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.

 

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

page: 9
54
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2010 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Locoman8
 



I really like your post. It was very well done. Your def onto something. I've also thought the same thing




posted on Feb, 4 2010 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Karilla
 


Thanks for the heads up and correction. Alternate Demension is what I was refering to. Also, the stars were ABOVE the firmament. Peace.



posted on Feb, 5 2010 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by lostinspace
reply to post by Locoman8
 


Ezekiel 28:12-15


I don't care who that was about, that was both beautiful and saddening at the same time.



posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by riddle6
 


Indeed it was. Lucifer had all the makings of a great angel/servant of God but his ego got in his way.



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 12:28 AM
link   
I havent read every post here, but I am encouraged to see some thoughtful discussion and meditation over God's word. Good going guys.

I saw something about the expanse that God put between the waters and some confusion over it. Bottom waters are our oceans, seas, etc. Then you have the sky, or expanse, and then you have the waters above the sky. I have no idea how God kept these waters up there, but it sounds to me like there was a ton of water floating above most of our atmosphere.

Remember, it never rained until the flood, as everything was watered by the dew. I'm curious if this thick layer of water above the sky was key in fending off radiation from the sun which would have slowly shortened the lives of the people on Earth. God did gradually make them die off younger and younger after the flood (giving them a final lifespan of no longer than 120 years, but lifespans weren't made to fit that time-frame immediately). Was this layer of water a form of protection? Maybe. How did it stay up there until the flood? I have no idea. I don't think it was clouds because it would have kept the planet too dark, but who knows.

This also leads to the question of "Where did all the water go after the flood?" Perhaps this is for another forum but anyway, some more thoughts...

The clouds and the icebergs probably make up a good bit of it, but science has shown that it is not nearly enough. I'm thinking that the water went back down under the tectonic plates. Some of the flood waters burst forth from the deep. It is my thought that the land was something similar to what is laid out in the Pangaea theory before the flood. The waters bursting forth and then returning under the plates might have caused some major disruptions that made the super-continent split and move across the planet in a fashion much faster than what scientists have determined by recent measurements.

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.

Just a thought from a person always trying to figure stuff out. I may be way off though. Any thoughts, suggestions or theories?

God bless.



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 03:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Mykahel
 


Thanks for contributing. Very interesting theories. I maintain that I will not know all the answers until God reveals it to me but these are good points you bring up about the flood. I've heard the underwater theory too. Water spouting out from below at the time of the flood. Some people have also theorized that the flood was not a total global flood but that a major portion of earth flooded. I guess we'll never know unless we can find the ARK.



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 06:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Locoman8
 


Just like how Annakin had the makings of a great Jedi, but the Dark Side got in the way.

Both two interesting stories, to be sure.



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mykahel
This also leads to the question of "Where did all the water go after the flood?"


Maybe the Great Pyramid has something to do with this, maybe it was used to pulse pump and shoot the water up out and away from earth?

Did the builders know of a coming flood?

Also in regards to a world wide flood(s) maybe could be related to the high altitude cities of the mid-west and central america?




posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Solofront
 


There is no geological evidence of a global flood, so maybe you should concentrate on that massive flaw first.



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by davesidious
 


Actually, there is evidence of said flood. I know that some of it has to do with the sediment layers and fossils. Another strong argument has to do with the fact that the Middle East is where some of the largest oil deposits are, and that is also the area that the garden of Eden once was. If the garden was perfect and full of lush vegetation and animals, it would make sense that a global flood would destroy and bury such as wonderful place under heavy layers of sediment and cause their decay into oil. This part ios mostly theory however, but is cause for great interest.

Check out these sites for some more info/opinions on the flood and how it all took place. I actually found my theory on one of them, but as they point out the waters from above wouldn't have been enough, but I still think that there was some and the pages explain why having a thin layer of water above the sky would have created a perfect planet where even the poles were capable of producing and supporting vegetation and animals.

www.christiananswers.net...
www.allaboutcreation.org...
www.gotquestions.org...

Again, most of these are theories but they at least provide some evidence and probable theories for how it all went down. I found them to be very helpful and insightful.

Have fun researching, I did.

Edit: Concerning the global/local flood debate. The Bible itself says that the flood waters were 20 ft above the highest mountains of the area. We do not know what the mountains around the rest of the world would have looked like at this time, but they might have been very low to begin with. After all, if the Pangaea theory has any significance, the highest mountains might not have even existed until after the flood when the large land masses crashed into each other after splitting. This would make it possible that far less water would have even been needed to cover up the tallest mountains. Just another thought, I have a lot of them... some better than others :-).

[edit on 9-2-2010 by Mykahel]



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Mykahel
 


I believe the deluge waters are still covering the planet. The planet is mostly covered in water so it kind of makes sense where it went.

I also believe the flood was meant to reduce the life spans of humans. Remember God said man's thoughts in his heart were wicked continually. Imagine a great evil leader ruling a country for hundreds of years. Usually a change in rulership can help an oppressed people. God wanted many types of governments to be tried in an imperfect world. If there were rulers that lived hundreds of years then not many types could have be experimented with. The whole point was to show that human rulers can't make everyone happy and that the future kingdom of God was to be the best replacement.

I imagine the waters above the expense were suspended in some sort of lattice network that allowed sunlight to pass through. When the lattice broke the waters condensed and formed giant thunder clouds all over the planet. The sun would have blocked out for days while the clouds purged themselves.

What broke this lattice network you might ask? Well God was so determined to make this change he went so far as to destroy one of the planets in the solar system. A busted up planet creates some nice asteroids for a turkey shoot.

