Adam's Rib is Not a Rib - Helix of DNA and Proof of God

reply to post by ForteanOrg


That's not what Enoch said, and he is apparently the "puzzle master" of ATS. Look, he's already solving the incoherent jumble of trivial tidbits located randomly throughout the Bible and affiliated material by employing an obscure alchemical process to produce an even more incoherent mess that attempts to validate itself by subtly giving more obvious answers the cold shoulder and implying that his answers could never ever be wrong because he is divinely inspired.

/end sarcasm

reply to post by AfterInfinity


you seem a little upset...
this is actually a cool twist to the whole "creation story" in the bible.
Either you really hate the bible and refuse to believe anything related that isnt in line with your beliefs, ooorr you really love the bible and refuse to see it in a new light.

as far as im concerned, this is just as good an explanation as taking the bible word for word as the truth, and the world really was created in 7 days. or as good an explanation as aliens planting us here or whatever.

keep your open minded thoughts flowing Enoch!

Peace

reply to post by DanoDGreat

you seem a little upset...
this is actually a cool twist to the whole "creation story" in the bible.
Either you really hate the bible and refuse to believe anything related that isnt in line with your beliefs, ooorr you really love the bible and refuse to see it in a new light.

Not at all. See, I'm more than willing to consider a well-crafted, thoroughly investigated, top-quality case for anything religious. If someone were to provide concrete proof that left no doubt whatsoever as to the existence of a deity, I would accept it. I would believe. Would I align myself with the deity? Different matter entirely.

My responses in this thread are based solely on Enoch's piss-poor efforts to make a solid and convincing case. I can respect a well-made case, and am more than willing to accept the premise if it is proven to be accurate. His threads aren't even close. Every time the words "proof of God" appear in his thread title, he has failed to provide proof. Every. Bloody. Time. Even his evidence barely qualifies as evidence.

It's not my reluctance, it's not my skepticism, it's the poor effort on his part.

as far as im concerned, this is just as good an explanation as taking the bible word for word as the truth, and the world really was created in 7 days. or as good an explanation as aliens planting us here or whatever.

Exactly. And it still qualifies as proof? It's ridiculous.

keep your open minded thoughts flowing Enoch!

And then there are those who encourage the disregard of critical thinking skills...

Originally posted by ForteanOrg

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
T — “Then why, O father, has God not given to everyone a share of Nous?”
H — “He willed, my son, to set it up as a prize before souls.”

Would you consider yourself somebody that won that prize?

I think it is a prize that keeps on giving, or stops giving, depending on how we use our mind. Knowledge is the same as eating. Eat the right food and your body has an abundance of energy. Eat the wrong food and you are tired all the time. Knowledge is the same. Some knowledge fills completely.

reply to post by ForteanOrg


Not to mention the usual "Proof of God" line in the thread's title. Such threads give me mental gas.

reply to post by EnochWasRight


Did you read this? Did you "discover" this while studying? Were you shown this? I would like to know the truth about how you gained the knowledge.

Can't see to much wrong except that we are and never will be angels. We are only compared to them after the resurection in the fact that we will not be married.

Originally posted by yamammasamonkey
reply to post by EnochWasRight

 

Did you read this? Did you "discover" this while studying? Were you shown this? I would like to know the truth about how you gained the knowledge.

There are four layers of knowledge locked in the Bible. Hebrew Hermeneutics has Seven Rules to follow. All of scripture works from four areas. 1) Pshat is Direct and Simple 2) Remez is hinting 3) Darash is Commentary and Comparison 4) Sod is deep and hidden. Most of what you hear on ATS is 1-3. I work in the area of number 4. For anyone reading the Word from a platform of faith, the Holy Spirit is the one revealing the impressions to our mind. It can happen no other way. My profile has information in it that will lead you to a book I have written on the subject.

Originally posted by EnochWasRight

Originally posted by DaphneApollo
You are correct EnochWasRight, Eve was created from the Rib ( curve, DNA ) of eth-Ha adham.

The word "rib" in the Hebrew text is "Tsela", and Strong's Dictionary numbers it # 6763, from the prime root, # 6760; "to curve".

