Before Adam and Eve there was...

page: 5
18
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Damrod
 


Whatever Galileo or science has to say on the subject, I believe we have enough evidence pointing to the existence of ""bipedal" human-like giants" to convince me of their existence. Even modern history has seen folks 8 to 9 feet tall. I don't buy into the idea of 200-300 feet, but 8-10 feet, and maybe a bit more, is not out of the question. Kind of like these guys.


^^ Around 9 feet if I remember right.


^^ Afghanistan.


^^ 8 feet 11 inches.
edit on 2/28/2012 by Klassified because: details and correction




posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by WeZet
Genesis 1

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Read carefully. God created the heavens and the earth, then verse 2 continues: " 2 Now the earth was formless and empty" You can interpret this as a follow up on the creating of earth, or as a fact after thousands of years after the original creation. What was in between? When God began creation of our world as we know it (flora, fauna, us) there was a formless and empty world. There could have been another creation before it.

Some speculate that the original inhabitants of the earth were angels. Satan is the ruler of the earth, could it've been that he was cast down here from another planet, were he ruled as a high angel before his rebellion? That would explain the empty form of the earth when our creation started.

God doesn't create something awful, he never did, there is, to my knowing, not one passage in the bible that tells us otherwise. It seems to me that verses one and two of the genesis are overlooked. There was more before we were created (dinosaurs, created by satan?), but we don't have to know about it it seems.







GENESIS 1:2 the word was is a mistranslation it should have read the world became void and without forn. The word was is the Hebrew word Hayaw , Strongs concordance word H 1961.

So ask your self if the world became void and without form , WHY ? I will tell you why God destroyed the earth that was because of Satan rising up against God with 1/3 of Gods creations US yes that would be us humans only then we were in spiritual bodies . That one word being mistranslated changes the whole story of creation to a story of recreation and helps explain some of the controversy by Satan right away in e garden of Eden .



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Klassified
 


That's true and the world's tallest man at 8'-11" I think...suffered horrible pain and was basically handicapped.

I am not saying the 8-9 feet is impossible...but it comes at a price of functionality...I was basically talking about the idea of mythologized giants and "titanic" sized humanoids...double the size or more of normal men. This is physically impossible.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Sailor Sam
 




TextIf your giant race was about 300 feet tall, how did that come about, extra terrastials of that size mating with earth's women would have been impossible, the women would have burst open. Unless you believe that they had genes that created these giants from normal size beings?


You are right in questioning the book of Enoch because i said the very same thing. Charlesworth explains that the angels who came down from heaven were not 300 feet tall but that over the period of about 700 years the angels offspring became the giants of old. Another question I asked myself was what happened to the angels? Did they die? Charlesworth explains that they became corrupt. In other words their substance changed once they left the celestial realm and became flesh. The book of Jude also references these angels who left their first estate. If their substances changed and they could not leave this planet then they must have faced death. (My guess) -- I really can't bring myself to believe all of that but that is what was in the cave # 4 of the dead sea scrolls. They lay there right along with the complete book of Isaiah.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by tgidkp
hey OP. i took a literature course a couple of years ago in which we studied many different interpretations of the Eden Creation myth. i have uploaded a pdf of one of the articles which we studied.

enjoy!

PHILIP ALMOND; Adam, Pre-Adamites, and Extra-Terrestrial Beings


Thanks for posting this. I enjoyed the read.
I didn't realize this was such a hot topic over the last 400 years.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 03:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Klassified
 


I really do think there is something to this interpretation.

the creation myth is rich for self exploration.

good luck to yah!



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Azadok
 


Exactly, that's what I meant. There was a creation before our creation. Even with the mistranslation you can see that it points out that way.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damrod
reply to post by Klassified
 


That's true and the world's tallest man at 8'-11" I think...suffered horrible pain and was basically handicapped.

I am not saying the 8-9 feet is impossible...but it comes at a price of functionality...I was basically talking about the idea of mythologized giants and "titanic" sized humanoids...double the size or more of normal men. This is physically impossible.


Yes it is. The square cube law prevents it.

