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.

 

Why did people in the bible live so long?

page: 17
19
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 4 2007 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by kerkinana walsky
 


Oh, I agree that he was off-base on this. But I added the theory as it is one more in a long line of theories trying to explain the "age" of these people.

And thank you for finding that, as my brain seems a few hundred years old and very dull in the memory sector sometimes.




posted on Nov, 5 2007 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by hetman
Byrd - You're asking a lot for this evidence to survive a global catastrophe like the flood. If you accept the assumption that all things continue in the same way as they always did as truth, then your observations could be deemed accurate.

There's no evidence of a global flood. In fact, to the contrary, there is plenty of geological and archaeological and written evidence that there was NO flood.

Flood theorists generally pinpoint the date sometime about 2,500 BC or thereabouts, and are completely unaware that records from Egypt and other ancient civilizations exist for that time period. No flood.

No global sedimentation, distribution of material, burial, distribution of old bones, etc -- no proof of an ancient flood covering the world. We know what it would look like, because we have evidences of local floods at different times and different places... and some yearly floods (like the Nile.)

There is no evidence of a global flood in any of the living ancient things (like the Bristlecone pine, the redwoods, and certain other ancient plants that live to be thousands (and tens of thousands) of years old.


Byrd, Can you prove the flood never happened? I don't think you can. There is recorded storys that say it happened and there records that lead to the contrary. There is no "physical proof" that it never happened, nor can we "physically prove" that it did happen. But face it, more people believe in the Bible and the flood than those that don't, and the fact that people have believed in a global flood for thousands of years seems to aggravate you for some reason.


Its called having faith in something thats greater than the "mortal man" and his mission to gathering proof to discredit Gods existance. Thats all the proof we need.

Millions of people have faith in it, but I guess they're all wrong huh? I like reading your posts. I've read many of your posts, you are very knowlageable on many subjects, but you seem to try your best to disprove anything the Bible says about aqnything.

It's not a book of science or an explation of the universe, but It can be used and has been used for many years in our quest to find out who we are and our purpose in our short time of existance here on earth.
The proof IS that the Bible lives and has stood and will always stand till the end of time. Try not to shoot at it all the time and tear down peoples beliefs.
In the end, we are all together in this quest.

Peace be with you.



posted on Nov, 5 2007 @ 06:47 AM
link   
ok so now please explain how Noah the only survivor of the flood had children of different colours

one red

one yellow

one black

one white

etc



posted on Nov, 5 2007 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Buehlar

Byrd, Can you prove the flood never happened? I don't think you can.


The burden of proof lies with those who say it did happen - moreover, if such a global event occurred we cannot explain why there is no evidence of it, nor the diversity of life existing on the planet today.

Furthermore, neither the Bible nor the earlier Mesopotamian myths actually it affected the whole planet
And many - indeed most - scientists agree that an event did occur that was later immortalised in the Biblical flood story.

So you see, there's no conflict here at all



posted on Nov, 5 2007 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by kerkinana walsky
ok so now please explain how Noah the only survivor of the flood had children of different colours

one red

one yellow

one black

one white

etc


Because God made it so
God can do anything - including reconfiguring the planet so it appears there was never a global flood, and putting all the creatures of land, sea and air back in their right places after they left the Ark


Surely you know that



posted on Nov, 5 2007 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Nygdan
 



Originally posted by Nygdan
Since the whole of genesis is a allegorical story anyway why beleive any of it?


Because we have "faith" in God's word. Faith is something that doesn't require proof. You shoulld know that genius!

I mean, you're so brilliant, can't you figure that out by now? You sound as if you consumed the whole "tree of knowlege" in one bite!

God was right, once you eat the forbidden fruit you are seperated from God. How true this is because you are struggling with your poor soul my friend. Blinded by so much "worldly knowlege" that its impossible for you to see any truth. I'm sure it's not God's will for you.

We can only pray for your vision to be restored.

It's all part of satan's plan to lure believers away from the truth by blinding on from it with worldly agendas. Man's pride and quest to know everything and pushes away God to where He has no part in our creation. Non-believers are decieved by a powerful force that gives them such a desire to discredit the Bible's teachings because without a "sign" or some "physical proof" it makes no sense to them. God needs not to prove Himself, however the proof is all around you. All we have to do is accept that fact. No one can explain God. God just "IS". The best explanination God himself could give Moses was two words, "I AM". It's up to us to find Him.
The bible says in the end times that it would be this way. So that is at least ONE thing even YOU can't deny about the Bible.


