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.
Originally posted by Shane
Originally posted by K J Gunderson
I am not sure you are reading that correctly, let me help.
You are a funny one KJ
Genesis 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
Yeah, that cleared it up.
Originally posted by Shane
Problem is, your fictional account staged within Ancient Rochester, New York, is a Fictional Account.
Extremists, (and I am not suggesting you are one), have claimed the Bible, and the premise of the tales, (as they put it) which are found within the Bible rank with you Rochester story, which is plainly and obviously not the case. Finding David's Palace, validates the "Davidic" teachings, since without one, there wouldn't be the other.
Therefore, we have a situation where the matter now becomes one of acceptance. If those, with the Anti "Israel", never was a David, and at best, a farmstead domain for Solomon mentality can not accept fact, then it is beyond me, or any for that matter to ever submit evidence they will accept short of having some devination and raising the spectre of David in an occultic seance of pagan channeling to shake the peanut between their ears onto the Engage/Start position.
Oh hell, now I am ranting. Sad part is it's not at you.
Now, I understand your "Point of View". I do not agree with your point of view, which is my right, and I get you do not agree with mine, which is your right.
And I also hope, we can discuss this in a civil manner. It is something this Specific Forum lacks from time to time. To much inbreeding on both sides, as it appears sometimes.
The Only thing I ask anyone, is to read the material offered. Your views, are as valid as Mine, and in most cases, (Not here yet, but it will come), these opposing views actually are not that opposite in the long run.
Just the same Thing/Story told through the eye's of different Origins/Peoples. This is, where it generally ends anyhow.
I see you have "Other comments", so let's work on these next.
Ciao
Shane
Originally posted by Angus123
When an ark that is large enough to contain a pair of every land-dwelling species... 33 million in all... I'll believe it.
Originally posted by pjslug
The word "Noah" or whatever the actual Aramaic word is could have been either the name of a group of people or ETs that collected the samples, or it could have been the name for a type of machine used to collect the genetic material, or the name of the process for cultivating and/or storing the genetic material.
Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Interesting theory. The thing is, the bible pretty clearly lays out that he is a man with a lifespan, a wife, children. The more you read, the harder it gets to make the argument that they really meant something else. Maybe you read something in the bible that I did not?
Originally posted by pjslug
No, I just don't take religion seriously at all.
It's a vicious roadblock on the path to truth and enlightenment. I do however think that the writing of the bible was done for a reason, and the church felt much of it a threat which is why they have removed portions of it over the centuries.
Please use common sense. How would it be physically possible for a man to gather animals from all over the world, persuade them to follow him, and then fit tens of millions of species on a wooden boat that would have to be the size of a city, all in a fairly short amount of time?
Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Not sure what was funny aside from your clear lack of understanding of the words being used here.
Prevailed - as in overtook all, overpowered all else, won!
All - as in all, every, not some, not most, but every single one.
High hills and mountains - see ALL above and simply add them together.
I am not sure what you do not get here? You seem to have gone to a lot of trouble to post a lot of nonsense about the suspected area but not one bit of what you are surmising actually coincides with the quoted text above.
You found a valley with short hills in it, good for you!
What you did not find was a geographical location that would offer from it's perspective, a view that ALL the mountains and high hills had been PREVAILED over by water.
Maybe you need to try and explain what your theory is a little better instead of muddying up your post with miscellaneous 'facts.' It sounds a lot to me like what you are saying is that the story is a lie but if you change most of the key details, it is probably true.
Care to try a gain?
Originally posted by pjslug
The word "Noah" or whatever the actual Aramaic word is could have been either the name of a group of people or ETs that collected the samples, or it could have been the name for a type of machine used to collect the genetic material, or the name of the process for cultivating and/or storing the genetic material.
5146 Noach no'-akh the same as 5118; rest; Noach, the patriarch of the flood:--Noah.
5118 nuwach noo'-akh or nowach [no'-akh]; from 5117; quiet:--rest(-ed, -ing place).
5117 nuwach noo'-akh a primitive root; to rest, i.e. settle down; used in a great variety of applications, literal and figurative, intransitive, transitive and causative (to dwell, stay, let fall, place, let alone, withdraw, give comfort, etc.):--cease, be confederate, lay, let down, (be) quiet, remain, (cause to, be at, give, have, make to) rest, set down. Compare 3241.
3241 Yaniym yaw-neem' from 5123; asleep; Janim, a place in Palestine: -Janum (from the margin).
5123 nuwm noom a primitive root; to slumber (from drowsiness):--sleep, slumber.
Originally posted by pjslug
Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Interesting theory. The thing is, the bible pretty clearly lays out that he is a man with a lifespan, a wife, children. The more you read, the harder it gets to make the argument that they really meant something else. Maybe you read something in the bible that I did not?
No, I just don't take religion seriously at all. It's a vicious roadblock on the path to truth and enlightenment. I do however think that the writing of the bible was done for a reason, and the church felt much of it a threat which is why they have removed portions of it over the centuries.
Please use common sense. How would it be physically possible for a man to gather animals from all over the world, persuade them to follow him, and then fit tens of millions of species on a wooden boat that would have to be the size of a city, all in a fairly short amount of time?
[edit on 6/5/2010 by pjslug]