Why did people in the bible live so long?

page: 7
19
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by VelvetSplash
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]


But you can always cross-reference with other documents to find out which parts are definately true. Various traditions seem to agree about events such as the flood, the former ability of men to live longer and grow larger, the prominent role of serpents in mythology, and the unleashing of a "pandora's box" scenario (interestingly this scenario involves an forbidden fruit in the Popul Vuh just as in the OT of the bible). I believe there is also agreement (from greek mythology?) that the sun was once made to stand still in the sky.

Furthermore, although it isn't "evidence", I will offer my take on attacking the bible. I forget who said it to whom, but one ruler, while considering the prospect of outlawing Christianity, was once advised "Christianity is an anvil that has worn out many hammers". If most of the bible is untrue, it either certainly contains a few interesting truths, or has just gotten dang lucky a few times.

For example, the ruins of Jericho show that the cities walls fell outwards, not inwards as under siege, and the discovery of the remains of wheat in the city shows that the city was not besieged and starved out, but fell quickly as the bible suggests.

The Ten Commandments were originally considered by anthropologists to be too advanced for their time (implying they were written more recently). I believe this was part of an anti-bible arguement which referred to itself as "the assured results of higher criticism", or something like that. The discovery of Hammurabi's code changed that.

Then there is the debate over the age of the Hebrew race. The OT says they share common blood with the Sumerians through Shem, which makes them just as old. Mainstream history doesn't seem to acknowledge them until they established their own nation (i think that was in the early second millenium BC, but i'm not sure). However, if a nomadic tribe called the Habiru end up being the ancient Hebrews, there's yet another text-book fact overturned by the first book ever pressed. (I realize that particular bit of info is probably outdated, so put the gun down Byrd. All i've got is the internet).




posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by VelvetSplash
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]


Hi, Velvet:

Usually people who think the Scriptures are not trustworthy and not fact, are people who have not really studied in the first place. I see this all the time. They have simply read the English or whatever translations all their life and have never seriously studied them. There is a huge difference between studying and reading. They don't study the Hebrew or Greek meanings, which is what is extremely important.

Instead, mankind very often forgets to ask this basic question of himself/herself: What do the Scriptures say? This puts one in the correct mindset and doesn't allow for the interpretations of men.

All the Scriptures need to be used in harmony to avoid private interpretations of men. Believe me, this is a struggle with our human nature.

One of the basic flaws is to isolate a verse and not use the scriptural guideline which the Prophet Isaiah talks about in Isa. 28:9-10:

Whom shall he teach knowledge? And whom shall he explain the message? Those weaned from the milk, those moving from the breasts. For precept to precept, precept to precept, line to line, line to line, a little here, a little there.

Does anyone understand what the above verse means that's bolded? It's so important that Yahweh repeats this twice in Isa. 28. As a matter of fact, if you actually read it out loud to yourself, you'll see that it's very tedious and laborious to say. That is a strong clue too!

It means that one must not isolate a verse. It means that a precept must build upon a precept, and a line upon a line. A little here, a little there tells you that you might find the mate verse in Genesis, but the other mate verse is in Revelations or somewhere else. It's scattered pieces like that of a giant puzzle. You have to find the answers, which are somewhere in the book.

Isa. 34:16f

Seek from the book of Yahweh, and read: Not one of these will be missing; None will lack its mate, For his mouth has commanded, and his ruach has gathered them, and his hand has divided it to them by line...


Some answers are in the same book. For example, Ezek. 17:1-10 is the parable and riddle of the two great eagles and the cedar of Lebanon are given in verses 1-18.

The seven heads of the great beast of Rev. 13:1-3 is defined as seven moutains which equal seven kings. The beast is itself an eighth king in Rev. 17:8-11.

For different books that interrelate. The serpent of Gen. 3:1-15 and also 2 Cor. 11:3 is defined for us in Rev. 12:9 and 20:2 as Satan.

The bronze serpent of Num. 21:8f which was lifted up in the wilderness by Moses is defined in John 3:14 and is a type of the messiah being resurrected.

