Why did people in the bible live so long?

page: 6
19
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 06:24 PM
link   


It is believed by many, and there is evidence to support this theory, that the world before Noah had one climate, exisitng benath a vapor canopy. This canopy would have filtered all harmful UV rays from the sun, dramatically extending all life.

Rubbish, no such thing ever happened, nor is there any evidence to support this theory.




posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zero Point



It is believed by many, and there is evidence to support this theory, that the world before Noah had one climate, exisitng benath a vapor canopy. This canopy would have filtered all harmful UV rays from the sun, dramatically extending all life.

Rubbish, no such thing ever happened, nor is there any evidence to support this theory.


Well, you've both claimed to be stating fact but neither of you has named a source. Does one of you want to back up your arguement, or is this thread just a chance for everyone to weigh in on their religious opinions? Perhaps somebody can cite evidence from icecores? Or here's a question- If there was a cannopy, would it have hindered the formation of radiocarbon? If so, then there should be an observable change at some point in earths history, at which carbon dates would appear to leap forward considerably within a narrow strata.



posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 07:20 PM
link   


Well, you've both claimed to be stating fact but neither of you has named a source. Does one of you want to back up your arguement, or is this thread just a chance for everyone to weigh in on their religious opinions? Perhaps somebody can cite evidence from icecores? Or here's a question- If there was a cannopy, would it have hindered the formation of radiocarbon? If so, then there should be an observable change at some point in earths history, at which carbon dates would appear to leap forward considerably within a narrow strata.

eh? I hadn't even mentioned religion. Science can account for climatic conditions
going back far further than the times these events were supposed to have occured in, and nowhere is it mentioned that only a few poultry 10,000 or so years ago that the Earth was 'surrounded in vapour'. I didn't bother to play teacher with the facts because:
A:Science seems to be a dirty word in these parts and is dismissed with ridicule.
B: I assumed that most people have had sufficient education to know the history of their planet, without me having to play teacher.
C: It's not like the geological history is hanging on whether or not I can persuade you of it's validity.....
D: Anyway I was just reacting with incredulous contempt....after all the motto at the top of the page says 'deny ignorance'...
E: It's so laugable it's sad...People get sunburnt on cloudy days to...


[edit on 6-8-2004 by Zero Point]



posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zero Point
eh? I hadn't even mentioned religion.

Of course you didn't- you were too busy claiming that somebody's justification of his religion was debunked, without providing evidence.



Science can account for climatic conditions going back far further than the times these events were supposed to have occured in, and nowhere is it mentioned that only a few poultry 10,000 or so years ago that the Earth was 'surrounded in vapour'.

A. If science can account for it then get accounting. People toss the word science around as if the word itself were evidence. Yet to invoke the mighty name of science in defense of your opinion, wouldn't you need to base your findings on empirical evidence?
B. You mean paltry; Poultry is just a less appetizing word for "omelet."
C. (at the risk of seeming redundant) Could you point to some form of evidence? I don't want an exhaustive research paper, just something that attempts to explain the reasoning behind your opinion.



I didn't bother to play teacher with the facts because:
A:Science seems to be a dirty word in these parts and is dismissed with ridicule.
B: I assumed that most people have had sufficient education to know the history of their planet, without me having to play teacher.
C: It's not like the geological history is hanging on whether or not I can persuade you of it's validity.....
D: Anyway I was just reacting with incredulous contempt....after all the motto at the top of the page says 'deny ignorance'...
E: It's so laugable it's sad...People get sunburnt on cloudy days to...
[edit on 6-8-2004 by Zero Point]


A. Only "science" without empirical support.
B. If your only defense is to dogmatically assert that any dissenting viewpoint is patently ignorant (without any mention of which facts that viewpoint supposedly ignores) then teaching is the only business for you- debate, and certainly research are out of your league.
C. Of course not, but even assuming that you are right (I'm pretending to be neutral for the moment) to attack the validity of a claim without in anyway establishing the validity of your own claim is a waste of words. Why rebuke a man if you can't tell him what is right? The only imaginable reason is to belittle him for the benefit of your own ego (or to farm points by not letting trivial things like reason interfere with the speed and volume of your replies.)
D. So reacting with incredulous contempt rather than curiosity and regard for evidence is the key to embracing knowledge and denying ignorance? I've gone for the jugular in more than a few threads here, but I've spent untold hours researching almost every word of it. You'd be shocked just how much there is that you don't know, and yet aren't aware that you don't know, until you start ANSWERING questions instead of scoffing at them with incredulous contempt.
E. I'm not laughing. I'm in mourning for the ATS motto, which you have so grotesquely slain.