This solar system is quite a mess for a perfect God. He has loose rocks all over the place waiting to bust up the planet again. I challenge all of you to take a look at any astronomy book on our solar system and see the rubble that orbits most of the planets.



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Mykahel
 


Sediment in one part of the world is not evidence of a global flood. Also, water can not simply disappear from the face of the planet. So no, there is not actually any evidence of a global flood.

Your linked hypotheses are just that. They have no basis in actual science, and are just people trying to find evidence to support their claims, instead of basing their claims on what the evidence suggests. It is the very antithesis of science to do that, but believers do, because they have to (so they don't have to admit that their bible is just a story, like countless others).

There is plenty of evidence that Pangaea existed, but that was 250 million years ago, and has nothing to do with floods. Mount Everest existed back then, and has for millions of years before the alleged floods, and it is a damn sight higher than 20 ft.



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by davesidious
 


Science has been finding stuff to support their theories before they had the evidence as long as science has existed. It may not be the proper way to do it, but science is far from doing things "right" even most of the time. This is evidenced by their continual change in theory after theory, each claiming the previous ones to be wrong.

I never said the water simply disappeared. It would seem to me that it eventually returned to its original place under the tectonic plates. Sounds reasonable.

All of the dates that science gives for millions/billions of years are given using measurements that are far from accurate. Isotope readings and such have even given results showing that something that was alive had died a few thousand years ago (some oyster or something I believe, don't remember the article).

If your argument is that Christians search for evidence to support their claims because they don't want to admit their Bible is just a story, I would suggest this...

Science does the same thing so that they can believe they are not responsible to a Power higher then themselves. Lets face it, science has been in the business of trying to disprove God for a very long time. Personally, I think it is so they can sleep better at night not having to worry about being accountable to a perfect and all-powerful being that they have no control over, unlike the conditions of their little experiments. Shall we continue pointless bantering or get back to the topic at hand?



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Mykahel
 


If that is how someone acts, it is not science. "Even most of the time"? What the hell are you smoking? Can you even back that up with evidence? Of course you can't, as you are trying to paint science as some sort of biased crackpottery, which it by definition can not be.

You are absolutely full of it. You clearly don't understand even the basic tenets of the scientific method. You try to malign it, to pervert it, to portray a twisted, sycophantic methodology that only tries to prove what it wants. You are describing religion, not science.

You are so ignorant on these matters it'd be laughable if you were a character in a film. Unfortunately for the world you are a real person.

Your lack of objectivity disgusts me. No wonder Christians get such a bad wrap. If they think like you, they deserve it.



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   
There are many Christians who accept the Old Earth Theory as well as that the flood was only local and not global. I do not fall into either of these camps but I am looking into them and trying to decide the validity of these claims.

Answersincreation.org

The above website take a local flood and old earth stance and firmly believes that a Christian can hold both views and not be contradicting scripture at all.



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Mykahel
 


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

The whole thing is pathetic.



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by Mykahel
 


If that is how someone acts, it is not science. "Even most of the time"? What the hell are you smoking? Can you even back that up with evidence? Of course you can't, as you are trying to paint science as some sort of biased crackpottery, which it by definition can not be.


Sure, how about...
Global Warming? Need I say more. Science has become corrupt in part due to the government pushing its agenda and in part due to the greed of the companies supporting the science. "Science has proven that our product could save your life!" - Nevermind we paid them to do the research.
thestatsblog.wordpress.com...



You are absolutely full of it. You clearly don't understand even the basic tenets of the scientific method. You try to malign it, to pervert it, to portray a twisted, sycophantic methodology that only tries to prove what it wants. You are describing religion, not science.


Right, because science is perfect and can do no wrong correct? I know all about the scientific method and what it entails. They taught that in grade-school for goodness sake. At least they used to, don't know what kind of foolishness they are teaching now.



You are so ignorant on these matters it'd be laughable if you were a character in a film. Unfortunately for the world you are a real person.


There are a lot of people that are glad I am a real person, or maybe I am just a figment of your imagination that is arguing with you via a forum.



Your lack of objectivity disgusts me. No wonder Christians get such a bad wrap. If they think like you, they deserve it.


How have I not been objective? I simply turned the table to show you that science is just as bad as religion as far as trying to get the facts to fit their preconceived agenda. This isnt always the case and definitely isn't how it should be, but you are convinced that religion is evil and science is the only real answer. I am here to say that I disagree and think you are wrong.



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Mykahel
 


Where is the experiment that demonstrated God exists? Until you can show me that, you are wrong.



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by davesidious
 


Try looking at the creation around you. It's a good place to start. Pure, logical, unbiased, objective evaluation of the beauty that surrounds us should be more than enough. All creation declares His glory.

Nothing will ever "prove" God to anyone, as it is a matter of faith. The skeptical mind would deny God's existence even if he appeared to them face to face. God is not a "thing" to be tested by science, for who can contain Him or understand His very existence?

Back to the OP perhaps?



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Mykahel
 


Thanks for proving my point. The fact you can't prove god, and yet Christians say he exists, shows the lack of rational thought in Christianity. Science doesn't deal with such nonsense. Looking around us doesn't prove God. From what I can see around me now, I know how each and every object was formed, and "invisible Jewish sky wizard with zombie Jewish son" isn't needed to explain it.

The aberrations you highlight in scientific research are the exceptions, whereas the illogical, irrational behaviour in Christianity is the norm. Please don't pretend that there is something inherently logical in Christianity, as that's about as intellectually dishonest as you can get.



new topics

top topics



 
54
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join