Back to the topic eh?

The topic is "Why did people in the bible live longer?" Do you have any valueable contributions towards the topic at hand?
Or does your overwhelming desire to boost your ego, by supplying us with your intelagence/evidence to try disproving the bible, prevent you from such a task?


If you have already "read" the bible, then maybe its time to "study" its meaning without being skeptical. Ask God to show you the truth before you start.
It will change your life friend.`


With that said, I think this is a great topic.
Lots of interesting ideas.



posted on Nov, 6 2007 @ 03:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Buehlar
 
Okay, Preacherman, that will do. Your Bible-thumping adds nothing to this thread; those who believe as you do don't need it, and to those who don't believe it is nothing but an annoyance. We've heard it all before and we don't buy it. As for your attitude and choice of words, they are rude, disruptive and frankly repellent to civilized people.

Either say something interesting or butt out. Thank you.



posted on Nov, 6 2007 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


First of all, it is obvious that this thread deals with a "bibilical" issue.
So, a non-believer should already be "annoyed" simply by reading this thread topic.
The fact that a "non-believer", with no intention of understanding the bible, would even take an interest in reading this thread is mindboggeling, to say the least.

Unless, of course, it's for the sole purpose of attacking the interesting theories that ponder the mind of believers.
It's quite evident that posters have been repeativaly attacking peoples ideas with "the bible is a fairy tale" and the "because it don't stand up using the scientific method" and "show me evidence" or the "thats just stupid" kind of attitude.:down:
We know these ideas aren't perfect, however they are fun to discuss.
We aren't trying to make others prove, disprove or believe these ideas are we?
Just spreading ideas and drawing our own conclusions, right?
Why all the attacks?

May I ask what sparked your interest in such a topic?

As for the "preaching", I was replying to Nygdan's question.....
"Since the whole of genesis is a allegorical story anyway why beleive any of it?"
As a Christian, I believe in spreading God' word. Weather you believe it or not is up to you.
It's funny how a topic that we don't believe happens to somehow annoy us.
Maybe I can't help myself, but here is a little secert.
Our minds are so wicked that they refuse to see the "truth". We must see things as God sees them.
Okay, I'll stop preaching now.


And about my attitude and choice of words. You must have misinturpeted my message.
It was not my intention to be rude, hence my expressions with all of the smiley
faces in my post.
(If I were trying to be rude, I would have used the more appropiate mean and angry red faces like
or
lol)
It was simpily my "failed" attempt at some constructive sarcasiam to reflect the attitude of other posters' and their redundant attempts to discredit peoples ideas simply because of a disbelief in the bible.


In any case, I'm sorry to have annoyed you, however their are some great secular topics out there may be more suitable to your taste.



As for the topic, I'm reading Albert Barns commentary.
It has some interesting facts on how the Hebrew language translates into english.
The "water canopy" theory sound familiar with the water in the heavens and is somewhat in other terms discussed by him too.
I'll post my take on all this after I research some more.
I'll post all references as it seems to be forbidden to post without them.



posted on Nov, 6 2007 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Buehlar
First of all, it is obvious that this thread deals with a "bibilical" issue.
So, a non-believer should already be "annoyed" simply by reading this thread topic.
The fact that a "non-believer", with no intention of understanding the bible, would even take an interest in reading this thread is mindboggeling, to say the least.


May I ask what sparked your interest in such a topic?




From a "non-believers" point.

I still read the bible. Its interesting, and to me is nothing but another book. The reason i read? Simply because its a book of great debate. Why did so many people pick up "The Da'Vinci's Code" and "Angels and Demons"? Because it was in a large debate. People, religious or not, are curious.

Im not annoyed by the topic, in fact it brings a good question. Challenging those who believe and those who don't believe.

You make alot of assumptions "friend".



posted on Nov, 6 2007 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by spaceman16

From a "non-believers" point.

I still read the bible. Its interesting, and to me is nothing but another book. The reason i read? Simply because its a book of great debate. Why did so many people pick up "The Da'Vinci's Code" and "Angels and Demons"? Because it was in a large debate. People, religious or not, are curious.