Another point. Most of the Scriptures is indeed written in parabolic and allegorical form and riddles. Parabolic and allegorical thought is a higher mind. They are written in this form to hide. Yes, that's right. Not to reveal, but to hide the truth. Why? Because only those serious will seek the truth anyway. To the rest of mankind not interested at this time, it seems like it doesn't make sense.

As it says in Prov. 25:2:

It is the glory of eloahim to conceal a matter, but the glory of kings is to search out a matter.

This goes along with what the messiah says in Matt. 13:10-17. The answer is in v. 11.


Tiza



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 05:47 PM
link   
Hello, Nygdan:

Yes, it was a lot that you wrote to a lot of people. First, I simply don't have the time to sit here and answer all your lengthy post. It's impossible for me because I do have to cook dinner. And I'd actually like to be away from this computer for a while since I've been working all day long on it.

Since it appears that you believe that the Scriptures do not hold authority, what good would it be if I listed out for you various answers to many of your questions?

BTW, not only do the Scriptures hold authority in my view, but when we study, we use ancient history, archaeology, science, geology, astronomy, whatever it takes to seek Yahweh's truth! Our method of study is actually seeking evidence and investigating. This evidence is from the Scriptures. It's also from investigating other sources.

For example: Ps. 19:1-6 states that the heavens declare the handiwork of Yahweh, yet no voice is heard. This is astronomy.

In Job 12:7-13, it says to ask the beast and fowls (biology and zoology) and earth (paleontology, geology) and they testify that Yahweh did it! Asking means not to literally ask them a question. It means to seek the answers and study it.

In John 3:1-15 it says to know the wind by its effects. You can learn to understand the heavenly things by understanding the earthly things. The earthly things are parables to teach us higher thought.

In my opinion, Nygdan, studying anything without learning the mind of Yahweh is useless. In the time to come, you may learn this point!

Tiza



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tiza
Yes, it was a lot that you wrote to a lot of people. First, I simply don't have the time to sit here and answer all your lengthy post.

Only a small part of my response was a response to what you wrote



Since it appears that you believe that the Scriptures do not hold authority,

I do not beleive that scriptures hold scientific authority and can't be taken literally (six day creation, global flood, etc)


what good would it be if I listed out for you various answers to many of your questions?

I am puzzled. I asked some questions, and now you indicate that you have answers to them. Ok, so go ahead.

For example: Ps. 19:1-6 states that the heavens declare the handiwork of Yahweh, yet no voice is heard. This is astronomy.

how


In Job 12:7-13, it says to ask the beast and fowls (biology and zoology) and earth (paleontology, geology) and they testify that Yahweh did it! Asking means not to literally ask them a question. It means to seek the answers and study it.


How does zoology and paleontology and geology indicate that there was a creator?


In John 3:1-15 it says to know the wind by its effects. You can learn to understand the heavenly things by understanding the earthly things. The earthly things are parables to teach us higher thought.


But that is obviously an interpretation. Some literalists would say it means nothing more than knowing the wind by its effects. There doesn't appear to be an objective way to get meaning out of these things. I don't think that there needs to be an objective way, but some people seem to think that one can.


In my opinion, Nygdan, studying anything without learning the mind of Yahweh is useless. In the time to come, you may learn this point!


Perhaps in the times to come you will learn to distinguish between faith and science. Perhaps in the times to come you will learn that, while everything can be interpretated or taken as a reflection of the spiritual truth of yahweh, that it can equally -reasonably- be taken as the truth of bhrama, or zarathustra, or mithra, or saturn.

There is no -reason- to accept the same position you have. There is only -faith-. Reason can't back up faith in any meaningful way. To think that one has not understood a thing until one has worked god into it is useless. Metaphysics and Physics are too unreleated fields. Or do you suggest that one can design an experiment that could, at least potentially, demonstrate that god doesn't exist?

Anyway, I think you were intially saying that there was a canopy of water above the earth. Couldn't you have addressed the issues with that in the same length of a post as above? Why suppose the existence of the vapor canopy at all? Its only tenuously supported biblically, and you must admit that people can certainly make it sound as if something is supported by the bible when it needn't be. And the physical evidence indicates completely the opposite as to the existence of a 'vapour canopy'. So why suppose its existence at all? If would require a miracle in order to have it and not destroy every living thing on the planet anyway, so why not just eliminate it all togetehr and say that (the effects the water canopy was made up to have) are just there without the canopy?