Man is not missing a rib, both male and female have all of them.

Science can unfold the Bible and the mysteries of "God" beautifully if you just allow it. They can prove one another correct and understanding comes to those who are open enough to seek the truth.

edit on 10-8-2013 by DaphneApollo because: (no reason given)

Amazing information to add. Thank you for that. The video below shows that Science sees the shadow, but apart from seeing the truth in the Bible, we have no foundation. This thread is the simple truth that cannot be denied. The newest update to Y Adam is that he lived at the same time as Eve. A new study just came out on this topic: LINK

edit on 10-8-2013 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)

The word "rib" in the Hebrew text is "Tsela", and Strong's Dictionary numbers it # 6763, from the prime root, # 6760; "to curve".

this quote was taken from this Link just want to clear that up.

So, I take it you're not an adherent of the "The earth is only six thousand years old" line. I'm certainly not.

I like your threads, at least you think outside of the box . Like Carbon 666. Interesting.

reply to post by DaphneApollo


Thank you. Here's a thread I did on 6 Days as 15 Billion Years

Watch the movie the Genesis Code.



Also, watch this video:

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
[..] implying that his answers could never ever be wrong because he is divinely inspired.
/end sarcasm

That's not sarcasm - you are merely observing what he actually does.

Originally posted by EnochWasRight

Originally posted by ForteanOrg

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
T — “Then why, O father, has God not given to everyone a share of Nous?”
H — “He willed, my son, to set it up as a prize before souls.”

Would you consider yourself somebody that won that prize?

I think it is a prize that keeps on giving, or stops giving, depending on how we use our mind. Knowledge is the same as eating. Eat the right food and your body has an abundance of energy. Eat the wrong food and you are tired all the time. Knowledge is the same. Some knowledge fills completely.

Your 'healthy food' analogy is flawed. You suggest that there is one type of 'food' that is good for everybody, but I beg to differ.

STATEMENT: "the Brits, for example, used to thrive on fatty, very caloric stuff, full of carbohydrates. Their English breakfast should have made them fat and lazy, but they mostly were slim and smart folks. Only when the 'healthy' continental breakfast was introduced, in the 1960's, they grew fatter and lazier. "

This is a fine example of the type of logic you use yourself. Note that I do not include any proof for the statement in the paragraph above. But it sounds feasible and I present it as truth. So, it is. I can find many YT videos on healthy food habits, or on the composition of the English breakfast. They all seem to support my statement. Well, it must be true then, right?

You seem to be locked into a self-woven web of Truth. I can't get you out of there, you are stuck to it like a fly to a spiders web. Oh, yikes, there's the spider...

Healthy food indeed..

reply to post by ForteanOrg

You seem to be locked into a self-woven web of Truth. I can't get you out of there, you are stuck to it like a fly to a spiders web. Oh, yikes, there's the spider...

Healthy food indeed..

John 4

9 The Samaritan woman said to him, “You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?” (For Jews do not associate with Samaritans.[a])

10 Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.”

11 “Sir,” the woman said, “you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water? 12 Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his livestock?”

13 Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, 14 but whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”

15 The woman said to him, “Sir, give me this water so that I won’t get thirsty and have to keep coming here to draw water.”

16 He told her, “Go, call your husband and come back.”

---Who is her Husband? Once you know who your other half is, living water is only one step away. You never thirst again. If you have never tasted of the food I am speaking of, or the living water Jesus spoke of, then you have no comparison to make between food here. I can only tell you that it is there for you and the table is set.

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
I can only tell you that it is there for you and the table is set.

But you fail to prove that the food on that table there is healthy (for me). You're like that guy over at McDonalds, who will swear that you can eat his food all day without doing any harm to your health. That's because it serves his purposes: he makes money that way and does not give a dang if he has to lie to get you to eat.