IMO, the "giants" were normal humans, just at the upper end of our genetic potential. Even today, a man around 6'6" is considered huge, much less 7 feet. And in those days, the average height was 5'7", so even 6'3" would seem abnormally large. Goliath was supposedly one of the last giants, and he was 7 feet tall. Not out of the realm of possibility. There were people that large around at the time--there's the mummy of Cherchen Man (and the Tarim mummies) who was found in China and whose remains date to 3000 BC. He was somewhere around 6'6" (well over 6 feet). Strangely enough, one of the mummies was buried wearing a big pointy hat felt hat with a flat brim, just like we imagine witches and wizards wearing.

Also, the word Nephilim doesn't mean "giant." I'm pretty sure only the King James Bible translates it that way. More and more, the word is going untranslated because there are so many possibilities. It can be interpreted as Fallen Ones, Marvelous Ones, Mighty Men, Distinguished Ones (which fits in with the "men of reknown" statement in Genesis).



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


Ya I was too quick in my writings and missed a zero. You are right in we could interbreed as far back as 500k and not 50k as I miss wrote. The Neanderthal did have interbreeding with us even as close as 10k to 30k years ago, but I would say that this distant cousin was the only human we could do this with. And if we were not interacting throughout the 400k years with them and they branched off in isolation we could have seen a situation much like the mule when it came to interbreeding.

As we push beyond 1 million years we start entering into other species where interbreeding would not work. I guess my point wasn't so much the timeline as must as commenting on people who feel that ancient civilizations have come and gone since the dinosaurs and if that were the case they would have never have been human civilizations, but completely different species.

People seem to think that humans just kind of stop evolving once they reach a certain point, and that is not true just as humans a million years from now will not be much like we are today, and it could be hard for us to actually call them "human".
edit on 2-3-2012 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   
According to the Genesis account, the flood of Noah is believed to be in the year of 1656 after the creation of Adam. That is according to the Jewish Time Line Encyclopedia. There are a set of books which were under the name of "The Torah Anthology" by Me'AM LO'EZ. I believe you can still buy these volumes on the internet. In one of the first volumes "Noah" is a passage that I doubt many people have read.

The Tower of Babel was destroyed by God 1996 years after the creation of Adam. That means, according to their account, that in only about 340 years from Noah's flood that this all happened. In this account, of Torah Anthology, the builders of the tower were given six punishments. Out of the six punishments was that some of the builders were transformed into apes while others were transformed into spirits and demons.

While I make no claim of the authenticity of this account, I ask this question. This modern scientific field of biology claims the adoption of evolution which is partially based upon the theory that man came from the split in genes and produced ape or monkey like creations and then evolved into our present day civilizations of men and women.

This Torah Anthology was written prior to 1732 and was first published in 1730. Even today it is considered the most outstanding source of Jewish anthology among the Jewish communities. I don't base any literature strictly on the merit of age but when reading this account I wondered just how this account could have been known to the author. Now Darwin also had the same problem and he lived between 1809 and 1882. I don't doubt that there is a gene split in the ape or monkey story but then the evolutionists go one step further and state that this happened some thousands of years ago. The very same question comes to my mind and that is just how do the biologists know that this took some thousands of years? Fair is fair in my thinking and if I am to question one aspect of thinking then am I obligated to do the same in all of my thought?

The Anthology account claims that man became ape but science claims that ape became man. Both have their own source of theology. Today I can see man and ape but what I cannot see is who became what (if they did). In either case it is some what leaning more and more towards another civilization other than what we have now. The reason being that if there were thousands of years of evolution from the gene split of another creature then some of the old traditions of other cultures could also be correct. In other words, towards the beginning of our learning to walk and talk and build to what we are now may very well have taken thousands of years if you go that path. But in going that path you would then have to discredit the bible or outside accounts.

Now this Anthology account does not say that all people became apes or spirits or demons. It says that just some of the builders were punished with this sort of punishment. If that is true then that would have left witnesses to the account and could account for tradition of past cultures. Also it does not say that this was the creation of apes and does not explain whether or not there were apes at that time. By choosing this account you would have to discredit the white coated biologist. I call them the white coated beaker boys.

So as you can see, just where does the most evidence lay? Simply because science can split a monkey gene in a lab is no solid proof of thousands of years of evolution from one accident. Also the question is – Was this accidental split repeated many times or just once? If only once then how do you get male and female from one accident? I admit my ignorance but if any of you folks have any opinions please chime in cause I’m open for your knowledge.