Im not annoyed by the topic, in fact it brings a good question. Challenging those who believe and those who don't believe.

You make alot of assumptions "friend".


It's not "another book" by all means. It's not a history book nor a science book or any other book up for debate, and shouldn't be considered a such. Yes, its makes for a great debate and is just another book to you, but, its a religious text and has been catagorized as such since it's existance. How do you debate this book in a positive way? It can't be done? Or can it? It's a book of faith weather you believe the book or not.

My whole point exactaclly! Whats the purpose in the "challangeing" of those who "believe" and those who "don't believe"?
Hasn't this "challinging" belief system lead to most wars throught history?

You say I make "assunptions"?
I don't doubt that many non-believers read it out of curiousity or debate. Most non-belivers who have read have believed after reading it. Thats fact. Hence all the believers.
I clearly stated that a non-believer "with no intention of understanding the bible". Weather one falls in that catagory or not is based on ones own understanding alone. No harm intended here.

Astyanax posted an explanation about the base 10 for the ages. Very interesting and a good theory as to the topic, and makes the most sinceout of the matter.

S/He didn't treat all other posters like they were stupid and had answers of no value, but why make the statement that its "the correct answer".?

Is this a "challenge" to be correct?
If it is, let me know as to contine would be pointless because history proves that there is no winners on either side of this "challenge".


Get my point?


I value all ideas and theories but to state them as facts concerning a delicate matter as it may pertain to "any" faith based text is out of the realm of the debate itself.



posted on Nov, 6 2007 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Buehlar


Astyanax posted an explanation about the base 10 for the ages. Very interesting and a good theory as to the topic, and makes the most sinceout of the matter.

S/He didn't treat all other posters like they were stupid and had answers of no value, but why make the statement that its "the correct answer".?


well you need to be aware that there are 23 Biblical Patriarchs in the Bible with silly age claims and there were 23 kings of Kish in the Sumerian king list who's length of reigns need to be adjusted by converting them to base 10.
that and the fact that at the time the bible was written the Hebrews who wrote it were living in Babylon and would have had access to the Kings list. Its been proven over and over that most of the old testament is simply plagiarised texts from the same source anyway. Didn't i see a line by line comparison between excerpts of the flood story in Gilgamesh and the story fo Noah around here somewhere that conclusively proves that that part of the Bible was heavily plagiarised from a story 1500 years older from a polytheist religion

Mesopotamia, which also happens to be where most of the old testament stories are actually set. All except the only one that has never had any archaeological evidence corriborating it. The Exodus

but as has been said already if you want to go debate Religion go do it in the appropriate forum. If your faith is actually faith based why are you so set on proving it.

this discussion is not on the Glory of God but on why an obvious impossibilty was claimed in an ancient text. Thats the Hebrew old testatment, not your revised for Gods non chosen people edition




posted on Nov, 6 2007 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Buehlar

It's not "another book" by all means. It's not a history book nor a science book or any other book up for debate, and shouldn't be considered a such. Yes, its makes for a great debate and is just another book to you, but, its a religious text and has been catagorized as such since it's existance. How do you debate this book in a positive way? It can't be done? Or can it? It's a book of faith weather you believe the book or not.



To some people it is merely that, a history book. To me it is a book full of wonderful children's stories with a twist of history put into it. The bible holds all the elements to making a novel. Its got, hero's, fantasy, super-powers, love, romance, fighting, wars, beating the odds, small people overcoming great things.

The only differnece is that you say it was god influenced, i say it was man influenced.



Originally posted by Buehlar
My whole point exactaclly! Whats the purpose in the "challangeing" of those who "believe" and those who "don't believe"?
Hasn't this "challinging" belief system lead to most wars throught history?


The purpose of challenging each other, is a simple answer. To get you to re-consider your beliefs. Its human nature to recruit people to what you believe, because you feel you are right.


Originally posted by Buehlar

You say I make "assunptions"?
I don't doubt that many non-believers read it out of curiousity or debate. Most non-belivers who have read have believed after reading it. Thats fact. Hence all the believers.
I clearly stated that a non-believer "with no intention of understanding the bible". Weather one falls in that catagory or not is based on ones own understanding alone. No harm intended here.



You do make assumptions, we all make assumptions. I simply said you make alot of them. You contradict yourself here. You say "I don't doubt that many non-believers read it out of curiousity". Then you turn around and say "I clearly stated that a non-believer"with no intention of understanding the bible".

