Revealed - The TRUE Biblical Geneology

page: 17
14
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by InLightTend
 


Don't worry about him, his light was removed for refusing rebuke from men of God speaking sense into his life. It was the third such time, he's been placed in timeout. Pray for him, don't mock him. Bless him, return his hatred with love and compassion. Love conquers all.


Amen! You're right, I should not mock. I do care though, which is why Im taking the time to share my view, not because I want someone to feel attacked, or to aggrandize myself . But because I truly believe that there's something to learn for everybody. But your right, I reacted poorly to the constant flow of fear and hate from a person that claims to 'walk with the lord'. I have weakness for hipocracy, and keeping my mouth shut around bullies...




posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by InLightTend
 


No biggie, we just need to pray for him. He's still one of us, just needed his chain yanked for the time being. His ends were noble, his means were just like the enemies means.



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by chr0naut
 


Oh please.

First off, the universe is older than the earth. We, our solar system is young compared to the Milky Way. Light already existed by the time our solar system was forming.

It's an amazing stretch of the imagination to suggest that all that scientific big bang/quark, Planck, etc.. stuff is described in "In the beginning, God created the heavens and earth...etc."

It's just not in there.

Besides, by the time the Torah/Bible was compiled, Egypt's pyramids were built and Egypt and Sumeria had extensive knowledge of astronomy and math.
edit on 22-4-2012 by windword because: (no reason given)


How does that relate in any way to an unformed earth existing before light?

I was not suggesting that Genesis is a science textbook, merely that the described narrative could have actually appeared that way to an observer, with a limited way of describing such primeval events.

You assumption, I believe, is that the full stops in the English translation encapsulate individual descriptive instances and that therefore are descriptive of, not a single event, but a sequence of them. Hebrew at the time did not have full stops (or the equivalent) but does have terminal forms of most words. The full stops were added after. The narrative does not stop where you think it does. I believe the first sentence ends at the end of verse 5. Please re-read this as if it were all a very descriptive and long sentence and you will see what I mean.



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 


I think that this kind of religious dogma and rationalization doesn't belong in public school as an alternate theory to evolution. It represents a narrow minded and ignorant point of view. IMHO!




Evolution says Sun before the Earth, Genesis says Earth before the Sun.
Evolution says dry land before the seas, Genesis says seas before the dry land.
Evolution says atmosphere before oceans, Genesis says oceans before the atmosphere.
Evolution says Sun before light on Earth, Genesis says there was light on Earth before Sun created.
Evolution says stars before Earth, Genesis says Earth created before the stars.
Evolution says Ocean creatures before land plants, Genesis says the opposite.
Evolution says land animals before trees, Genesis says trees before land animals.
Evolution says death before man existed, Genesis says man existed before death was in the world.
Evolution says reptiles before birds, Genesis says birds made before the reptiles.
Evolution says Sun before plants, Genesis says plants before the Sun.

Shall I continue? Everything about Evolution is in direct contrast and attacks the Word of God, EVERYTHING. Do you understand how completely and utterly un-Biblical Evolution is. Everything about the theory is directly contrary to God's Word. If you want to believe in Theistic Evolution just rip out the book of Genesis from your Bible, and any quote from Jesus in the gospels saying Adam and Eve were "at the beginning".


You want to defend it, fine. It's one thing for a person to believe and see glimpses of truth. It's another to force a person to see things their way, while denying truth.

This thread is about the genealogy of Noah comprised of "pre-flood" and possibly fictional people. NurTypical takes offense with the OP's theory. He is arguing for the literal translation, as opposed to the OP who has taken some liberties.



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by stupid girl

Originally posted by DISRAELI

Originally posted by Iason321..so I'm proposing the theory that the Adam and Eve and the early ancestors were the Hominidae and Homininae who evolved into the current Human Beings......

And the "tree of knowledge" has something to do with the emergence of human consciousness and the possibility of making conscious decisions and moral choices, including bad ones?


