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: 9
19
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Really? I'd be interested to hear that. The Egyptians, I beleive, used a lunar calender as opposed to a solar one, perhaps the hebrews used one also? Wouldn't seem unreasonable, since the hebrew stories state that they were invovled with the Egyptians. Even if one doesn't accept that Exodus is correct and that the hebrews were living in an Egyptian Occupied Levant, there's still the connection.

A person living 906 lunar months would be around 75 years old, which is certainly extremely old.




posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 01:19 PM
link   
These people did NOT live so long. During the time of the Old Testament it was traditional to lie about important peoples age after their deaths. Typically, kings and princes were assigned very long life spans as a sign of respect. It was a gross exaggeration which was socially acceptable and expected by the people.

The writers of the old testament assumed everyone was aware of this when they wrote about biblical figures. After several hundred years this practice has disappeared, but the stories remained. Now folks somehow think we had longer lifespans when in reality, they probably had shorter lifespans.

If you want to reference what I am saying, read many of the footnotes in the New American Bible (which the Roman Cathloic Church here uses), which is thoroughly annotated with all kinds of tidbits such as these.

Link:

custance.org...



posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by GriBiT
Great theories! Some I never thought of. I do agree that "time" may have been counted different back then. I don't think that it took God 7 "Days" as we know it (if you believe the story that is) but more like 7 "periods of time". A "day" could have been a way of saying an Era or any time span. But I don't agree that the days were actually shorter. The Earth is pretty constsant when it comes to that. But how do you explain generations. Noah's offspring and then their offspring...etc..... It's not as if Noah was a reference to a group of people, but a family line.

I also tend to agree with the theory that we had a long lost gene or a gene that was bread out of us or even got some sort of "Fountain of Youth" effect from whatever was eaten from the "Tree of Life" whatever that might have been.

the idea that the atmosphere was different and protected us better which in turn enhanced out longevity is interesting also. But wouldn't there be some sort of scientific evidence of this past atmosphere?

I don't actually believe the stories from the Bible as they are written. Few do, except the very devout. In fact I'm an Agnostic. But I do believe we can find clues to the truth from these fables and fokelore. They were once written on factual stories that lost alot thru translation, starting with the stories being passed down through storytelling or "word of mouth" then in writtings that were written and rewritten to "fit" the beliefs of the time.



Along this line of thinking. Gog supposedly created the world in 7 days. Sun created in the beginning and man at the end. We all know its a fact that rays from the sun takes very long to reach earth. If it were a matter of days or even thousands of years that would mean Adam and all his offspring lived in the dark. They didn't have the damaging rays from the sun to degrade the biology but without sun there would have been no plant life. So the timeline had to span thousand of years between the steps of creation. That could infer that God, whatever race he may be, set the wheels in motion and let evolution takes is course over spans of time until he inserts another stepping stone of creation in.

I am agnostic also, but its a very interesting subject. I am still a believer that "God" was a race from somewhere else in our universe. He was a scientist, a creator if you will. He was not mystical and magic like the bible infers. Just as we ourselve are creating life now, we could be considered gods and creators.



posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 03:26 AM
link   
Well, if you do some research into the ancient sumerian texts it would probly answer your questions. Acording to what i've researched the original Human species was called adama, which is where u get "adam" from. In the bible it says somthing like "WE will create them in OUR image", not sure exactly what it says, but my point is, when the anunnaki first created what is now known as humans, humans shared the anunnaki's long period of life. However after the great flood, the annunaki messed with our dna again so that we would have verry short lives, and only be able to use a small %age of our own brain mass. That would explain why after the noas arc period in the bible ppl dont live as long as they did b4. Not exactly sure about all this, but the sumerian texts outdate the bible or any other modern day religion by at less 2000 years, definatly somthing to look at, because when you read about the acient sumerian texts, u can see where they got all the stories in the bibal cabala koran, and other mythology all around the world come from. Who knows if they're true or not. But u can look at every story in almost all mythology and modern day holy books liket he bible, koran ect. and trace them all the way back to these acient texts from like 6000+ years ago, so the stories have to have some truth.



posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by LordRothschild
Well, if you do some research into the ancient sumerian texts it would probly answer your questions. Acording to what i've researched the original Human species was called adama, which is where u get "adam" from.