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Ya I was too quick in my writings and missed a zero. You are right in we could interbreed as far back as 500k and not 50k as I miss wrote. The Neanderthal did have interbreeding with us even as close as 10k to 30k years ago, but I would say that this distant cousin was the only human we could do this with. And if we were not interacting throughout the 400k years with them and they branched off in isolation we could have seen a situation much like the mule when it came to interbreeding.


The evidence is that Neanderthals interbred with the Denisovans. If the Neanderthals could breed with them and us, then we could breed with Denisovans as well.



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by HappyBunny

The evidence is that Neanderthals interbred with the Denisovans. If the Neanderthals could breed with them and us, then we could breed with Denisovans as well.



Yes maybe, but we know little of them and just how far off the path they were from us or neanderthals, or just how wide spread they were.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by HappyBunny

The evidence is that Neanderthals interbred with the Denisovans. If the Neanderthals could breed with them and us, then we could breed with Denisovans as well.



Yes maybe, but we know little of them and just how far off the path they were from us or neanderthals, or just how wide spread they were.


HI Xtrozero,

The Papal New Guineans (and other people of southeast Asia) have a fairly large percentage of Denisovan DNA--upwards of 5%. The Papal New Guineans are a favorite subject of anthropologists and have been for a very long time due to their advanced culture even while being isolated from the rest of the world for so long. The north/south range attributed to the Denisovans seems to put a dent in Jared Diamond's east/west theory (which itself is just a derivative of earlier theories).

www.newscientist.com...

It's also possible that they met up in Central Asia somewhere and carried the genes with them, but the point is that they contributed quite a bit to our gene pool, just as the Neanderthals did with early Europeans.

Also of interest is that the cave where the finger was found is in Altai...and Altai has recently been put forward as the ancestral and genetic "home" of the Native American populations.

news.nationalgeographic.com...



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 08:13 PM
link   
Ezekiel 31:9 "I have made him fair by the multitude of his branches: so that all the trees of
Eden, that were in the garden of God, envied him."

This is strong religious evidence that humans are older than 6,000 years. Obviously, this
bible passage refers to Adam. To say that Adam was made "fair" by his many branches,
gives validity to the Out of Africa theory. "The multitude of his branches" is his diverse
ancestry, and by "fair," we can only assume that that means white. All of the "trees in the
garden" must be the family trees, that the first Caucasians with the mutant gene evolved
from.

-Tom
edit on 9-3-2012 by RollaFarmBoy29 because: because



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   
Those "other humans" were the early creations. Again, the Adam was the latest upgraded version. More similar to them in image and likeness. Creation is not a myth. Is a fact. It is written as the origin of every single civilization on earth. There is no logical reason why a bunch of modern nerds and retards called "scientistzzz" discredit any sort of ancient knowledge labeling it as "myth"

The giants or the nephillim were not angels. They were the offspring between Gods and female human. Although the DNA of the Gods and humans are exactly the same (thats the reason why no "alien" DNA will ever be found), the planet they come from is exposed to a different electromagnetic field which makes their lifespan absolutely different to ours. When they come here, their molecular structure works at a different pace> Or better said, their carbon units work at a different clock. It takes time to adapt to local conditions. That might be the reason why those creatures became giants. Because there have been more offspring between Gods and humans which are perfectly normal ans fertile. Achilles for example.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Abiogenesis or biopoiesis is the study of how biological life could arise from inorganic matter through natural processes. In particular, the term usually refers to the processes by which life on Earth may have arisen.

Most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments that involved simulating some of the hypothetical conditions of the early Earth in a laboratory.

Other equally fundamental biochemicals, such as nucleotides and saccharides can arise in similar ways. In all living things, these biochemicals are organized into more complex molecules, including macromolecules, such as proteins, polysaccharides, and nucleic acids. These three molecules are essential for all life functions and make up all living organisms. The construction of these macromolecules is mediated by nucleic acids and enzymes, that are themselves synthesized through biochemical pathways catalysed largely by proteins. Which of these various classes of organic molecules first arose, and how they formed the first life, is a major topic in the discipline of abiogenesis.