Tiza



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Hello, Nygdan:

I doubt very much that I could give you answers and you'd listen. There is a mastermind behind the things that are written in the Bible. If you'll ever study the underlying words behind the English, you'll see that.

BTW, six-day creation? The earth existed before this. It starts out in Genesis 1:1 saying that in ra#h, eloahim bara (created) this the heavens and this the earth. "ra#h" means, first, former, in state of time...firstfruits, firstborn...first of way, beginning. This right here tells us that this was a previous time when you see the next verses, there was a long span of time when you put verses together. I.e., the earth was created in ra#h, then however long a period of time that was from the beginning (ra#h) until the earth became tohu and bohu (wasteland and wilderness). Something had happened to cause major destruction.

Of course, then you get into who remade it, who renewed it? Who created Adam, the animals. Yes, they were created! The luminaries were just made to appear on the 4th day. They already existed. Then you have to get into studying what was that previous world-age (previous olam in Hebrew) that was destroyed by Yahweh himself?

More world-ages?

Eph. 3:9, Paul states that he was sent to announce and to "enlighten all as to what the fellowship of secret which has been hidden from the aionos (ages) in eloah who formed all things through Yahushua the messiah."

Ps. 145:13, talking about Yahweh, "Your kingdom is a kingdom of olamim (olamin is more than one world-age) and your rule in generations and generations."

BTW, there's just so much on this, and I honestly am very tired tonight. I worked hard today. I'm sorry that I can't go into any more stuff.

Now, getting into the previous world-age is interesting because you're into the dinosaurs. They are mentioned in the Scriptures, but you have to know where to look because they are described for us. I think in the LXX it says that the angels mocked them.

Well, that's all she wrote tonight.

Tiza



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 08:04 PM
link   
I have to say one more thing. I'll try to cut it short, anyway. It's about C-14 dating. Don't trust that dating, folks. I'm serious. Or before you decide to put your trust in this dating method, please seriously study it. It's a bunch of hooey and just totally impossible. For it to even work and be reliable, the atmospheric conditions would have to have remained constant for the last several thousand years. You all should know that that is just not the case. The rate of cosmic ray bombardment would have to be the same in the centuries past. That is totally impossible.

And listen to this. Back in the '60s there was an experiment at Cal-Tech done on C-14 dating. The techs cut a tree limb off from a living tree that was growing along the Santa Monica Frwy. They took it back and ran a C-14 test on it. It showed that it had been dead for 500 years. Here's the thing. The scientists did figure out that the carbon monoxide from the cars altered the absorption rate of the C-14.

So if something like this alters the C-14, imagine what a volcanic eruption does, and there's been some pretty huge ones in earth's history in many various places around the world. Imagine very thick and heavy cloud coverings. This stuff effects the C-14 datings. So would the great canopy that covered the whole earth until Noah's flood affected C-14 datings. After the canopy burst, this is why we have a rainbow after Noah's flood.

Well, there's more, but I just won't go into it. It is interesting to study.

Tiza



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tiza
Now, getting into the previous world-age is interesting because you're into the dinosaurs. They are mentioned in the Scriptures, but you have to know where to look because they are described for us. I think in the LXX it says that the angels mocked them.


In order for there to be a description of dinosaurs in the bible then they would have to have been around for people to see them no?


It's about C-14 dating. Don't trust that dating, folks. I'm serious. Or before you decide to put your trust in this dating method, please seriously study it.

Anyone who is interested in radiometric dating should look into it. They will find out that its extremely reliable and very useful.


It's a bunch of hooey and just totally impossible. For it to even work and be reliable, the atmospheric conditions would have to have remained constant for the last several thousand years. You all should know that that is just not the case. The rate of cosmic ray bombardment would have to be the same in the centuries past. That is totally impossible.


