the father & son relationship spoken of through the entire bible.


Possibly. But it is also possible that we have no clue what that reason is.

I am not arguing. Just wanting to point out that, often, religion is discussed within the narrow confines of personal experience peppered with the prejudice of our own religious beliefs.



posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


Let's not forget that in the OT, Jesus is refered to as the "Word of God" and not the "Son of God". The title, "Son of God" or "Son of Man" did not occur for Him until His fleshly transformation into a human being. The Father caused the Son or "Word" to be concieved by the Holy Spirit which in turn, made the Greater God, the Father and the Lesser God, the Son. Either way, we may be veering off-topic with this. We can have our differences respectfully. I welcome these discussions on this thread but we can try to keep it all tied in with the subject. The subject is "Chronology of Creation in the Bible" which I suppose is acceptable for discussing the creation or eternal existence of Jesus. I just contradicted myself, didn't I? Onward!



posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 07:37 PM
link   
I would state it as: "In the beginning was Conscientiousness, and Conscientiousness was with God, and Conscientiousness was God. "



posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 07:54 PM
link   
That is very interesting and ties into my research. Thank you so much for adding this thread I will have to take a look at these scriptures this summer after school has ended. I only have to add one thing to your information, and that is the 5000 year old growth of humanity. The Jomon Tribe and a couple others that i cannot remember at the moment we have dated back to 12-16K B.C. They had a civilization that was fairly advanced and are most likely responsible for the ruins at Yonaguni Bay. The also carved a Mountain into a terraced structure that I relate to a large scale Zen garden. Anyways, just a slight change to your timeline, but otherwise star and flag from me.
P.S. I don't know the name of the tribe but Mahabalapuram(if I spelled that correctly) in the Indus/Sarasvati valley, Puma Punku(South America), and the ruins of Lake Titicaca also date back almost as old.



posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadowed
 


Well, the humans of 6000 years ago were the first of all civilized societies. What you are explaining is old groups or tribes of people. Carbon-Dating is also not as accurate as people think. Look at the Exodus account. Most bible scholars put the Exodus around the time of Pharoah Ramses around the 1200s or 1300s BCE. A more accurate date due to massive research and archealogical findings puts the Exodus between 1700 and 1500 BCE around the time of Pharoah Akmose. Just something to ponder on.



posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Locoman8
reply to post by Shadowed
 

Well, the humans of 6000 years ago were the first of all civilized societies.


Well, I would argue that this is not specifically anything "Set in Stone" so to speak, and an assumption at the most.

6000 Years ago or so they suggest, Adam and then Eve where created, and as you are more than aware my friend, 6th Day MAN predates Adam and Eve by an unidentified period of Time refered to as at least two days, which in the Eyes of GOD is nothing. It could be two 2600 Year periods or two 5000 Year periods.

I would therefore respectfully suggest, maybe a better Difinative Date maybe 14000 Years ago, and ultilize the Aboriginies Timeframe, because theirs starts in their "Creation Story" about 14000 Years ago.

And this does nothing to take into consideration, anything the Ancients offer about History or Legends or Lore. Atlantis is a 12000 Year Old Story, is it not? (according to Solon through Plato's Account)

I would think your use of 6000 Years ago, (or so) would be fine for describing Agricultural Man.


A more accurate date due to massive research and archealogical findings puts the Exodus between 1700 and 1500 BCE around the time of Pharoah Akmose. Just something to ponder on.


I would fall into the 1550 BCE period, which revolves around the Hykos Period.

And Yes, it is funny how we wish to ignore facts.

You should also be noting, "around the time of Pharoah Akmose", the Brother of Mose. It is important to understand Akmose means Brother of Mose. So when else would we expect Mose to lead his people out of Bondage. 300 years after Moses Brother is dead or 1250 BCE? FN nutty!

Ciao

Shane



posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


With the case of Abraham it seems the three angels materialized as humans. They seemed like they had flesh and blood because they ate the food Abraham provided. The same form the angels took before the flood when they took human wives. One of them called himself Yahweh and the other two weren't named in the Bible. These being definitely had supernatural powers because the two who visited Lot blinded a number of men in Sodom. The angel calling himself Yahweh still could have been a mouth piece for God because no man can see God and yet live. That angel could have been the Word or Jesus that spoke for God. I believe the being that Moses saw was closer to the real form of God. A super bright ball of light/energy that creates galaxies.



posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Shane
 


Interesting enough, people assume that Adam and Eve were created AFTER the 6th day creation of man. Think about this for a minute and reread Genesis chapter 2 again. Chapter two picks up with the 7th day rest. After explaining the Sabbath rest the story picks back up with the creation of man and the first man, Adam (oddly enough, Adam is hebrew for "man").