What part of your research supports this?


In the bible it says somthing like "WE will create them in OUR image", not sure exactly what it says, but my point is, when the anunnaki first created what is now known as humans, humans shared the anunnaki's long period of life.

Since the anunnaki are part of a sumerian myth, why should anyone accept this as evidence? Where does it say they lived for 900 years each? They are the immortal council of judges in the underworld. At least thats how I've seen them presented


However after the great flood, the annunaki messed with our dna again so that we would have verry short lives,

Where are the annunaki presented as doing very much of anything after the flood? The texts aren't necessarily co-lated in that fashion. And if they genetically altered humans, where is the genetic evidence for this?


only be able to use a small %age of our own brain mass.

That '10%' thing is a myth. Humans use all parts of their brains at all different times for all sorts of things.

That would explain why after the noas arc period in the bible ppl dont live as long as they did b4.

Or the fact that people allways think things were better back in the old days would explain it.

trace them all the way back to these acient texts from like 6000+ years ago, so the stories have to have some truth.

Truth? Or perhaps they are the result of cultural diffusion. Or perhaps they are the result of archetypes that are effective across all cultures. There are certainly other more reasonable and better supported possibilities than aliens from somewhere doing this stuff, and then people recording it all. And even if it did happen in say sumeria, it would still have to spread across the rest of the world.

How come there isn't any evidence of some set of genes spreading out from sumeria to the rest of the planet?



posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Yes your right Nygdan, humans do use alota of different parts of their brain. But the parts they use add up to only using a small %age of the whole entire brain.

Life I said at the begining of my reply "if you do some research into the ancient sumerian texts", I understand it will be extreemly hard to see where im coming from, if you hav'nt read up on all the sumerian texts, and understand a bit about their language. This all is just a theory on my part. I do think the theory about them using lunar months is a more plausable explanation, although i have'nt seen any proof, of use of this lunar time scale in the bible. But I have an extreemly open mind, and to me all things are possable and I dont over look or ignor ANY point of veiw.



posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 10:00 PM
link   
One thing that I find interesting is that according to several sources, in the direct translation of the hebrew bible, god always refers to himself in the plural. Nothing related to the anunnaki stuff. Just an observation.

Just thought that might add a little to the discussion.

[edit on 20-10-2004 by Galvatron]



posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

daniel
I think that because adam and eve ate the fruit from the tree it changed their DNA and thought patterns.

Why would eating some fruit result in DNA being changed? Why would dna change mean different 'thought patters"? Since the whole of genesis is a allegorical story anyway why beleive any of it?


I don't believe the fruit was an actual fruit. I believe it is symbolic of the choice people made to abandon the path God chose for humans. As for DNA and thought patterns, many people are able to change their metabolism, heart rate, emotional state, immune system by willing it to happen. This does not necessarily mean psychic abilities. It is simply visualization that your body responds physically to. So, if you can do this to yourself by thoughts why wouldn't a god be able to do this to someone else. Keep in mind that I am not and probably never will be a Christian so I am not speaking of God in a Christian sense but rather a being that has, what seems to us to be, infinite power.

The last question seem is flawed in that many alegorical phrases hold some truth in them. If you follow the order that God created the universe you will find that it closely if not exactly matches the order in which science predicts the universe and Earth to have been formed in.



posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by LordRothschild
But the parts they use add up to only using a small %age of the whole entire brain.

No they don't, there aren't wide swaths of the brain that aren't used at all. If you are saying that at any one time not all of the brain is being used then I'd agree, but there aren't large portions that are 'untapped'.

With respect to the sumerian texts and your research on them, what part of your research supports the ideas you are arguing for? How much research have you done on these texts? Are you studying it in college? I am just curious because its an unusual field that not many people are going into these days.

. If you follow the order that God created the universe you will find that it closely if not exactly matches the order in which science predicts the universe and Earth to have been formed in.