The reason cosmic ray bombardment is significant to carbon dating is because the radiation can stimulate the creation of some of the relevant isotpes. This, however, is not something scientists are unaware of. here you can find a page that deals with some of the issues relevant to C14 dating. Specifically:


Radiocarbon dating is based on the relative abundance of C14 in the atmosphere when a plant or animal lived. This varies somewhat, but calibration with other techniques (such as dendrochronology) allows the variations are corrected for.



and here14 is produced continuously in the Earth's upper atmosphere as a result of the bombardment of nitrogen by neutrons from cosmic rays. This newly formed radiocarbon becomes uniformly mixed with the nonradioactive carbon in the carbon dioxide of the air, and it eventually finds its way into all living plants and animals. In effect, all carbon in living organisms contains a constant proportion of radiocarbon to nonradioactive carbon.



this site saysThe variability of the C14/C12 ratio, and the need for calibration, has been recognized since 1969 [Dickin 1995, 364-366]. Calibration is possible by analyzing the C14 content of items dated by independent methods. Dendrochronology (age dating by counting tree rings) has been used to calibrate C14/C12 ratios back to 13,000 years before the present [Becker et al. 1991]. C14 dating has been calibrated back more than 30,000 years using uranium-thorium (isochron) dating of corals [Bard et al. 1990; Edwards et al. 1993], and to 45,000 b.p. using U-Th dates of glacial lake varve sediments [Kitagawa and van der Plicht 1998].


So the rate of bombardment can vary all it wants, there are controls in these experiments for these sorts of things. The variable ratio of isotopes in the atmosphere is a known issue, and is corrected for with these calibration methods.

also look here for a number of articles on radiometric dating, not just carbon dating.

tiza:
The techs cut a tree limb off from a living tree that was growing along the Santa Monica Frwy. They took it back and ran a C-14 test on it. It showed that it had been dead for 500 years. [...]The scientists did figure out that the carbon monoxide from the cars altered the absorption rate of the C-14.

What is your source for this incident, I would be curious to see it.

this site addresses this issue:
"The "reservoir effect" is well known by scientists, who work hard to understand the limitations of their tools. It is explained, for example, in Faure [1986] and Higham [n.d.]. Creationists making propaganda ignore that limitations of a tool do not invalidate the tool. "

And, again, there are multiple independent methods used to calibrate and control C14 dating. Your investigations into the science of geochronology have been terribly incomplete if you are not aware of these methods.

tiza:
This stuff effects the C-14 datings. So would the great canopy that covered the whole earth until Noah's flood affected C-14 datings.

you continue to bring up ths canopy, while ignoring the issues i brought up with it earlier. You also keep saying you don't have the time to adress any of the issues that I have brought up, but keep bringing up other easily explained issues.
Will you or will you not address the problems with this mystical 'water canopy' existing?

Well, there's more, but I just won't go into it. It is interesting to study.

You need to be more thourough in your studies, these issues have been brought up repeatedly in the past. Apparently your studies were not adequate enough to find the answers to these questions. If it was, then why don't you address why you feel those answers are wrong?
[in edit added this and corrected some of the attirbutes above}

tiza:
After the canopy burst, this is why we have a rainbow after Noah's flood

Let me get this straight, you are claiming the the physics of light movign thru water droplets was somehow entirely different in the antediluvian world, such that there weren't any rainbows? Are you actually claiming this?

[edit on 10-8-2004 by Nygdan]



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 12:52 PM
link   
I beleve that the people in the Bible lived so long do to no diseases, pollution, and mass popluation.



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 01:14 PM
link   
deleted double post, yes, i am an idiot

[edit on 10-8-2004 by Nygdan]



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 01:15 PM
link   
double post, deleted

[edit on 10-8-2004 by Nygdan]



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 01:58 PM
link   
It was said that when halley's comet visited us in the past,it lit up the whole sky.Visible even in daylight,like some novas.
"It seems there is sometyhing terribly wrong with our atmosphere today."



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by stgeorge
It was said that when halley's comet visited us in the past,it lit up the whole sky.Visible even in daylight,like some novas.
"It seems there is sometyhing terribly wrong with our atmosphere today."


Are you saying this is evidence for a water canopy? Where is this reference to halleys comet being incredibly brighter than it is today?



posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tiza

Originally posted by VelvetSplash
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]


Hi, Velvet:

Usually people who think the Scriptures are not trustworthy and not fact, are people who have not really studied in the first place. I see this all the time. They have simply read the English or whatever translations all their life and have never seriously studied them.