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 07:15 AM
link   
Cabon dating I was told is good only for maybe a few thousand years at most.After that it gets widly exaggerated or makes no sense at all.Then,paleontologists merely consult the book for the "correct" date and ignor the carbon reading.
The reason,radio carbon is not equal through all parts of the artifact.

You are dating ,not bones,but fossils of them.

Ancient strata tends to be compressed.



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 09:17 PM
link   
The flooding didn't occur in Earth but in Mars!

The humans used to live in Mars and Noah fleed Mars using a space ship, or a space ark??!.

We lived for too long because Mars takes much longer to circulate the Sun than Earth.


... I don't know, I just came with this theory!!!!



posted on Aug, 8 2004 @ 06:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by stgeorge
Cabon dating I was told is good only for maybe a few thousand years at most.After that it gets widly exaggerated or makes no sense at all.Then,paleontologists merely consult the book for the "correct" date and ignor the carbon reading.
The reason,radio carbon is not equal through all parts of the artifact.

You are dating ,not bones,but fossils of them.

Ancient strata tends to be compressed.


It looks to me like I've struck a nerve with a creationist. (Anyone who enjoys doing that, just write "carbon 14 isn't a complete and total nonsense" on a cheap t-shirt and wear it to church- we'll all miss you.)

First things first, nobody with a degree (hopefully Byrd will bare me out on this) is dumb enough to carbon date a bone-shaped rock and say they've got a valid date. Not all fossils are imprints and castings made of sediment. If conditions are not such that any organism can "eat" the material, and there are no chemicals present with which the material will react, then the material should survive. If you don't believe me I'll see if I can get signed testimony from my grandfather and maybe a few other oil men who can testify to the fact that a type of jointed plant which has not existed for over a million years is often brought up by the drill just before striking oil. In other words, there ARE fossils which can be carbon dated.

I am aware that the half life of carbon 14 makes it useless at a certain point. Afterall, if it should be completely degraded to nothing in X amount of years, then how can it yield a date of X+1 million? The issue in question however is fairly recent. We're probably looking for an event that bible scholars would place 'round about 2400 BC, and if I were just going to pick a semi-random number, it would be 5500 BC. I'm not -SURE- but I think that's in the window for C-14. Strata may be compressed, however I'm again gonna go out on a limb and just guess that if you got 1000+ years difference in similar material from within inches of eachother, you could guess that there was a problem, and that is what I am suggesting that we look for.

What might you expect if there had been a flood caused by the loss of a vapor cannopy (all theoretical now). a bit of a tree dated to 2500 BC, an inch or two of sediment, then the same sort of tree dated to 2300 BC, with no tree specimens between those dates? That would be the best case scenario i know, but would that not be interesting, especially if it was found repeatedly?

What if there was a certain level of C-14 that nothing seemed to have? For example, if we had a bunch of similar bones dated in a broad range dated 50 years before year X, and a bunch of similar bones dated in a broad range 50 years after year X, but very very very few or none dated within 49 years of year X?

Am I way off in la-la land all by my lonesome, or does anybody else understand my point, (even maybe agree that such evidence would be worthy of consideration?)



posted on Aug, 8 2004 @ 07:28 AM
link   
Longevity was the issue. Years were not the same.The Earth and other planets have changed in their rotations through "almost planetary collision".
Now the prophets seemed to go off on sabatticals or pilgrimages to get away.Why? That was to commune or we should say commincate with the Visitors or those in higher authority.The reason for privacy I already explained in an article,the same with me,no gaudy demonstrations of power until these awed primitives fall to their hands and knees.
During ,you might even call it an abduction,the prophet or liason,was spoken with, any health issues addressed to,thus increasing the life span.For he was performing a valuable function.
Another channeler (long since removed off the Internet) said "No harm may come to any abductee.None will commit suicide."
I am a personal testement to that,having contemplated doing away with myself in a fit of depression. That is when these "angels" or "demons" came to the rescue. You have heard of such interventions before.
Well,good to feel wanted.As to longevity,it was remarked that I seem youngish for my 45 years. I remember some operations they performed.

[edit on 9-8-2004 by stgeorge]



posted on Aug, 8 2004 @ 11:21 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?



Hello,

When Adam was created, and then Eve later pulled out of his right side, they were in perfect health. It was not even necessary at this time for them to be meat-eaters because the ground was extremely fertile, so therefore, the fruits and veggies would have been totally sufficient to sustain them. There was a 'canopy' of water which covered the entire earth. This canopy blocked out the harmful rays of the sun. The earth's surrounding atmosphere was different at this time. There was probably a pinkish glow to everything. Actually, Adam and Eve would have been physically larger. I'm just trying to give you a visual image of them, I guess.