It doesn't match it at all. It has a universe made up of water existing previous to creation. It has plants being created before light no? And which order of creation, there are two in the bible?
The point I am trying to make with allegories is that, sure, they can have a basis in fact, and that can make them useful or make their intended effect more effective, but the allegories themselves aren't really useful for getting at the information that they are mythologising, and especially not when the non-allegorical/scientific/historical evidence contradicts it.



posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

. If you follow the order that God created the universe you will find that it closely if not exactly matches the order in which science predicts the universe and Earth to have been formed in.

It doesn't match it at all. It has a universe made up of water existing previous to creation. It has plants being created before light no? And which order of creation, there are two in the bible?
The point I am trying to make with allegories is that, sure, they can have a basis in fact, and that can make them useful or make their intended effect more effective, but the allegories themselves aren't really useful for getting at the information that they are mythologising, and especially not when the non-allegorical/scientific/historical evidence contradicts it.



1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

It is true that the Bible said that water came before light. This, I believe is false. This is also why I said it closely matches.

It does not say that the universe was made of water. It says that the Earth was covered in water.

It does not say that plants were created before light. It doesn't even mention the creation of living organisms until the metaphorical third day (I believe that the days represent stages of developement).

Also, what is the other version of creation in the Bible (I am serious about this question, not mocking you; the Bible is full of contradictions due to years of tampering; I wouldn't be surprised if it contradicted itself in creation theory along with the other contradictions). If you can find it, please site the place you found it so I can view it as well. Thanks.



posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 06:15 PM
link   
I agree with what Spittincobra stated earlier about measuring time in a different way. If the bible is factual, I'm sure that would have to be the explaination. Kind of like dog years compared to our years kind of thing. Who knows? That's just my thoughts on it all.



posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 07:11 PM
link   
It's all a fantasy, myths and dreams, they lived 900 years because they were never alive at all.



posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by daniel191159
It is true that the Bible said that water came before light. This, I believe is false. This is also why I said it closely matches.

I'm really having trouble seeing where it matches anything at all honestly. SUre, there is stuff for animals to walk around on before there are animals, but outside of that it doesn't make much sense.


It does not say that the universe was made of water. It says that the Earth was covered in water.

It seems to be saying that the universe was this tho, not a recognition of the planet earth. Everything is this water/mud system, not just earth. How could the ball that is the planet have water move over to the side and 'reveal' dry land? It makes sense if one is thinking of a flat earth (to a degree anyway), and that thats all there is in the world. But not if the earth is a clump spinning in space inside of a giant universe.


It does not say that plants were created before light. It doesn't even mention the creation of living organisms until the metaphorical third day

Yes, but they are created before the sun and the stars. "light" exists, but the sun doesn't, its created along with the moon later.

(I believe that the days represent stages of developement).

Stages of development of what, individual organisms or are you refereing to something like 'the great chain of being' or the "Scala Naturae", or perhaps something like whats been called faunal turnover? Birds and 'whales' are around before land dwelling animals are around. Also, cattle seem to come about before crawling things, usually taken to be reptiles and insects. And why group insects and reptiles together, they can't really be seen as the same 'grade' of organism?


Also, what is the other version of creation in the Bible

here's a website that addresses it (along with some other stuff too, but I've only looked at the first part)
www.sullivan-county.com...

Apparently "Genesis 1:9-13; 20-31 and Genesis 2:4b-9; 18-22 " have the different orders also.

hereis a heated but nonetheless interesting discussion on the subject

Here is another page on the subject also
www.talkorigins.org...



