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.

 

The "Facts" of the bible and where we come from

page: 10
7
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Sacriligeous
 


addendum to my previous post to you on previous page: btw, that was called the angelic dispensation, which he claims ended when the earth was devastated during the war, resulting in the extinction of more than just dinosaurs. and it's at the re-terraforming of the planet, that we pick up the story in the biblical texts.

end angelic dispensation,
begin human dispensation.

you are here now.

[edit on 21-7-2010 by undo]




posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   
I just wanted to say that this thread is being derailed more and more as the page number increases. How could he have asked Fundamentalists, and those that believe the Biblical text in its entirety and literally, and gotten those that talk about other books.

I think the point of the thread is for discussion of the currently accepted scripture and not of the apocryphal books or any other literary source.

Can we make a new thread for the other discussion please?



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Y2KJMan
 


well dake did use scripture to back up his position and it does relate to the topic of man's arrival on the planet, however, remotely. it helps to locate the event on the timeline, i do believe.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 12:03 PM
link   
the fact is the bible is a pastiche of past allegorical stories. for those of you who take it literally, wake up.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   
btw there are no human statues or depictions prior to 3900 BC. all the statuary is bipedal reptilian or bipedal amphibian. clearly, the serpent came from somewhere and had legs. he was already present or near, the garden. you can't remove legs if they weren't there to begin with. and the artifacts back up what i'm saying. even skeletons claimed to be cave men look more like reptile skulls than sapian skulls.

part of the problem with answering the ops questiions are directly related to the strawman debate. make a faulty premise and argument that you've established, by appealing to faulty information, and require non-faulty answers for it. further complicate it by insisting the answers come from the faulty position and silence anyone who suggests that you can't get a non-faulty answer by insisting that faulty data be used in the first place.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


I would like to research for myself the claims you make. Can you point me to the research you used to come to your conclusion?

Not just any info, but the info you used?

It would be helpful.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by worlds_away
 


it's a big topic.
which part do you want to start with?



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
btw there are no human statues or depictions prior to 3900 BC. all the statuary is bipedal reptilian or bipedal amphibian. clearly, the serpent came from somewhere and had legs. he was already present or near, the garden. you can't remove legs if they weren't there to begin with. and the artifacts back up what i'm saying. even skeletons claimed to be cave men look more like reptile skulls than sapian skulls.


This part. I would like to have a look at your sources. For my own curiosity.

Edit to add: I should have been more specific to begin with.

[edit on 21-7-2010 by worlds_away]



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by worlds_away
 


well i first found this particular path while researching mother goddess worship. i soon discovered that the mother goddess statues, prior to 3900 BC were all reptilian or the heads were so misshapen or disguised, that you could not tell what the heck it was. and the one that had a human head, had its head added after the fact. it's legs were scaley and it had clawed feet. it was bulky and heavily muscled like you'd expect from a powerful reptile i thought, hrmm.. that's odd. what about the males? well, it was the same thing for the males. the males were what appeared to be a reptilian or amphibian or both, like a hybrid. this is especially apparent in the oldest civilization, namely, Sumer, sight of the euphrates and tigris rivers, what we know today as iraq. The artifacts in the iraq museum, substantiate this. Not one human statue prior to 3900 BC.

here's an example from EN.KI's sumerian city of Eridu
front
oi.uchicago.edu...
side
oi.uchicago.edu...

that's a good place to start with. believe me, i've researched this topic extensively.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


You are also made out of meat. Should i eat you?
Thought so.


If you have a choice between meat and vegetabels, between killing and not killing a living creature with senses, then what would make God more happy?
Thought so.





posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


So do you take the statues to be “literal” representations of humans? Or a “figurative” representation?

I take them as “figurative” representations. Where humans believed they could be given the “powers" of different animals by creating a statue “in likeness”.

Or maybe, a ruler was seen as being like a lion or a snake and so that was how he was represented in his statues.