In any theory of abiogenesis, two aspects of life must be accounted for: replication and metabolism. The question of which came first gave rise to different types of theories. In the beginning, metabolism-first theories were proposed, and only later thinking gave rise to the modern, replication-first approach. The sequence of chemical events that led to the first nucleic acids is not known. Several hypotheses about early life have been proposed, most notably the iron-sulfur world theory and the RNA world hypothesis.

The first living things on Earth are thought to have been single cell prokaryotes (which lack a cell nucleus), perhaps evolved from protobionts (organic molecules surrounded by a membrane-like structure).

The oldest ancient fossil microbe-like objects are dated to be 3.5 Ga (billion years old), approximately one billion years after the formation of the Earth itself with reliable fossil evidence of the first life found in rocks 3.4 Gyr old.

By 2.4 Ga, the ratio of stable isotopes of carbon, iron and sulfur shows the action of living things on inorganic minerals and sediments and molecular biomarkers indicate photosynthesis, demonstrating that life on Earth was widespread by this time.

Personally, I prefer Genesis...the more succinct explanation and it says the exact same thing.

Disproving the Genesis account is the equivalent to disproving what any Biology book would have to say concerning the subject.

Good Luck, OP.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 09:12 AM
link   
im more interested in what happend after adam and eve since they were the only 2 people on earth then how did they populate it without incest???



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Starwise
 


you are quite correct with the link explaining how the whole Earth was already populated with various races of modern humans...

the Eden story (Genesis) was about a particular enclave of genetically separate humans --- the 'Adamic' line
which were characterized as having been made from the dirt/clay of the Earth


the 'Other People' which were already established and Ancient compared to the recent Yahweh model of Adamic mankind... these OP, or at least the lineage of the already living 'Lilith' were made by other 'Forces' and were made from the Forest/Trees... the spirit of Lilith is usually associated with indwelling in Trees or Forests to this day.

so you can see... the Adamic line of men from clay was not truly compatable with a Lilith lineage from giant plants/Trees/Forests


the real reason for the ending of the Adam-Lilith union was because the Adamic line wanted submission from the Forest lineage people and wanted Dominance over everything... instead of abiding with nature as the Lilith line was attuned to do, ............Thus the real difference between the conquering/warlike Adamic line of menkind and the peaceful Pagans who once had a global paradigm of 'Do what thou wilt but hurt no-one'


the globe has been in constant conflict ever since the EDEN enclave was introduced on the planet with the destructive Adamic line of mankind growing like a cancer



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   
there were no humans before Adam and Eve, they are the first. first in a manner consistent with how it would be used in a book that speaks of something described as eternity. that they are first before all others was obviously a conclusion that was arrived at after extensive inquiry.

i won't spend a bunch of text explaining how this could be, which if I did you would immediately understand and see where the misunderstanding is...

...but i'd suggest that you consider this in the context of Adam and Eve being created Immortal. Eternity is a very long time...



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seede
According to the book of Enoch There were about 200 angels who came down from space and landed on Mt. Herman. From what I understand these angels were celestial beings and being so were not of the genealogy as mankind, If this is true then aren’t these space creatures in fact a civilization from space?
.
. This shows us that Enoch’s giants were about 325 feet tall.


So in effect I am led to understand that Enoch is telling us that the giants were at least 300 feet tall.

till you see some of those ancient redwood trees which measure over 370 feet tall

Got any ideas out there in ATS land?




compare the present day launch vehicles @ 235'+320' height.... to the past 'fallen angels @'300'+325'

V Heavy Launch Vehicle: Largest rocket ever launched from ...
www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Delta-IV-Heavy-Launch-Vehicle-Largest-ro...
Jan 21, 2011 – The 235ft-tall Delta IV Heavy Launch Vehicle lifted off at 1.10pm local ...


Mar 16, 2012 – Eight months after the conclusion of the final Space Shuttle mission, the ... (Space Launch System Program) Launch Vehicle Specification Rev-A .... In all, the SLS Block 1 will stand 320.9 feet tall


the tallness of the Giants compare very similar to the rockets in use today.... were the ancients speaking of the vehicles the men-of-renown drove & not the entities themselves





top topics
 
18
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join