Yes, it's the English language version I was referring to, thanks for the info too



posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 01:43 PM
link   
I refer to old illustrations.Before photography,there was paint. I just read a post somewhere...cannot expect me to remember everything but I am not a liar.Jeff Rense perhaps?
And I remember documentaries about novas being viewed even in daylight.

I never saw a meteorite myself until I joined the Reserves and got out of the city. Glorious. Glare ruins it all.



posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by stgeorge
I refer to old illustrations.Before photography,there was paint. I just read a post somewhere...cannot expect me to remember everything but I am not a liar.Jeff Rense perhaps?
And I remember documentaries about novas being viewed even in daylight.


A nova would probably be visible today in daylight. Also, you siad the evidence was in a painting, meaning that an artist saw it and painted it. but you said that the water canopy was allowing the phenomenon to be so bright, but this water canopy is supposed to have fell during the flood. Are you saying you have seen paintings from before the flood? Also, are these paintings of halleys' comet in the day time, or are they of a supernova in the daylight.


I never saw a meteorite myself until I joined the Reserves and got out of the city. Glorious. Glare ruins it all.


This made me realize, halley's comet may very well have apppeared brighter in the past, since there wasn't as much light pollution. This, of course, is irrelevant to the daylight viewing claim, but that hasn't been substantiated yet.

Do you recall where you saw this painting?

[edit on 11-8-2004 by Nygdan]



posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Some of these paintings were Medieval.Some dark Age.Every 76 years or so remember for Halley's.
Americans will not believe anything unless they see it on a video. Even a book by a brilliant man is discarded. Get stupid!

[edit on 11-8-2004 by stgeorge]



posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by stgeorge
Some of these paintings were Medieval.Some dark Age.Every 76 years or so remember for Halley's.


Yes i know that halleys comet has a period of about 76 years, what possible difference does that make?


Americans will not believe anything unless they see it on a video. Even a book by a brilliant man is discarded. Get stupid!


What book? I don't doubt that at some point in your life you saw a painting of something. I would like to know the name of these (painting-s- is it now?) because I would like to see them for myself. Why is that (apparently) an issue for you? You still haven't been able to clarify if the painting was of a daytime scene or a night time scene. What makes it certain that its of halleys comet? How reliable is the brightness indicated? What did you compare it to? And you haven't answered the main question yet, if the global flood was precipitated (yes, that was a pun) by the collapse of some 'water vapor canopy', and this 'water vapor canopy' has some magical property that makes comets and or supernovas brighter, then why is a painting from a time after the 'global flood' and after the dissapearance of the 'water vapor canopy' supposed to be at all relevant?

And whats with the insults? Have I insulted you? Do you want me to? Are you incapable of answering these questions and having a discussion about this topic? If you are not capable of having this discussion or don't want to, then why are you trying to have it? You could equally avoid having to answer these sensible questions by not posting at all. Is that your intent, to not answer these questions?



posted on Aug, 14 2004 @ 12:50 PM
link   
I'd have to go through my library again.They drew all these ufos in the air,some oddly shaped.The nova seen even in daylight was some educational program,TLC,Cosmos,who knows? There is also Fortea. Halley's comet? That was too long ago to recall the exact title,a kid's book. Perhaps it was in dusk or something,I cannot remember.


kix

posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 01:44 AM
link   
I really dont care about old people in the bible because if I lived 900 Years it means...

a) more than 850 Tax Income forms filled...
b) a retirement plan from hell
c) A gigantic family
d) Being married for 870 Years...!!!!!
e) WORST OF ALL HAVING TO ENDURE MY INLAWS FOR CENTURIES>>>!!!


ARRRGGGHHHHHH....



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 07:51 AM
link   
I complained,saying that I do not like some primitive olld senile man (Abraham) to have authority or seniority over me.

"I am as modern as you please. I am not senile.I am not physical."

"But those stories of Ascencion.Hundreds of years of life?"

"They kept rejuvenating me,so yes.But even then,no one lives forever."

"So! You are the family member who showed up that day.The lick of fire in the air!"





new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join