Then when the great flood happened, the canopy which enveloped the entire earth's atmosphere burst, and for the first time a bombardment of harmful rays of the sun were allowed to come through. BTW, I'm just trying to make it simple. There's actually a lot of study to this.

These harmful rays affected mankind. You can see it in two ways. One, it caused genetic changes such as other races of peoples. I don't know if anyone realizes this or not, but Adam's name means ruddy, like to show blood in the face. So this is the first instance of other races.

Two, the bombardment of harmful rays affected mankind's length of years. It didn't happen overnight, but it took some time. You start seeing people's lifespan shorter now.

Hope this helps.

Tiza



posted on Aug, 8 2004 @ 11:29 AM
link   
If we all lived really long life spans, like 900 years or so the population would overload the earth's resources. Maybe nature or God has a way of controlling the population by makeing lifespans shorter?
Makes sense to me!



posted on Aug, 8 2004 @ 11:43 AM
link   
I haven't seen on this thread what I heard from a preacher a few years ago...

You had Adam and Eve out of the garden. They were the perfect humans made by the hand of god. They had children who they passed their genes on to. These children had children with each other which weakened those genes. Their children had children which continued this process until it got to an equalibriam state where multiple strong genes combined to create divergent strains that no longer weakend each other when mixed. This has continued this way to this day.

- Was



posted on Aug, 8 2004 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by elaine
If we all lived really long life spans, like 900 years or so the population would overload the earth's resources. Maybe nature or God has a way of controlling the population by makeing lifespans shorter?
Makes sense to me!


Hello,
There were only eight surving people after the flood. There was no population worry then for sure! But before the flood I'm sure there were lots of people. However, not everyone lived to be 900. People would have still died, some natural causes or being killed in accidents. Plus the nephelim (giants) were killing off a lot of people. Hence was the reason for the flood because of all the evil.

About the 'canopy,' in the Hebrew it's the raqiya, i.e., open expanse.
Gen. 1:6-8, "And eloahim said, Let there be a raqiya in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters. And eloahim made the open expanse and divided the waters which were under the open expanse from the waters which were above the open expanse. And it was so. And eloahim called the open-expanse 'shamayim' (heavens)...."

This open expanse was at this time created by forcing waters into the upper atmosphere. BTW, this is talking about water vapors.

Notice this in Gen. 2:2-6, "These are the generations of the shamayim (heavens) and the earth when they were created in the day that eloahim made the earth and shamayim. No shrub of the field was yet sprung up; for Yahweh eloahim had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground, BUT THERE WENT UP A MIST FROM THE EARTH AND WATERED THE WHOLE FACE OF THE GROUND."

There was a cooling effect going on at this time because the earth had previously become tohu and bohu (meaning waste and wild) before Yahweh started making and renewing the earth.

The canopy which surrounded the earth created a hot-house effect too, but the rain which would fall would cause it to cool down.

There is simply a ton of stuff in Genesis, even in just the first few words in the Hebrew that requires weeks of study. It starts out telling you in the Hebrew that there was a previous world-age, actually. Then when you put the Scriptures together precept upon precept, line upon line (Isa. 28:9f), it reveals that world-age was the age of the dinosaurs. These were destroyed by Yahweh himself probably by an asteroid or asteroids. Then earth then became tohu and bohu, (wasted and wild, destruction). This world-age is called the Adamaic world-age. The Scriptures actually speak of several world-ages, not just one.

Tiza



posted on Aug, 8 2004 @ 06:58 PM
link   
This idea of decreasing life span is in Hinduism as well.

Kings used to rule for 100's of years, and they were huge back then. But they continually decreased in size until our present height and size.

In Hinduism, the world goes through a cycle of 4 ages: Satya (Truth/Golden) Yuga, Treta Yuga (Silver Age), Dwapara Yuga (Bronze Age), and Kali Yuga (Iron Age). We're in the last cycle, before it starts all over again, and we're right back to Satya Yuga.

The meaning of the yugas is that in each age, it represents how much VIRTUE or how connected to God mankind is. In the Golden Age, men are just like God in their creative potential. They are yoked in the divine order, they follow the divine plan pretty closely. From there it degenerates until this age where men live their lives in a chaotic way, disconnected from God, and live in sin.

There's a man named Gopi Krishna who activated his shakti through Kundalini, he wrote several books about it. He claimed that living over 100's of years is actually possible!