Genesis 2
5 before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; 6 but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.
7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
8 The LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed. 9 And out of the ground the LORD God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food.

Here we learn that there was no man created to till the ground until God caused it to rain. Man was formed from the dust of the earth and was given the "breath of life" by God. This is nothing more than revisiting day 6 after explaining the 7th day rest. Day six explains the earliest possible history of mankind according to the bible. Of course, as you said, this could possibly be the first human habitants who were agriculturally enabled beings. I guess only the Great Gig in the Sky can tell us the full answer.



posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by lostinspace
reply to post by undo
 


One of them called himself Yahweh and the other two weren't named in the Bible. These being definitely had supernatural powers because the two who visited Lot blinded a number of men in Sodom. The angel calling himself Yahweh still could have been a mouth piece for God because no man can see God and yet live.


Looking at this from another source, we can see what it is you have implied with your response.


Enoch 10:1. Then said the Most High, the Holy and Great One spake, and sent Uriel to the son of Lamech, and said to him: 2. '〈Go to Noah〉 and tell him in my name "Hide thyself!" and reveal to him the end that is approaching: that the whole earth will be destroyed, and a deluge is about to come upon the whole earth, and will destroy all that is on it.


Here we see within the Book of Enoch, Uriel is instructed to "tell Noah in my (GOD's) name."

I also wonder about the Moses Visitation, seeing that Uriel means Fire of GOD or GOD is my Light.

I would believe, such instructions have been given to Many Angels, in many Visitations such as that with Abraham.

It is not unlike the term itself, Angel, namely being a Messenger of GOD.

Ciao

Shane

Enoch Chapter 10



posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Locoman8
 


I would just like to add that the sixth creative day did not end until the creation of the woman Eve. Then the seventh day of rest began. Interestingly we have no date for Eve's creation, but we do know that before that Adam had time to name all the animals. Adams creation date is 4026 BCE.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shane

Originally posted by lostinspace
reply to post by undo


Here we see within the Book of Enoch, Uriel is instructed to "tell Noah in my (GOD's) name."

I also wonder about the Moses Visitation, seeing that Uriel means Fire of GOD or GOD is my Light.

I would believe, such instructions have been given to Many Angels, in many Visitations such as that with Abraham.

It is not unlike the term itself, Angel, namely being a Messenger of GOD.


That is very interesting Shane. I have a copy of Enoch the Prophet but I didn't recall that passage. When I looked it up in my book it said the angel's name was Arsayalalyur, instead of Uriel. My copy is a reprint of the 1883 version translated by Richard Laurence. It seems there are variations in the different documents found on the book of Enoch. The passage still holds weight because in both cases it says God wanted this angel to tell Noah about the flood in God's name. Strange there is a disagreement on what this angel's name was. In the Bible most angels refused to give their names to the ones they were helping. Check out the passages in Judges 13:17-18. I guess they were affraid of being honored or worshiped.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by lostinspace
Strange there is a disagreement on what this angel's name was. In the Bible most angels refused to give their names to the ones they were helping. Check out the passages in Judges 13:17-18. I guess they were affraid of being honored or worshiped.


I will tell you hear and now, I COMPLETELY DISAGREE WITH THIS PRESUMPTION my friend.


Angels, being the messengers of GOD, are doing their Duty to GOD, and in the case of these specific Angels, they have and always will keep the Will of GOD as their priority. They are bound to do as instructed. They seek only to glorify GOD. Not themselves. They are but Tools.

In the cases of dealings with Man, or Woman, in the case of Mary, the message GOD has wished to be presented is done.

Now, if GOD had sent Satan, then this would be another matter, but thankfully the Fallen have Fell.

It is nice to have something that I can argue with you about. Not that the arguement proposed here is one that tears the fabric of religious matter to threads. I just find you have presented so many things that we seemingly have an agreement about, I had to respond.

As for your copy of the Book of Enoch, here's my copy direct to the Index. It is of course from Sacred Texts, which I do seem to find as one of the Best Librarys on the Planet. They do a good job of providing or securing writings covering all Topics.

The Book of Enoch-Main Index

I did note, this is the 1917 Version.

Ciao

Shane



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Shane
 


I have an NRSV bible with the Apocrypha.... that's the best I got for you as far as Enoch goes.





new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join