Do you have sources to refute my ideas? I would be very interested... I am not being argumentative, but my curiosity has been piqued.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by worlds_away
 


no, i don't believe that's a human being. they are the seraphim, as it mentions in the text from sumer that Enki was the great dragon. He was a seraph. strong's concordance says a seraph is a fiery (also glowing, shining) or poisonous serpent:
www.eliyah.com...
seraph is singular for seraphim.

who else would the serpent be if not an upright, bipedal, talking being, also created by the gods, who apparently is a seraph?
cherubim are not cute little babies with bows and arrows.

[edit on 21-7-2010 by undo]



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


You think it is a literal representation of a seraphim, not a figurative representation of a human?

Ok. I’m a little out of my league here....

Who else could it be you ask? I don’t know.

But please clarify for me. The statues you are talking about are from what dates? And they relate to the bible how?

If the statue you referenced is from 4000BC, how does it relate to the Bible?



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by worlds_away
 


Ante-diluvian. Pre flood. I'm also thinking it fits in the timeline of Genesis 6. Homo sapians are here. The nephilim arise.

here's the sumerian text where Enki is called the "great dragon." Interesting title for the text, don't you think?


ENKI AND THE WORLD ORDER
www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk...

guess that was the old world order, as opposed to the new world order


close up examination of the pic reveals that he has fangs and like 6 or more fingers on each hand.

there are other statues in that same time frame, from other cities in sumer. all of them look like that. some are females, and they are nursing babies, who have webbed fingers, scaley hands and oddly shaped heads. one even has a tail instead of legs.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Well, I am going to agree to disagree, if you will let me. lol

I do not take the Bible literally. That is a topic for another thread though. I have not thoroughly researched my ideas as you have yours.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by worlds_away
 


no problemo.


angels are always referred to as bipedal, upright, sentient. they can talk, eat, have sex, etc. so i'm thinking there's more to them historically than metaphor. i believe this ties in to the egyptian thing as well. the statue was terracota, which fits in with the definition of adam being "red skinned", even though it may have been their choice of materials to work with, it is known that the sumerians and akkadians, also worked with gold, silver, red gold, lapis lazuli and other metals, minerals and precious stones. egypt was in lock step with them. joined at the hip as it were.



[edit on 21-7-2010 by undo]



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


There are also statues thousands of years old depicting some hindu gods that are half elephant half man...or half monkey half man, goddesses with 6 arms...etc etc....what do you make of those? surely you cant think those were another race of people just because there are statues and ancient stories about them? ...just curious



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Sacriligeous
 


the difference is, this planet was over run by reptiles of varying sizes, for what, hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of years?

dino man from canadian museum of nature
www.molvray.com...

what would his fossilized remains look like?



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Can you please show me how in any way that “dino man” has anything to do with the Canadian Museum of Nature?

I’m trying to find a reference. But since you know it is from there maybe you can point me to it.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by worlds_away
 


apparently this guy:

Dr. Dale Alan Russell is a vertebrate paleontologist and author. He is a Research Professor at North Carolina State University and Senior Curator of Paleontology at the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences. Russel has named the following dinosaurs: Alxasaurus (Russell and Dong, 1994), Archaeornithomimus (1972), Atlasaurus (Monbaron, Russell and Taquet, 1999), Cristatusaurus (Taquet and Russell, 1998), Daspletosaurus (1970), Dromiceiomimus (1972), Dyslocosaurus (McIntosh, Coombs and Russell, 1992), Lurdusaurus (Taquet and Russell, 1999), Sigilmassasaurus (Russell, 1996), and Sinornithoides (Russell and Dong, 1994). Russell has written many papers and books, including, "Odyssey in Time: The Dinosaurs of North America" 1989 and "Systematics and Morphology of American Mosasaurs" (1967). In 1971, Russell and the physicist Wallace Tucker published a paper (in the journal Nature) called "Supernovae and the extinction of the dinosaurs," which theorized that a supernova caused the K-T Extinction. This was the first theory to put the blame on an extra-terrestrial phenomenon.

i'm assuming the canadian museum of nature found his work on this:
web.ukonline.co.uk... and featured him either in their museum or on their website, or both.

edit to add: Yeah, the article states a model of the dino man, called dinosauroid was on display in Ottawa (Canada), so that's probably the place it was originally at.

[edit on 21-7-2010 by undo]




top topics



 
7
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join