Matthew 7:15

reply to post by EnochWasRight


Here, have a review of the movie from a Christian:

The film has much discussion about the physics of time dilation: how the perceived passage of time is dependent upon the perspective of the observer, and how the passage of time can be affected by mass, acceleration, and the stretching of the fabric of space. Some of this is operational science, and can be experimentally verified, and it actually may well help biblical creationists explain how we can see light from distant stars in a young universe. But by taking extensive liberties with the interpretation of certain Hebrew words in the Bible, along with the use of time dilation and God’s perspective from heaven, the movie seeks to impose a billions-of-years, progressive-creation timeline into the Genesis account.1 The movie claims that this is a better explanation of what is observed in the rock layers and the fossil record as opposed to molecules-to-man evolution.

The film makes no reference to the effect that Noah’s global Flood would have had on geography or in laying down of fossils, and it makes no attempt to address the glaring problem of having millions of years of violence, suffering, disease, thorns, thistles, and death before Adam’s sin (Genesis 3). Instead, it implies that all the intellectual problems of skeptics have now been solved in this film, and that science and the Bible have been reconciled (apparently with all the “reconciling” being done through changing the clear Bible chronology that gives an age of the universe to be about 6,000 years).

The rest of the review can be found here -

www.answersingenesis.org...

According to this particular Christian, a Dr. Rowland, the movie wasn't nearly as suave and convincing at Enoch would lead you to believe. As previously explained, extensive liberties were taken, and the Bible was contorted to a highly questionable degree in order to make the pieces fit.

In other words, it didn't "just fit". It was reworked, reinterpreted, and reimagined. Which, in my mind, is the same thing as rewriting the Bible itself. And that's just cheating.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

See, I'm more than willing to consider a well-crafted, thoroughly investigated, top-quality case for anything religious. If someone were to provide concrete proof that left no doubt whatsoever as to the existence of a deity, I would accept it.

There is no 'concrete proof' of God, and there never will be.
I don't think the OP is presenting his ideas as the end-all, be-all of knowledge.

This is simply information to consider.
No one can prove God's existence any more than scientists can explain the totality of the universe.

Perhaps your ingrained ideas about what god is supposed to be have diminished your ability to think in new directions...?

Originally posted by DeReK DaRkLy
There is no 'concrete proof' of God, and there never will be.

It all depends on what one sees as sufficient proof - and of course also on what your definition of God is. But does it really matter? Regardless if you are a scientist or member of some other faith, you are not able to tell me how the universe began. There are theories, but they are all quite bizar and incomprehensible: there has been a Big Bang, some say, but they fail to explain what caused the bang. There has been a creation, others say, but they fail to explain what created the Creator. In all cases, we are not able to understand why we are here and all odds are against us - statistically we can't be here. But we are. That miracle clearly proves - to me - that there is an unknown force, something we do not understand nor may never - that's God. Also, there is personal belief: you either believe or you don't. I believe in God, but that's where it stops. I can't define God, can't describe God, nor can I tell you why I believe in God. I can't convince you of it, nor do I want to. But I KNOW God exists.

I often tell people a little story if they ask me about my personal relation with God. allow me to share it with you. I am a consultant and once was hired by a very Evangelical organisation. I had mentioned that I was a religious person too and that was duly noted by an elderly gentleman who assisted me with my work there. He invited me to lunch with him and, before eating, prayed to the Lord. I do not pray before meals, but as I am raised well, I decently stared at my kneecaps until he was done. I guess he noticed me not praying, but did not say a thing. Next day, the same: he prayed, I stared at my kneecaps. We had established a good relationship and he clearly respected me, but his curiosity got the better of him. So he asked me "Son, you told me you believe in God. like I do. Now, can you tell me then why you don't pray to our Lord before eating?". My answer surprised him and changed his perspective on prayer forever: "Well, Sir, I don't need to. I am always on-line."

reply to post by EnochWasRight


Thanks for the answer. Most here give you the run around and get defensive if asked a straight forward question. I won't read your book, but I know of what you speak. Peace.

reply to post by ForteanOrg


No one can agree what constitutes as a 'god'. The part that gets me is how even those limited parameters have changed since the idea of a deity was first introduced. Where did the first parameters come from? What were they? Why did they change? Who changed them? Should they have been changed? How do the original parameters compare with the modern parameters?

These are questions I would love to have answered. They would give us a clearer understanding all around.