You already answered your question of why people who dont believe read the bible. For entertainment. Why do you go to the movies, read a book, or play sports? Same reason.




Originally posted by Buehlar

Is this a "challenge" to be correct?
If it is, let me know as to contine would be pointless because history proves that there is no winners on either side of this "challenge".




Yes its a challenge to be correct.In essence every argument is a challenge to be correct. Thats the purpose of debate. If you knew that walking in here, and don't want to continue debating because of that, you would have never posted in the first place.


Originally posted by Buehlar

Get my point?



no


Originally posted by Buehlar
I value all ideas and theories but to state them as facts concerning a delicate matter as it may pertain to "any" faith based text is out of the realm of the debate itself.


So are you saying you don't believe your faith/ religion to be the true and only religion? (yes thats a personal question, no i don't want you to answer it)



posted on Nov, 6 2007 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by kerkinana walsky

well you need to be aware that there are 23 Biblical Patriarchs in the Bible with silly age claims and there were 23 kings of Kish in the Sumerian king list who's length of reigns need to be adjusted by converting them to base 10.
that and the fact that at the time the bible was written the Hebrews who wrote it were living in Babylon and would have had access to the Kings list. Its been proven over and over that most of the old testament is simply plagiarised texts from the same source anyway. Didn't i see a line by line comparison between excerpts of the flood story in Gilgamesh and the story fo Noah around here somewhere that conclusively proves that that part of the Bible was heavily plagiarised from a story 1500 years older from a polytheist religion

Mesopotamia, which also happens to be where most of the old testament stories are actually set. All except the only one that has never had any archaeological evidence corriborating it. The Exodus



Yes.
This does support a the probability of ages being miscalculated. Bibilical prophet Daniel, as wells as other captives durig the exile, would have had access to these records. However he would have already known the traditional/oral history of his on Hebrew ancestory that would perhaps coincied with the records of these ancient Kings.
Just maybe its a possibility that Daniel had recognized these written accounts to be an ancestory that he was also a part of and very fiamiliar with?


This in no way would mean that the Hebrews stole and/or plagiarised these accounts from Sumerian records and Epic accounts of a flood etc. to make up their own version. Just facts to back it up. To Daniel, it would be proof of his past and support for his known oral/traditional herritage.
Or am I completely wrong on this?

Interesting stuff.

Any thoughts on this?



posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by spaceman16
 



Okay spaceman


Fair enough buddy

You win, I won't/can't compete with ya

Chalk this one up to ya.

Truce?



posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Buehlar

This in no way would mean that the Hebrews stole and/or plagiarised these accounts from Sumerian records and Epic accounts of a flood etc. to make up their own version. Just facts to back it up. To Daniel, it would be proof of his past and support for his known oral/traditional herritage.
Or am I completely wrong on this?



you are completely wrong on this
The Sumerian Kings of Kish were not Hebrew and the time they were living there was no such thing as Hebrew, not for at least another 2000 years

I found this post which lays it all out nicely
www.abovetopsecret.com...
it contains the line by line comparisons between Mesopotamian stories told to entertain and the undisputed word of God that was derived from them




posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Buehlar
reply to post by spaceman16
 



Okay spaceman


Fair enough buddy

You win, I won't/can't compete with ya

Chalk this one up to ya.

Truce?


No, mainly because im not your friend and im not your buddy. And the rejection of further argument, simply shows that you do not feel comfortable pushing your beliefs. Not that you are "the bigger man" by walking away.



posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 03:37 AM
link   
reply to post by spaceman16
 
Oh, let him go. We had a really interesting thread here - lots of different people posting their answers to the original question, debates about the viability of the answers and so on. Then along he comes with his kindergarten take on Bible scholarship - 'every word is true I know, 'cause the Bible tells me so!' - and all intelligent conversation ceases. In its place comes the usual Babel of confrontation, accusation and bitterness.

As Christopher Hitchens aptly put it: religion poisons nearly everything.



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 09:43 PM
link   
Why do you all need to rationalize the longevity record in Genesis? None of you believe in the scriptures anyway. Just throw the good ole book out and talk about the more important things like CSI Miami and House.

Why rationalize about something you can't comprehend?
Is it so hard to believe that the earth could have benefited man and beast long ago?