Hey DISRAELI


Surely I would suppose that Adam was already knowlegeable, being made in God's image?

I don't believe God desired to keep his Opus of Creation ignorant.

In my understanding, the Tree was referred to as "The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil"

Human conciousness would have been acheived at the moment of man's creation, including concious decision making....thus God giving man a choice to partake or not partake of the knowledge of good and evil.

Seemingly, mankind was only "ignorant" at that point insomuch as whether his choices were "good" or "evil".

Possibly upon making the choice to partake of said knowledge, the notion of "morality" then came into play?

I also surmise that God most likely did not intend to keep said knowledge from mankind, rather only intended for mankind to reach a further point in his development, or spiritual evolution, if you will, before revealing this kind of information that man was not fully prepared for?
Therefore, not only disobeying God but also putting trust in himself and his own abilities, rather than God who created him.
Food for thought....
edit on 20-4-2012 by stupid girl because: (no reason given)


Not such a "stupid girl", after all!

It does irk me when people misquote like that. It might just seem like a few words, makes a huge difference.

Well stated.

---

OP: you may be onto something. There are are lot of gems in Ecclesiasties that are generally overlooked as the traditional interpretation is that it is poetical and not intended to be historical. That may be the case, or not.
In some ways there is no reason why it can't be both at the same time.
This may be slightly off topic (a tangent if you will indulge me), but check out my comment in this post:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by be4ne1

Originally posted by Iason321
reply to post by Hydroman
 


I take that as meaning that the sin price of the fall affected all animals.

But then you have to ask, which animals goto Paradise? Obviously humans, our brothers - chimps, apes, and other mammals horses, giraffes, zebras, lions, tigers, cats, dogs, etc

I doubt fish/sea creatures are in Heaven, and they aren't the same as mammals, and I doubt creeping things are in heaven either (worms, maggots, bugs, insects, amoeba, species with no CNS/brain/soul/spirit, just mechanical little machines, no substance to em, no personality)


I for one am relieved to know my dog can get in too. I really don't think I'd wanna go anywhere he couldn't go too. I feel better now, really.... I do
edit on 4/21/2012 by be4ne1 because: (no reason given)


You know, you're worried about your dog, but the Bible ranks us women just above livestock and blames us for everything.

Yeah, that's a religion I want to follow. Not.



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by HappyBunny

You know, you're worried about your dog, but the Bible ranks us women just above livestock and blames us for everything.

Yeah, that's a religion I want to follow. Not.


In the Kabbalistic tradition, women are the higher spiritual species. Its is said that women posses a higher soul of superior quality, and that this is the reason that women bring life into the world not men. Women are seen as being closer to God because of their ability to give birth.

To be close to something spiritually, the more you emulate that thing the 'closer' you become to it. The more 'like God' you can be, the 'closer' to God you'll be spiritually. Proximity or distance has no bearing on spiritual closeness. As being a creator of life, women are closer to God than any man could ever be. It is also said that a man earns a woman of a certain quality through his deeds and thoughts.



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by InLightTend

Originally posted by HappyBunny

You know, you're worried about your dog, but the Bible ranks us women just above livestock and blames us for everything.

Yeah, that's a religion I want to follow. Not.


In the Kabbalistic tradition, women are the higher spiritual species. Its is said that women posses a higher soul of superior quality, and that this is the reason that women bring life into the world not men. Women are seen as being closer to God because of their ability to give birth.

To be close to something spiritually, the more you emulate that thing the 'closer' you become to it. The more 'like God' you can be, the 'closer' to God you'll be spiritually. Proximity or distance has no bearing on spiritual closeness. As being a creator of life, women are closer to God than any man could ever be. It is also said that a man earns a woman of a certain quality through his deeds and thoughts.



Well, thanks for that.
But did you ever read Thomas Aquinas, on whom Catholic doctrine is based (and who got his ideas from Aristotle)?


"As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active power of the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of a woman comes from defect in the active power...."


Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica,Q92

No wonder Rick Santorum is such a Neanderthal.