By the way, I do not subscribe to the theory that aliens actually crashed down here and were the ones to live 100's of years. According to Hinduism, though it does speak of vimanas which were ridden by men and may actually be the UFO's people talk about these days, it was these MEN who lived 100's of years and were towering giants. Some could modulate their size, fly, were telepathic, etc.



posted on Aug, 8 2004 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tiza
There is simply a ton of stuff in Genesis, even in just the first few words in the Hebrew that requires weeks of study. It starts out telling you in the Hebrew that there was a previous world-age, actually. Then when you put the Scriptures together precept upon precept, line upon line (Isa. 28:9f), it reveals that world-age was the age of the dinosaurs. These were destroyed by Yahweh himself probably by an asteroid or asteroids. Then earth then became tohu and bohu, (wasted and wild, destruction). This world-age is called the Adamaic world-age. The Scriptures actually speak of several world-ages, not just one.
Tiza


This is extremely interesting to me. If you can give me the verses relating to previous world ages I'll spare you the trouble of teaching me and look it all up myself, however complex it may be. I'm very eager to verify this. Thanks.



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 08:22 AM
link   
I am sorry.most of you people are just floatsom and jetsom.

You have to prove yourself to the Creator! Then you get Acension,Everlasting Life,ect.

Animals were on earth first.Therfore your God is an animal.A Nature God.
I have met Rothshamon.
Coppertone,horns,(head I could not see) claws,8 feet tall,very wise and forebearing. Has this "aura" about Him.

[edit on 9-8-2004 by stgeorge]



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 08:44 AM
link   
Why they lived so long?
Because they had pure alien genes.
They didnt mix too much with the human race yet...



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 01:10 PM
link   

This is extremely interesting to me. If you can give me the verses relating to previous world ages I'll spare you the trouble of teaching me and look it all up myself, however complex it may be. I'm very eager to verify this. Thanks.


Hello,
Just as soon as I get a chance, I'll surely give you the verses. I'm working on a job right now, but I should be finished today sometime.

Yes, it's so interesting. I'll also send a link soon to something very interesting, if I can find it.

Tiza



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Check these links out. Notice the first row of pictures and look to the far right-hand side at the femur: www.stevequayle.com...

Also, he has a book out. I've never read it, but I have studied about the Nephelim (giants) and about the pre-Adamaic world-age. His book might be interesting. www.stevequayle.com...



Tiza



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 02:23 PM
link   
If one believes some parts of the Bible have been distorted/mis-represented, why should we believe other parts haven't.

Is there any other sources of information, besides the Bible, that says the person known as Adam lived 900 years?

People poo-poo ideas of Atlantis because there is supposedly one source, Plato, who mentions it.

People dis-credit UFO witnesses and people who purport to channel and remote view because there's no other sources to back up their claims.

I personally believe the Bible is based on factual documents, but has been so twisted and truncated, that I only take it as an alagorical, or symbolic source of information, rather than an accurate and factual account of human history.

[edit on 9-8-2004 by VelvetSplash]



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
body makes has organs to sense outside sources of energy (such as light) which imply understanding of how the outside world works.


How do you figure? Adaptation is what you are talking about, and it doesn't require an interventionist god fitting organisms to thier niches.


Organization and design (subject to grevious errors, such as my step-father) are apparent in the universe.


The appearance of design however does not require a designer. Dawkins uses the term 'designoid' for natural objects that have this appearance.


I believe that a key element is missing from our current understanding of the universe, and in my mind, it's God.


A sensible enough idea, but surely you must agree that that doesn't mean -science- should operate with non-scientific ideas and draw unscientific conclusions. I mean, what a person beleives is surely distinct from what actually clinically repeatedly works.



What if the earth is hollow, with other illumination and warmth withing, and the flood carried us to the outside of the Earth, where the suns radiation could act upon and degrade human DNA?


While UV radiation does do damage to dna, its neither irreprable nor completely destructive. Its merely another source of mutations. If the earth were hollow, well, thats kind of another story all together but if the earth were hollow how would we have any of the seismic data that we have, for one thing?


Vagabond in another posting:
as your water-canopy link shows you are aware, we didn't start dying younger till after the flood-


If the water canopy existed, then the earth's atmosphere would've been like that of Venus, and nothing would be alive. If something was, then when the canopy fell (for whatever the reason) then it would've released so much heat (via the release of kinetic energy) as to poach every living thing.

persueus:
Scientists revise facts on an almost daily basis


Yes, scientific ideas can be changed, revised, even entirely discarded when new evidence comes to light. None of that means that the original ideas were bad ideas, they were just the best idea given the information at the time.


People who believe evolution need to keep in mind that evolutionists work on the assumption that the world was created at random.