I rather enjoy trying to figure out why it may be true.

The faithless see the world as being the way it has always been.
The religious claim that the world is only a temporary residence, before going home to heaven.

Both are wrong. The earth and the physical heavens have been damaged on purpose, but are awaiting a restoration. Revelation 21:5 says this about a future era, "Behold, I am making all things new." Don't forget about Revelation 21:1.

The original project was put on hold because of three rebels. There was a trend forming. Independence from authority can be fun. Or is it? Would you get robbed every day if there were no police to protect you? I'd hate to imagine the situation if it were true.



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by GriBiT
I've always been intersted in the long life spans spoke about in the bible. Life spans of 100's of years. Over 900 in the case of Adam. Then they slowly decrease over time. After "Noas flood" they decreased even more until they reached the average age that we have now (70 years give or take). Whenever I think of this I recall a book by Irwin Ginsburgh, Ph.D. and his book "First, Man. Then Adam!". He reviews Genisis from a different perspective. Implying that travelers (with long life spans) crashed and were marooned here and mixed with humans here on Earth, then over time the "Alien" age span decreased as it was diluted over the many generations until modern times. He also goes into other aspects of Genesis like that when God said l"let there be light" it may have refered to the big bang. Also passages such as something refering to old scripture saying Adam came to the third planet from the sun, as if from outside out solar system. My excerpts don't do his thesis justice, but you get the general idea.

Wanted to get this started while I continued research on this.

This link shows a chart of ages in the bible as a start.
On this site they have a different hypothethis, but I don't fully agree with it. They talk about the age dropping after "Noas flood" but it took quite a while for the life span to slowly decrease. I really added this link just to show a visual of the life spans in the bible in a chart.

Bible Life Span Chart

I really want to find something online to link to about the book "First, Man. Then, Adam!" I'll keep searching. In the mean time....Your thoughts?


Nature balances things out.

As a popuklation grows, life spans decrease. as a population decreaases, fifespans increase.

Who knows how we humans adapt to our enfironments, mabe in a single sex environment, a gene to change sex might activate..lol

It's all in the DNA!!



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 07:38 AM
link   
Diet?
Right after the flood, two things happened.

1) Man was given permission to eat anything that existed.
It is taught (in some Jewish orthodox circles at least) that before the flood man was vegetarian.
2) The life span was cut short from man.

Can the two be linked? I dont see why not. (you are what you eat...look into science and physics, quantum mechanics, to see how things affect each other. Doesnt necessarily spell the end to eating meat - the 'power of prayer' is more than some mystical mix of words that are often spoken quickly by those who say it out of habit. Again...your intent and how this affects the quantum world.) A lot of things we are only now beginning to understand..."my people perish due to their lack of knowledge".

You may say, what about the vegetarians today? Well how do genes work and how do you switch them on and off. The bbc had a cool documentary called the ghost of your genes, which was interesting.

So I would say that unless you know what you are doing and actively approach that goal - that for the most part you would not see a reverse trend to people suddenly living as long as before the flood.

Was it strictly vegetarianism that helped? Or were they just conscious of bringing on lower vibes from what they ate?

Again, in Judaism (some orthodox circles at least) it is said Adam had a body of light and 'fell' (vibrational wise) into a body of skin.

Dont think God was into making fashion statements for Adam and Eve when the fall happened. (i.e., he didnt go out and kill an animal and put the skin on adam...no purpose. Being naked isnt a sin.) When you see the allegories for what they are (and again, if Christians realized that the foundation of their belief, Judaism, taught things in allegories - then they might 'evolve' mentally. Even Jesus, a Jew, gives a good example of this by always speaking in parables. Again, he had to use words to try to explain some hard concepts to people who would not have understood quantum mechanics...definitely were not even open to what he taught most of the time, that were on a basic level...like love yourself and your enemies.), so when you see the allegories/parables for what they are and you consider quantum mechanics/string theory, etc. then you will consider the fact that Adam basically did not put on animal skin, but in a sense, became the animal. (talk about evolution. doesnt matter if it was ape or man...he fell and the fall had consequences...and not those taught by mainstream religions.)

Anyway, a bit of info here to try to connect the dots with. Basic thing is to think outside the box and see what you find.


Peace

dAlen

[edit on 6-12-2007 by dAlen]



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join