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hydroman
If you look at Greek Myths, you may find some of the same things in archaeology. Does that make all Greek myths true? Same with all other ancient writings?


Myth comes from the Greek word Mythos, meaning of course Truth.


Where does that leave your thought?

Ciao

Shane



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


That causeway in the pic you posted was built courtesy of alexander by raising Tyre & throwing it into the ocean to get out to the island & sack the remaining Tyrenians. You are right we are getting off topic but I thought you might find that bit of info interesting.



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 08:03 PM
link   
I am sorry, and express my apology now, if someone else has directed a response akin to what I wish to say on this subject. My tolerance meter has become defective reviewing these first three pages and I just cant not taken it anymore. Yes, I have snapped.


Originally posted by Iason321
reply to post by Hydroman
 


What if the ark is a metaphor for a land bridge or dwelling where a group of Noahs and Noahs children dwelled in safety?

What if the Biblical "flood" is actually referring to an ice age?

The original Hebrew leaves questions such as these open to interpretation......


No, The original text doesn't leave these questions open to interpretation. Much like your skewed view on Christ's Bloodline.


Genesis 1:26 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.


This is the Races of Mankind my friend. This is the Hunter and Gatherers who inhabited this planet LONG before a man, (GOD called Adam), was created. This man, (single, alone, unlike the creations of the 6th day) was created to tend the garden.


Genesis 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
8 And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.


Again, review verse 8.


Genesis 2:8 And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.


There is no "Tribe" or "Race of Peoples" being put there. JUST "THE MAN". A single man.

As for the Balance of the Topic, what is wrong with the written account. Christ comes from this bloodline. He doesn't come from some machination of speculation. He is descended from David, who is descended from Abraham, who is descended from Noah, who is descended from Adam.

You expressed a view. You offered your thoughts. You have through the first three pages, answered and defended your opinion.

And to be clear, you are entitled to believe whatever you wish, but Biblically Speaking, you are far off the path.

The Genesis Account is a simple expression of a Creation/Recreation account, (pending ones views on that), which states what occured in Genesis 1. Genesis 2, forward to the the End is the Account of Adam's Bloodline.

Dissolving this into some speculationary theory of what if and such, effectively eliminates the Gift GOD gave Mankind. Christ becomes nothing more than anyone. Not the Saviour, Not the Lamb of GOD, Not the Way.

Sorry, but based on this alone, I am having fits.


Glad I got that off my chest. Back to page three, and I hope things get smoother.

Ciao

Shane



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Iason321
 


I'm a Bible-believing Christian who, at this point, does not believe in evolution. Please don't judge me for holding these beliefs, as I will not judge you for holding your own. I do think I can contribute something to this discussion, as it is interesting, even if I walk away not agreeing with the interpretation.

IF, however, Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kanen (Cainen), etc. are groups of people/civilizations and NOT individuals, the following verses have a drastically different meaning than how the majority of people view them:



Now the LORD said to Abram, “Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.

(Genesis 12:1-3 ESV)

We have to ask, is God making a great nation from the individual Abram (name changed to Abraham) or a tribe/civilization named Abram (name changed to Abraham)?




By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going. By faith he went to live in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God. By faith Sarah herself received power to conceive, even when she was past the age, since she considered him faithful who had promised. Therefore from one man, and him as good as dead, were born descendants as many as the stars of heaven and as many as the innumerable grains of sand by the seashore.

(Hebrews 11:8-12 ESV)




Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith—just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”?

Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

(Galatians 3:5-9 ESV)

Would this mean that anyone who has any belief in God, regardless of their specifics, are children of Abraham? If so, does that mean that atheists are not children of Abraham? I know where my Christians beliefs would lead me: Anyone who does not profess faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, who died, was buried, and resurrected bodily is not a child of Abraham. But for the sake of this discussion, assuming Abraham is a civilization/state in evolutionary development, where does that leave the atheists?