Evolutionary theory and in particular the logic of darwin's idea of natural selection is based on:
  • Traits are inheritable
  • Populations are Variable
  • More organisms are produced than will survive to reproductive age (aka, there is an overproduction of organisms)


    Given this, evolution will occur. There is no assumption of the universe being chaotic or devoid of god. Those considerations are unrelated to it.


    Facts that can't be easily explained by evolution are often ignored.


    What facts are such a problem for evolutionary theory as to make it untenable? There certainly are lots of things 'evolution' can't explain, but then again, it doesn't proport to explain everything, so what does that matter? The theory of gravity can't explain lots of stuff too, like which batter is going to hit a homerun in baseball and what not. And who ignores these facts?


    I could probably think of 100 problems with evolutionary assumptions if I wanted to take an hour to think about it.


    Please do, i would like to hear them.


    The simplest one is the question of where big bang itself came from. Many physicists openly admit that the current motion of stars cannot adequately be explained by big bang but its "the best theory they have." How many people believe big bang as fact when even physicists don't really buy it? But back to the point, where did the mass to create big bang come from?


    I am sorry, but this has nothing to do with evolution. What you are questioning is the Theory of Inflation, sometimes called the 'Big Bang'. Are you questioning evolution or inflation? Do you have any data that cannot be interpreted under either of these theories, and if you do, do you also have a theory that better incorporates them?


    Persueus in another post:
    Inbreeding for a few generations is going to cause lower life expectancy, as well as genetic weaknesses.


    If Noah's family was all that was left after the flood, then our species couldn't survive, it'd be far too inbred. Chetaahs, for example,probably have too low a population to be reproductively viable for very long. IOW, even if there were no illegal hunting and enough food and habitat for them, their species is too small, there are too few individuals too closely related, for the species to continue to survive. For humans after the flood, with only what, 8 people, one family and the wives of the men, the situation would be so tight as to be impossible.


    gfs4731:
    As the generations proceeded,and man was born ito sin, the genes were no longer perfect and people started to die earlier.

    Then why is it that when one compares the human genome it ends up being so similiar to the chimp genome? Are you also saying that other organisms evolved, but that man was created special?


    stgeorge
    Sin entered the world, and corrupted perfection, thus entered death.

    So adam and eve ate what exactly? Or did they not need to eat?


    stgeorge:
    It is believed by many, and there is evidence to support this theory, that the world before Noah had one climate, exisitng benath a vapor canopy.


    tiza
    There was a 'canopy' of water which covered the entire earth.


    There is absolutely no evidence at all to support the existence of a water canopy, and what evidence there is concerning that idea demonstrates that it didn't exist, and if it had existed, it would've killed every living thing on the planet. What evidence are you talking about? Do you have a source for this, I'd be interested in seeing it.


    This canopy would have filtered all harmful UV rays from the sun, dramatically extending all life.


    UV radiation does affect dna, it causes a particular class of mutations (basically, certain bases get 'dimerized', they get stuck to eachother). But this is not something that affects a person's lifespan in any appreciable way. If anyone actually beleived this, then they would merely need to wear sunblock in order to live to be 900 years old or whatever. I repeat myself just to be clear, not being exposed to UV radiation is not going to let you live 900 years or anything like that.


    Cabon dating I was told is good only for maybe a few thousand years at most.After that it gets widly exaggerated or makes no sense at all.Then,paleontologists merely consult the book for the "correct" date and ignor the carbon reading.
    The reason,radio carbon is not equal through all parts of the artifact.


    No, this is incorrect. You are right, however, insofar as Radio -Carbon- dating is limited. After, lets say, 10 half lives, there is so little of a radioactive isotope left that its useless for dating purposes; its effectively 'gone'. Radio -carbon- dating is therefore limited. But there is also K/Ar dating, Pb dating, and lots of other radiometric dating methods that have long 'lifespans'. When the radiometric data can't be used, paleontologists don't just 'go to some book'. First off, they won't use it when its though to be beyond its limits. And furhtermore, if they could use a well controlled, accurate book to date an object, why wouldn;t they use it in the first place? And the limit of Radiocarbon dating has nothing to do with thre not being an 'equal amount of radio carbon' throughout the artefact.


    Ancient strata tends to be compressed.

    Ancient stratas of rock tend to be buried under other rocks so they tend to get squished, yes. Am I not understanding the relevance here?

    wassabi proposed:
    children had children with each other which weakened those genes.

    why does passing on genes make them weaker?


    wow, that was a lotta junk i just wrote eh?





  • top topics
     
    19
    << 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

    log in

    join