posted on Oct, 23 2004 @ 02:08 AM
link   
I believe at some point secret societies, not just Freemasons, did have a connection with The Great Architect, and they did this through math. Math is the universal language, this anyone can recognize. Furthermore, it is obvious that many occult societies had taken it upon themsleves to decipher the language of life through mathematics. This has been happening since man achieved consciousness of his world. The core numbers in life are Pi and Phi, they are found everywhere from the musical scale to the harmony of galaxies, and even in our DNA. What does this mean? Are we all just mathematical represenations? Wouldn't that mean each of us is a sequence of numbers with a certain purpose towards achieving an end. This would mean life is always in balance, and any "imbalance" is simply another mathematical force acting upon the current forces. I am not a professional, and I do not yet hold enough knowledge to prove any of this, but I believe the universe itself IS god, the Great Architect of all we have come to know. When we "invent" we are simply recalling knowledge inherited in each of our souls, mathematically imprinted in our DNA. Can this be what the Ancient Societies were protecting? If so, are there any remnants of these Ancient Secret Societies in the societies of today? Is there any society I can join to gain knowledge of these things? This is something I want to dedicate my life to, I have no purpose but to gain knowledge on the universe and its subsets, and their subsets, unto infinity. Even realizing that I myself am a universe unto myself brings me great calmness. Do I need to achieve complete calmness to achieve the knowledge or visa versa? This is what I have to say, is there anyone who would like to speak on this?

I don't know if this relates to what everyone is talking about, but it cleared things up for me when I wrote it.



posted on Oct, 23 2004 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by daniel191159

Originally posted by Nygdan

. If you follow the order that God created the universe you will find that it closely if not exactly matches the order in which science predicts the universe and Earth to have been formed in.

It doesn't match it at all. It has a universe made up of water existing previous to creation. It has plants being created before light no? And which order of creation, there are two in the bible?
The point I am trying to make with allegories is that, sure, they can have a basis in fact, and that can make them useful or make their intended effect more effective, but the allegories themselves aren't really useful for getting at the information that they are mythologising, and especially not when the non-allegorical/scientific/historical evidence contradicts it.



1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.



It is true that the Bible said that water came before light. This, I believe is false. This is also why I said it closely matches.

It does not say that the universe was made of water. It says that the Earth was covered in water.

It does not say that plants were created before light. It doesn't even mention the creation of living organisms until the metaphorical third day (I believe that the days represent stages of developement).

Also, what is the other version of creation in the Bible (I am serious about this question, not mocking you; the Bible is full of contradictions due to years of tampering; I wouldn't be surprised if it contradicted itself in creation theory along with the other contradictions). If you can find it, please site the place you found it so I can view it as well. Thanks.



The creation days are being described from an earth surface point of view.
The first statement, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth " is meant to state that all the stars are fully lit and the planets are in orbit around the stars with their rotation about their axis.

The first creative step of earth was, "Let there be light." This was a gradual process because the atmophere was of thick gases like Venus. The gases did not completely clear until the fourth creative day.

The heavenly bodies such as the sun, moon and stars where not clearly visible, from the surface of the earth until the end of the fourth creative day.



posted on Oct, 24 2004 @ 01:38 AM
link   
If this is the kind of stuff that christians were saying during Roman times then no wonder they were being burned alive. Can you imagine some wacko walking around spouting all of this crazy stuff??

I got a question.

How can a woman turn into a pillar of salt or a man raise a stick and seperate a sea or a man be swallowed by a whale stay in the belly for a couple of days and then be spit back out?



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by lostinspace
The first creative step of earth was, "Let there be light." This was a gradual process because the atmophere was of thick gases like Venus.

Strange, the bible says it was just a formless watery void, not a planet with any sort of atmosphere. It probably doesn't mention this becuase the people who wrote it had no idea about what planets were or that light comes from stars and suns.


The heavenly bodies such as the sun, moon and stars where not clearly visible, from the surface of the earth until the end of the fourth creative day.

unfortunately the bible says that they were created, not that a fog was cleared. If that was what it meant, then it would plainly state it.



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 02:01 PM
link   
The reason people lived so long, as it was once explained to me by a priest, is because their concept of a calender year was far different than ours.
Remember the calender we use today only came about a few hundred years ago.
So if a year to them was a month that would make them much older.
Just a theory which makes sense



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 01:14 PM
link   
MAN'S LIFE EXPECTANCY WAS ORIGINALLY 1, OOO YEARS, BUT BECAUSE OF SIN, THAT WAS DECREASED. THE OLDEST OF THEM ALL IS METHASULA, 960 YEARS OF AGE.



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 10:15 AM
link   
In the original days there was no polution and disease created yet.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join