Göbekli Tepe: 12,000 Years Old Temple

page: 1
1

log in

join

posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 09:14 AM
link   
humansarefree.com...

Pretty weird dating. According to the Bible this can not be. Have any comments?




posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 09:17 AM
link   


Without getting into the usual/repetitive debate….The Bible does not offer a accurate timeline for the history of our planet. Simple.

Gobekli Tepe is an awesome site.
edit on 24-8-2012 by MDDoxs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 09:32 AM
link   


Above: Stacked rocks forming walls - African Metropolis;
Bellow: Stacked rocks forming walls - Göbekli Tepe;

The similarities are striking!





posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 09:39 AM
link   



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 09:53 AM
link   
Why do archaeologists call every new site they found a "temple"?
How do they know? Where is the evidence for that claim?


btw...I know, Göbekli Tepe is not a new site. It has been under excavation since 1994.
But it was immediately called temple.
edit on 24.8.2012 by grobi77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by MDDoxs


Without getting into the usual/repetitive debate….The Bible does not offer a accurate timeline for the history of our planet. Simple.

Gobekli Tepe is an awesome site.
edit on 24-8-2012 by MDDoxs because: (no reason given)


Not so simple:




The Mathematical Tabulation concerning the Year of "Adam's Creation" according to the Account of "Moses" (contained in the First Five Books of the Old Testament) is Absolute: 4004 BC ---Old Testament Study Manual Vol. 1 Latter Day Saint Edition This Calculation coincides with Bishop James Ussher (1581 - 1656). His Result: 4004 BC Note that this Conclusion Occurred During the Renaissance Era & thus, itself, was amidst MANY Forward Thinking Queries.

The First Latter Day Saint Leader, Joseph Smith, also agreed with the Chronology of Moses & went further a step to Calculate the Age of the Universe according to his Understand. And the Following Document agrees, from a "Christian" Perspective, by adding: "Today there are many Christians who accept the Reliability of Geologic Dating, but do not compromise the spiritual and historical inerrancy of God's word."

To this, I would like to add: If God's Word were Truly "Inerrant"-- Moses, as a repeater of "God's Words" would have therefore been "Inerrant", and Bishop Ussher's Chronology of Creation, based on his Calculations on the "Word of God through Moses", would have been Held as Admissible Fact in a Court Decision.

--------------------------> The Scopes Court Case Arrives at the Dismissal of Bishop Ussher's Chronology of Creation as Sustainable Truth: -------------------------->

In Short, the Stories of ANY Religion are based in Myths cultivated by 200,000 years of Human History, which is Concluded upon in a More Accurate Manner in the following Scientific Article: Answer: The Bible doesn't say that the earth is 6000 years old. The Genesis creation account reveals a "RE-CREATION" [a refurbishing] of the earth, because something destroyed it and made it "without form and void."

Before that destruction, when God first made the universe and the earth... the Bible doesn't mention how long the earth had existed.

The chronology of the Genesis creation account doesn't say how old the earth is. It tells us that God remade the destroyed earth to "support man" and gives us an indication of how long man has been on it [approximately 5000 to 6000 years]. Note: There are comments associated with this question.

See the discussion page to add to the conversation. Read more: wiki.answers.com...



Source



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Ryanssuperman
 


All i can say to your response is



Facepalm...again



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by grobi77
Why do archaeologists call every new site they found a "temple"?
How do they know? Where is the evidence for that claim?


btw...I know, Göbekli Tepe is not a new site. It has been under excavation since 1994.
But it was immediately called temple.
edit on 24.8.2012 by grobi77 because: (no reason given)


It's called a temple because their are no signs of continuous habitation (no one lived there day to day). Therefore, it was used for another purpose. The logical purpose is for worship...i.e...a temple...but I suppose it could have been a meeting place for the different bands and tribes...where they ate, talked and sacrificed to whatever spirits they believed in...oh wait....that's a temple.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Jeremiah65
 


So the only things ancient civilizations did, were worshiping and sacrifices?

There could be hundreds of other purposes...how is it logical that they worship a god there?
some examples:
-stables (there are animals on many of the steles)
-for meetings (without sacrificing to a god)
-astronomical purposes
-etc

why should religion have anything to do with it??
Is there any evidence for that?



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   


The same type of buildings have been found in Africa, dated to be 200,000 years old (the oldest Metropolis ever found on Earth).


OMG. What crock.
Seriously, the author of that whacky article should research first of all.
omg, following that link to the idiotic article on the 200, 000 years old "metropolis" in south africa, reading about a incredulous arm achair archaeology, throwing in Michael Tellinger ( who not an classically trained archaeologist but an author & songwriter and predominantly a pseudo archaeologist), some crazy annunaki stuff, credo mutawa, and the fact that circles are circles.....my brain is toast just by reading that linked website.

I ought to sue the Original poster for causing serious mental agony to me.



top topics
 
1

log in

join