There is another famous name change in the Bible that must be presented:



God appeared to Jacob again, when he came from Paddan-aram, and blessed him. And God said to him, “Your name is Jacob; no longer shall your name be called Jacob, but Israel shall be your name.” So he called his name Israel. And God said to him, “I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply. A nation and a company of nations shall come from you, and kings shall come from your own body. The land that I gave to Abraham and Isaac I will give to you, and I will give the land to your offspring after you.”

(Genesis 35:9-12 ESV)

IF this interpretation is correct, then the whole Israel being a nation, not an individual person (formerly Jacob) makes some sense. Later on Israel is identified as a nation without even thinking about the individual formerly known as Jacob. We would also have to look at the dichotomy between Jacob and Esau. God loved Jacob, but hated Esau.

Saul's name changed to Paul at some point, but we know it did not happen at his conversion, which is a misconception.

I guess we need to ask this question:
IF this interpretation is correct, is every individual's name in the Bible actually representative of a tribe/civilization/stage in evolutionary advancement?

Interesting discussion, nonetheless. I hope I contributed in a positive manner.



edit on 4/23/2012 by Fury1984 because: Typo
edit on 4/23/2012 by Fury1984 because: Punctuation
edit on 4/23/2012 by Fury1984 because: Phrasing



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Shane
 


Shane, I've been looking into theistic evolution more and I came across this page that goesinto different types of Theistic Evolution, and I've been thinking about Adam and Eve maybe being literal, and God using evolution to produce the physical vessels for Adam and Eve, check this out:

Polygenistic Theistic Evolution: This category admits a more direct role of the Creator in creation, but nevertheless accepts the premise that at least man’s body evolved from purely natural processes—even if perhaps under the guiding hand of Providence. This evolutionary process is known as natural transformism. The concept of natural transformism does not allow for any direct intervention by God after the alleged evolutionary process of life began. This category also accepts polygenism, thus treating Adam and Eve as either mythological fabrications or representatives of the first clan of human beings. Moreover, some of these theistic evolutionists may even argue that mans soul evolved. [7]

Monogenistic Theistic Evolution: Broad Natural Transformism. This form of evolutionary theory not only accepts that God’s Providence directed the evolution of man but also insists on (1) monogenism (the belief that the human race descended from only one human couple) and (2) the immediate creation of the soul by God (whether immediately after the human body was completely formed or just prior to that point, with some changes resulting from the infusion of the soul). But these theistic evolutionists still allow for natural transformism in the formation of the bodies of both Adam and Eve. [8]

Monogenistic Theistic Evolution: Natural Transformism for Adam Only. This is just like the previous category, except that it does not accept the notion that Eve’s body evolved from a lower animal species. The body of Adam, according to this form of evolutionary theory, evolved through purely natural processes, but supernatural intervention by God was involved in the formation of the body of Eve directly from the body of Adam. This category also affirms that God immediately created the souls of both Adam and Eve. [9]

Monogenistic Theistic Evolution: Special Transformism. Like the previous category, this form of evolutionary theory insists on (1) monogenism, (2) immediate creation of the soul, and (3) supernatural intervention by God in the creation of the body of Eve directly from the body of Adam. However, this more restrictive form of evolutionary theory does not allow for the natural transformism of the body of Adam. Instead, it proposes that the body of Adam developed through special transformism. Special transformism precludes the possibility of a lower animal species in any way being the parent of Adam, but it leaves open the possibility that God somehow used the "living matter" of a lower animal species to specially form man.


I'm leaning toward explanation 4, 5, or 6

Any of them are plausible though.....

Let me know what you think



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
No, the ice age was a result of the deluge.
And that is where in the bible exactly?


The Bible doesn't say this Hydroman. Nor does it indicate anything about Ice Ages.

It is clearly note though, that this is the second earth age. The First way before this one, and the second ends with the Return of Christ and the Millennium Kingdom.

With that said, what happened in the first earth age is debatable. Personally I find this would be, the Ice Age, the end of the First Earth Age, and part of the events occuring within Genesis 1:2.

There is question whether the Translators utilized the terms in an attempt to satisfy the "Church" and it's predisposed Dogmas, Doctrines, and Theologies, apposed to offering what the Original Text expresses clearly and specifically.

The Genesis 1:2 "And the earth was without form and void......." is not what the Original Text says. The Original Text indicates, Genesis 1:2 "And the Earth became a Waste and a Desolation..........."

Now if any dismiss this, that's fine. It is a simple matter to check for yourself. You be the judge. The Tools to do so are at ones finger tips.

Ciao

Shane



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Fury1984
 


If the multiple clan / tribe theory is correct, I hold the position that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are among the first true "individuals" listed in the Bible.

I believe Abram / Abraham to be a single entity, and I am split on Noah and his 3 sons being single entities or a group of people.....

Theres also the possibility they are all single people, even from a theistic evolution perspective, an avenue I had not explored when I made this thread, read my previous post for further explanation,

Amen



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hydroman


Originally posted by Iason321
I'm still trying to figure out exactly what the ark is or was, it was some sort of "box" or I imagine a safe area or zone or cave, but it had to be "lifted above the waters" or float on the waters,
I think the Epic of Gilgamesh says it was some sort of box type of thing in the Sumerian flood story.



Well, it did not appear to be what we saw in Evan Almighty.


Here is an Image of what the Bible describes.

[img]http://img.abovetopsecret.com...[/img]

And think for a minute. Where did Abraham come from? Ur, right?

So ask yourself, we have peoples who give an account of an occurance, which took place long before they lived, but they are the first to have the ability to record it. Is it a Sumerian Flood Story, or the Flood Story based on a Sumerian view?

Food for thought.

Ciao

Shane



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Iason321
 


I still wonder how the chosen people of God, named Israel, got its name. Was it just because they descended from Jacob/Israel?

This is an interesting discussion. I'm not leaving out the possibility that God used evolution in some capacity, but I'm not sold yet.




...then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.

(Genesis 2:7 ESV)

If evolution of mankind is true, why did it say God formed the man of dust, not of an existing creature? There are other verses that talk about how we came from dust and we will return to the dust.

Also, why does the language suggest only one man, not a group of people? This is helping me to stick with my beliefs that this text is talking about one man, not a tribe.

We see an odd transition, similar to the transition from Saul to Paul in Acts 13. All of a sudden "the man" is titled "Adam". Unless...




The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him.

(Genesis 2:20 ESV)



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Shane
 


Why does the lower drawing look like the image in the Shroud of Turin? Weird.



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iason321

All I'm saying is the earth isn't 6,000 years old and a literal interpretation of Genesis cannot possibly be the truth,


And here is one of the basic flaws in your theories.

NO WHERE IN THE KING JAMES 1611 BIBLE DOES IT SAY THE EARTH IS 6000 YEARS OLD.

Adam's Bloodline is "measured" and that is the ONLY thing 6000 Years old.

I trust you get what I mean.

Genesis 1:1 In the Beginning, GOD created the Heavens and the Earth.

There is no dating here. There is no indication when this took place. There is no timeline given or hinted of. Nothing but the statement, which clearly expresses, In the Beginning. To presume or assume this is 192 Hours before Adam is created is folly. It doesn't indicate this.

And to be clear, we even have scripture expressing time long before Adam, which Science can date in the "Million" of Years


Job 40:15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.
20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.
23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
24 He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.


You would be hard pressed to say these little critters where not being discussed in the above text.




Have a good day.

Ciao

Shane



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fury1984
reply to post by Shane
 


Why does the lower drawing look like the image in the Shroud of Turin? Weird.


No idea. Maybe the artist and his background would be brought out in the drawing.

And for those who didn't see it, I figured out why it did not show in my previous post. Now for all to view.



Ciao

Shane

P.S. it is a big picture. use the slider for review of the complete illustration.





top topics
 
14
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join


Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant
read more: Ora.TV's Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant