| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| Open Forums for ExChristian.Net > Old Board > Proof of Old Universe? |
| Posted by: sexkitten Oct 14 2004, 11:26 AM |
| Printable Version of Topic Click here to view this topic in its original format ExChristian.Net Open Forums > Debating with Christians > Proof Of Old Universe? Posted by: ~Josalo~ Feb 29 2004, 03:33 PM http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4274187/ Posted by: woodsmoke Mar 1 2004, 01:35 AM Thanks for the link, Josalo. Good read, and very interesting. I'll have to see about getting the magazine that's going to have more information on the issue. I spent at least half an hour reading up on the other stories at the bottom of the article. The one about the wolverine sighted in Michigan, especially, fascinated me. That's the kind of stuff makes me want to enter the field of wildlife biology. Posted by: neopolitan Mar 1 2004, 08:19 AM That was an interesting scientific observation. Have you heard of the idea that the speed of light is not constant and has been slowing down over the millenia? Take a look here as a starting point: http://www.ldolphin.org/setterfield/simplified.html Posted by: Skankboy Mar 1 2004, 08:53 AM QUOTE That was an interesting scientific observation. Have you heard of the idea that the speed of light is not constant and has been slowing down over the millenia? And if you want to see how Setterfield skewed the data check here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c-decay.html Look! Up in the sky! It's a bird, it's a plane, no it's STRAWMAN! Posted by: SyrioForel Mar 1 2004, 10:12 AM QUOTE (neopolitan @ Mar 1 2004, 08:19 AM) That was an interesting scientific observation. Have you heard of the idea that the speed of light is not constant and has been slowing down over the millenia? Take a look here as a starting point: http://www.ldolphin.org/setterfield/simplified.html And it is debunked by in thishttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c-decay.html at Talk Origins ....but if you don't believe that bunch of evilutionist liars, you can also read the refutation by the Institute for Creation Research (http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-179.htm) ~D Posted by: Skankboy Mar 1 2004, 12:17 PM QUOTE And it is debunked by in this article at Talk Origins ....but if you don't believe that bunch of evilutionist liars, you can also read the refutation by the Institute for Creation Research (http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-179.htm) Thanx SyrioForel. I should of realized that they wouldn't trust anything from the "evil" talk origins... Posted by: SyrioForel Mar 1 2004, 12:51 PM QUOTE (Skankboy @ Mar 1 2004, 12:17 PM) QUOTE And it is debunked by in this article at Talk Origins ....but if you don't believe that bunch of evilutionist liars, you can also read the refutation by the Institute for Creation Research (http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-179.htm) Thanx SyrioForel. I should of realized that they wouldn't trust anything from the "evil" talk origins... No problem . I became aware of the bias against Talk Origins after seeing some heated emails from YECs about the 'etreme bias' and 'misleading articles' on T.O., followed by dismissing the entire site as 'evilutionist propaganda', although curiously the YECs never seem to have the time to point out what exactly is wrong. The people at T.O. willingly and (usually) quickly print corrections whenever errors are found in their archive. So I try to use sources and references outside of the corrupted and evil scientific establishment () in these situations. ~D Posted by: Aryan Mar 2 2004, 02:28 AM QUOTE (~Josalo~ @ Feb 29 2004, 03:33 PM) http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4274187/ So???? I don't recall ever reading in the Bible that the universe was 6,000 years old or the Earth for that matter. If the Earth is located in the universe, then the universe had to be created first. Therefore the universe is older than the Earth. Duh! How much later was the Earth created then the universe? I don't know. There is no mention of the time span between the creation of the universe and the creation of the Earth. Posted by: Doug2 Mar 2 2004, 02:36 AM QUOTE There is no mention of the time span between the creation of the universe and the creation of the Earth. If you believe in a literal bible there is. Read Genesis. Posted by: Aryan Mar 2 2004, 07:42 AM QUOTE (Doug2 @ Mar 2 2004, 02:36 AM) QUOTE There is no mention of the time span between the creation of the universe and the creation of the Earth. If you believe in a literal bible there is. Read Genesis. Allow me to restate that. QUOTE There is no mention of the amount of time that passed between the creation of the universe and the creation of the first Earth nor the amount of time that passed between the creation of the first earth and the creation of the second Earth Posted by: Aryan Mar 2 2004, 08:18 AM QUOTE (SyrioForel @ Mar 1 2004, 10:12 AM) QUOTE (neopolitan @ Mar 1 2004, 08:19 AM) That was an interesting scientific observation. Have you heard of the idea that the speed of light is not constant and has been slowing down over the millenia? Take a look here as a starting point: http://www.ldolphin.org/setterfield/simplified.html And it is debunked by in thishttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c-decay.html at Talk Origins ....but if you don't believe that bunch of evilutionist liars, you can also read the refutation by the Institute for Creation Research (http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-179.htm) ~D Common sense would show that the speed of light does cannot change. Look at Einstein's This is the bases of our nuclear industry, both weapons and power plants. If c was not constant then that formula would be invalid and so would the entire branch of nuclear physic. Think what it would be like to live in a future world where light had slowed to 5 mph and you could now run faster than the speed of light. If you carry the speed of light decay to its ultimate absurdity, you would reach a point in the time where light would come to a stop. Posted by: moorezw Mar 2 2004, 08:32 AM Aryan- QUOTE There is no mention of the amount of time that passed between the creation of the universe and the creation of the first Earth nor the amount of time that passed between the creation of the first earth and the creation of the second Earth So there have been two Earths? What happened to the first one? Posted by: Aryan Mar 2 2004, 09:51 PM QUOTE (moorezw @ Mar 2 2004, 08:32 AM) Aryan- QUOTE There is no mention of the amount of time that passed between the creation of the universe and the creation of the first Earth nor the amount of time that passed between the creation of the first earth and the creation of the second Earth So there have been two Earths? What happened to the first one? The event that led to the destruction of the first Earth is described in Ezekiel 28:1-19 and Isaiah 14: 12-15 Posted by: BillJ Mar 2 2004, 10:23 PM The speed of light is at a constant in a vacuum. When light passes through air, glass or water it gets refracted; this slows it down. Einstein's theory states that nothing with mass can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. Posted by: Doug2 Mar 3 2004, 01:16 AM QUOTE The event that led to the destruction of the first Earth is described in Ezekiel 28:1-19 and Isaiah 14: 12-15 So you believe when the bible speaks of babylon and tyre it is speaking of the first earth? Posted by: Aryan Mar 3 2004, 01:36 AM QUOTE (Doug2 @ Mar 3 2004, 01:16 AM) QUOTE The event that led to the destruction of the first Earth is described in Ezekiel 28:1-19 and Isaiah 14: 12-15 So you believe when the bible speaks of babylon and tyre it is speaking of the first earth? Of course not, Tyre and Babylon are part of the ancient history of the Earth that we now live on. The writers Ezkiel and Isaiah seem to be mixing current events of their times with the fall of Lucifer that took place in the distant past after the Earth was created the first time. Yes, I know, it is hard to sort out. But when looked as part of the whole Bible, these 2 event make sense. Do you think that Ezekiel 28:1-19 and Isaiah 14: 12-15 refer to the same event? Posted by: moorezw Mar 3 2004, 05:41 AM Aryan- There's nothing in those two passages that says anything about the Earth being destroyed. Is this the only evidence you have? Posted by: Aryan Mar 3 2004, 06:07 AM QUOTE (moorezw @ Mar 3 2004, 05:41 AM) Aryan- There's nothing in those two passages that says anything about the Earth being destroyed. Is this the only evidence you have? Do you agree that the events described have to do with Lucifer, the archangel, rebelling against God? Posted by: moorezw Mar 3 2004, 06:27 AM Aryan- The Exekiel passage is specifically directed towards the King of Babylon. The Isaiah passage is specifically directed towards the King of Tyre. Nowhere is 'Lucifer' mentioned. Posted by: Aryan Mar 3 2004, 04:52 PM QUOTE (moorezw @ Mar 3 2004, 06:27 AM) Aryan- The Exekiel passage is specifically directed towards the King of Babylon. The Isaiah passage is specifically directed towards the King of Tyre. Nowhere is 'Lucifer' mentioned. Other way around Ezekiel=Tyre and Isaiah=Babylon. King of Babylon is referred to as the morning star, son of the dawn. And it was the King of Babylon that fell out of heaven and was cast down to the earth, Because the King of Babylon was ascending into heaven to be like the Most High and the King was going to be above the clouds and stars. Ok I see what you are saying that makes more sense. But one thing I don't understand, how was he ascending into heaven? Was it in a UFO or did the King have wings and just flew up there? QUOTE Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! KJV How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! NIV "How you have (15) fallen from heaven, O (16) star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations! NASB (15) Is 34:4; Luke 10:18; Rev 8:10; 9:1 (16) 2 Pet 1:19; Rev 2:28; 22:16 Lets see if I understand Ezekiel now. King of Tyre is walking around the Garden of Eden on burning stones with Adam. Now was that before or after Eve was created? If I had know that I was going to have teach you the Bible from scratch, in order to try and clear up some of your misunderstandings of the Word of God., I would have started a new thread. Posted by: moorezw Mar 3 2004, 08:37 PM Aryan- QUOTE But one thing I don't understand, how was he ascending into heaven? Was it in a UFO or did the King have wings and just flew up there? Since this isn't compatible with what we know about the world at the time this verse was written, I would say that this is an external error. Of the three translations, 'Lucifer' is mentioned in the King James Version only, which is incidentally the translation that also mentions 'unicorns'. Is the name 'Lucifer' in the original text, or was this added later? QUOTE King of Tyre is walking around the Garden of Eden on burning stones with Adam. Now was that before or after Eve was created? The King of Tyre is mentioned nowhere in Genesis. This must be an internal error. Posted by: chefranden Mar 3 2004, 08:48 PM As I recall heavenly bodies were used as metaphors for the high muckity mucks in those days. The fall of the heavenly bodies was the fall of the king and his ministers from power. There may have been some connection with astrology here as well. If the king is watched over by a star the explanation for his fall from power could well be the failure of his star. Posted by: Aryan Mar 4 2004, 05:25 AM QUOTE (moorezw @ Mar 3 2004, 08:37 PM) Aryan- QUOTE But one thing I don't understand, how was he ascending into heaven? Was it in a UFO or did the King have wings and just flew up there? Since this isn't compatible with what we know about the world at the time this verse was written, I would say that this is an external error. Of the three translations, 'Lucifer' is mentioned in the King James Version only, which is incidentally the translation that also mentions 'unicorns'. Is the name 'Lucifer' in the original text, or was this added later? QUOTE King of Tyre is walking around the Garden of Eden on burning stones with Adam. Now was that before or after Eve was created? The King of Tyre is mentioned nowhere in Genesis. This must be an internal error. external? internal error? How about a misunderstanding on your part? QUOTE The Exekiel passage is specifically directed towards the King of Babylon. The Isaiah passage is specifically directed towards the King of Tyre. Nowhere is 'Lucifer' mentioned. Your the one that told me that these verse apply to these two Kings. I believe I pointed out how they could not apply. Posted by: moorezw Mar 4 2004, 05:32 AM Aryan- What's to misunderstand? The text is quite clear. It names the kings specifically- I'm just basing my conclusions on that fact. Just because it contradicts other parts of the Bible doesn't mean that it has to refer to something else- why can't it just be a contradiction? Posted by: Aryan Mar 4 2004, 06:04 AM QUOTE (moorezw @ Mar 4 2004, 08:32 AM) Aryan- What's to misunderstand? The text is quite clear. It names the kings specifically- I'm just basing my conclusions on that fact. Just because it contradicts other parts of the Bible doesn't mean that it has to refer to something else- why can't it just be a contradiction? I fail to see contradictions in the Bibles. It is normally a lack understanding of man that is the problem not the Bible. Shall we try this by the numbers? What verse in the Bible contains the earliest recorded event? Posted by: Cain Mar 4 2004, 06:20 AM Me thinks we have a Christian Identity member here? When the King of Babylon is referenced as the morning star it is a sarcastic remark. Basically the narrator is saying, "Woe, you were so BIG and Bad." Thats even how most Christians interpret it. Posted by: moorezw Mar 4 2004, 06:28 AM Aryan- I'm sure you'll understand that I don't give precedence to the authority of the Bible by default. We have the right to challenge the veracity of the Bible, and discrepancies like these only further validate us. But, I'll play along: The first event recorded in the Bible is Genesis 1:1- "In the beginning..." Posted by: Aryan Mar 4 2004, 06:39 AM QUOTE (moorezw @ Mar 4 2004, 09:28 AM) Aryan- I'm sure you'll understand that I don't give precedence to the authority of the Bible by default. We have the right to challenge the veracity of the Bible, and discrepancies like these only further validate us. But, I'll play along: The first event recorded in the Bible is Genesis 1:1- "In the beginning..." Yes I agree. I grew up in a tradional Christian church and got my head filled with mush. It has taken some to get my head clear and find answer to my questions. I don't execpt you to accept or agree with what I say, but I think you might find it interesting. The first event is recorded in John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Posted by: moorezw Mar 4 2004, 07:12 AM Aryan- Well, then it appears that we have another contradiction. How can there be two beginnings in one book? Posted by: Skankboy Mar 4 2004, 07:20 AM QUOTE Well, then it appears that we have another contradiction. How can there be two beginnings in one book? Hmmm... Two beginnings, two eden stories, internal conflicts of text... Sounds like someone superimposed a new religious philosphy on an existing one which was itself an amalgom of several earlier religions... Posted by: Aryan Mar 4 2004, 11:55 AM QUOTE (moorezw @ Mar 4 2004, 10:12 AM) Aryan- Well, then it appears that we have another contradiction. How can there be two beginnings in one book? http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/webcommentary?language=english&version=niv&book=john&chapter=1 QUOTE John's opening echoes Genesis (Gen 1:1), but whereas Genesis refers to the God's activity at the beginning of creation, here we learn of a being who existed before creation took place. In the beginning the Word already was. So we actually start before the beginning, outside of time and space in eternity. Posted by: moorezw Mar 4 2004, 12:36 PM Aryan- But there's still the problem of the shared phrase: "In the beginning." If Genesis 1 takes place after John 1, then the text should read, "In the beginning of the Creation..." Alternatively, John 1 should read, "Before the beginning..." or "Before the Creation..." As it stands, the texts are indentical. But let's say, for the sake of argument, that John 1 actually does come before Genesis 1. What does this mean? Posted by: Aryan Mar 4 2004, 12:39 PM QUOTE (Cain @ Mar 4 2004, 09:20 AM) Me thinks we have a Christian Identity member here? When the King of Babylon is referenced as the morning star it is a sarcastic remark. Basically the narrator is saying, "Woe, you were so BIG and Bad." Thats even how most Christians interpret it. If you want to see what a Christian ID looks like then go to http://stormfront.org/ Posted by: Aryan Mar 4 2004, 12:42 PM QUOTE (moorezw @ Mar 4 2004, 03:36 PM) Aryan- But there's still the problem of the shared phrase: "In the beginning." If Genesis 1 takes place after John 1, then the text should read, "In the beginning of the Creation..." Alternatively, John 1 should read, "Before the beginning..." or "Before the Creation..." As it stands, the texts are indentical. But let's say, for the sake of argument, that John 1 actually does come before Genesis 1. What does this mean? It simply means that the events in the Bible are not written in chronological order. Posted by: moorezw Mar 4 2004, 01:54 PM Aryan- Then how do we know what chronological order the Bible is written in? Is it possible that Mark takes place before Exodus? Posted by: Aryan Mar 4 2004, 02:25 PM QUOTE (moorezw @ Mar 4 2004, 04:54 PM) Aryan- Then how do we know what chronological order the Bible is written in? Is it possible that Mark takes place before Exodus? No, But lets move on. Now we start at the begining of the creation. Notice that the Heavens were created first and then the Earth. The heavens are older than the earth. It couldn't be the other way around, becasue the earth is inside the heaves, Genesis 1 The Beginning 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. This is the first earth I talked of. What happened to it? Look at the 2nd verse and the 1st foot note very carefully 2 Now the earth was [1] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. 1 1:2 Or possibly became Think about it. I don't have all the answer. I struggle with this. I have the basic outline, but still have a lot of unanswered questions to fill in. Posted by: moorezw Mar 4 2004, 07:52 PM Aryan- Now you've lost me. You're saying that the Christian god created the Earth, and then one verse later, uncreated it or recreated it? Not only is that textually confusing, even if it was true it's a meaningless point. Posted by: Aryan Mar 4 2004, 09:44 PM QUOTE (moorezw @ Mar 4 2004, 10:52 PM) Aryan- Now you've lost me. You're saying that the Christian god created the Earth, and then one verse later, uncreated it or recreated it? Not only is that textually confusing, even if it was true it's a meaningless point. YES!! The original Earth was the realm of Lucifer. When Lucifer led a third of the angels in revolt against God, the original Earth was destroyed. In the ensuing battle the Earth became void and without form. These were supernatural beings fight in a physical world. Posted by: ericf Mar 4 2004, 11:09 PM Aryan, Whatever you are on... will you sell me some? Seriously, it must be some heavy stuff to screw with your mind like that. I know people who would pay dearly for that. Well, only if it goes away after 8-12 hours -- it does wear off doesn't it? Posted by: Aryan Mar 5 2004, 01:36 AM QUOTE (ericf @ Mar 5 2004, 02:09 AM) Aryan, Whatever you are on... will you sell me some? Seriously, it must be some heavy stuff to screw with your mind like that. I know people who would pay dearly for that. Well, only if it goes away after 8-12 hours -- it does wear off doesn't it? Permanent brain damage. My mom dropped my down the stairs when I was little. But bare with me there is a logic in this madness Posted by: fool_ps14:1 Mar 5 2004, 02:42 AM QUOTE The original Earth was the realm of Lucifer. When Lucifer led a third of the angels in revolt against God, the original Earth was destroyed. In the ensuing battle the Earth became void and without form. These were supernatural beings fight in a physical world they christ cult myth just keeps getting funnier and funnier! Posted by: Aryan Mar 5 2004, 03:42 AM QUOTE (fool_ps14:1 @ Mar 5 2004, 05:42 AM) QUOTE The original Earth was the realm of Lucifer. When Lucifer led a third of the angels in revolt against God, the original Earth was destroyed. In the ensuing battle the Earth became void and without form. These were supernatural beings fight in a physical world they christ cult myth just keeps getting funnier and funnier! Posted by: Cain Mar 5 2004, 06:16 AM There was no Lucifer and never has been. That is a story about the fall of the king of Babylon!!!! Lucifer was the name of a star during the translation of the KJV - the morning star otherwise known as VENUS!!! In typical Christian fashion people have overlaid that one verse to add to the idea that their Evil figure was actually kicked out of heaven. Posted by: Cain Mar 5 2004, 06:25 AM QUOTE Ladies and gentlemen, the purpose of this radio program is far greater than to prove to you the immorality and subversion of this man called King. I want you to start to think for yourselves. I want you to consider this: What are the forces and motivation behind the controlled media's active promotion of King? What does it tell you about our politicians when you see them, almost without exception, falling all over themselves to honor King as a national hero? What does it tell you about our society when any public criticism of this moral leper and Communist functionary is considered grounds for dismissal? What does it tell you about the controlled media when you see how they have successfully suppressed the truth and held out a picture of King that can only be described as a colossal lie? You need to think, my fellow Americans. You desperately need to wake up. Its so amazing that the Christian Identity has managed to prove that every non-white civil leader, or Jew was really just pure-fucking evil. What I like about it most is the complete irony of it all. The entire human race tracks back to Africa. In other words, whites used to be black! Has anyone ever seriously read this crap? Every Jew is evil, every black is an idiot, and whoever opposes this movement is an American-hatin communist bastard. Oh yeah, and those evil minorities who SAY that they want equal rights just want to rise up in society and breed out all the whites and destroy them as a people. Posted by: Aryan Mar 5 2004, 06:40 AM QUOTE (Cain @ Mar 5 2004, 09:25 AM) QUOTE Ladies and gentlemen, the purpose of this radio program is far greater than to prove to you the immorality and subversion of this man called King. I want you to start to think for yourselves. I want you to consider this: What are the forces and motivation behind the controlled media's active promotion of King? What does it tell you about our politicians when you see them, almost without exception, falling all over themselves to honor King as a national hero? What does it tell you about our society when any public criticism of this moral leper and Communist functionary is considered grounds for dismissal? What does it tell you about the controlled media when you see how they have successfully suppressed the truth and held out a picture of King that can only be described as a colossal lie? You need to think, my fellow Americans. You desperately need to wake up. Its so amazing that the Christian Identity has managed to prove that every non-white civil leader, or Jew was really just pure-fucking evil. What I like about it most is the complete irony of it all. The entire human race tracks back to Africa. In other words, whites used to be black! Has anyone ever seriously read this crap? Every Jew is evil, every black is an idiot, and whoever opposes this movement is an American-hatin communist bastard. Oh yeah, and those evil minorities who SAY that they want equal rights just want to rise up in society and breed out all the whites and destroy them as a people. Nope I haven't read either, but it seems like you have. Now, if you want to start a new thread and tell me why Dr. King is such a great man, then I'll be happy to join that thread and tell you why he isn't. You can tell me can't you? Posted by: fool_ps14:1 Mar 5 2004, 06:51 AM QUOTE Nope I haven't read either, but it seems like you have. Now, if you want to start a new thread and tell me why Dr. King is such a great man, then I'll be happy to join that thread and tell you why he isn't. You can tell me can't you? Didn't you used to post here under the name "big_bill"? Posted by: Aryan Mar 5 2004, 06:57 AM No, first time here and never heard of him Posted by: fool_ps14:1 Mar 5 2004, 07:00 AM really? you sound just like him. he was a hate mongering neo-nazi too Posted by: Cain Mar 5 2004, 07:23 AM Perhaps I should have qouted from some of the anti-jewish stuff. I don't necessarily have a beef for or against King but I find the same theme in ID is the entire idea that the white race is being attacked from every directon. I just wigged out. I don't know shit about King, but I do know the ID usually attacks anyone who isn't white and overblow events in their life to make such actions look typical of all members of the group that leader belongs to. Most of its history is completely linear, centered around some faceless figures in the background(otherwise known as bankers) manipulate every aspect of history while the poo wittle white wace squirms in pain. And it seems that even when they do decide to attack whites it ends up there is a Jew behind them. Teddy Roosevelt for instance, whom is claimed to have been heavily influenced by bankers to subvert Germany and France. I started studying the ID just out of fascination of it, mostly because it was so out there, but after a while I became absolutely sick of the idea and am enangered by the very idea. Posted by: Cain Mar 5 2004, 07:27 AM QUOTE really? you sound just like him. he was a hate mongering neo-nazi too Harsh, Harsh, converts will never be won without lub... Posted by: fool_ps14:1 Mar 5 2004, 07:33 AM like my wife says, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, talks like a duck... Posted by: Cain Mar 5 2004, 07:38 AM It must be a decoy. A finely made decoy. But seriously Aryan, don't feel unwelcome here. But are you actually an ID? You're theology base seems to point to it. Posted by: fool_ps14:1 Mar 5 2004, 08:13 AM QUOTE But seriously Aryan, don't feel unwelcome here. not my sentiments at all I for one will not welcome this hate propaganda here. I had to put up with this aryan race bullshit from my grandfather and his brothers. I will not sit idle while some neo-nazi pig fucker spouts off his doctrine of hate without reacting. Some of you want to argue with trailer park bubba from an intellectual angle, fine, go for it. I prefer the "kick in the groin" method. Aryan, I hope your robe catches fire next time you light a cross. I hope your meth lab catches fire and burns your trailer down. I hope a hard working hispanic immigrant steals your job. I hope your cousin/wife has a black child. Fuck You, you racist prick! if the moderators of this site want to kick me off for this little rant, fine. so be it. I would rather that then to sit in silence. Posted by: Aryan Mar 5 2004, 10:22 AM Very good fellows. I keep asking the same question over and over again, but fail to get an answer. What have I said that is racist? I am aware of what the Neos and the IDs are all about and what they say. Where is that in my writtings? fool_ps14:1 Well I hope the moderators doesn’t kick you off. I would like to have my questions answered. Your the one spouted all the hate rhetoric, not me. Posted by: Starflier Mar 5 2004, 02:00 PM QUOTE (Aryan @ Mar 2 2004, 09:51 PM) QUOTE (moorezw @ Mar 2 2004, 08:32 AM) Aryan- QUOTE There is no mention of the amount of time that passed between the creation of the universe and the creation of the first Earth nor the amount of time that passed between the creation of the first earth and the creation of the second Earth So there have been two Earths? What happened to the first one? The event that led to the destruction of the first Earth is described in Ezekiel 28:1-19 and Isaiah 14: 12-15 The first & second earth are also within astronomical legend & lore as the constellations, stars, planets, moon, sun, etc. were considered deities interplaying with one another by the ancients who named & mythologized them. Many astronomers have written of such cosmic mythological events. One of them is Dr. E.C. Krupp, astonomer & director of the Griffith Observatory in Los Angeles. He describes such creationist incidents in his books including "Echoes of the Ancient Skies, "In Search of Ancient Astronomies" & "Beyond the Blue Horizon: Myths & Legends of the Sun, Moon, Stars & Planets." In that latter book, he describes the planet/god Marduke as the cosmic reordering deity with Jupiter (Niburu) as his later appointed solar system supervisor. Jupiter takes over his managerial duties after Tiamat (Earth) is destroyed an older warfaring planet twice its current size. During the cosmic battle, rebellious Tiamat is split in two by god Marduke. Tiamat is now the second downsized Earth which is supposed to explain "The Fall" & also the previous "giants in the earth" on the larger Tiamat. Undoubtedly ancient myths such as this Babylonian one eventually became part of the ancient Hebrews' mythology & religion as explained somewhat differently in the Bible. Posted by: chefranden Mar 5 2004, 03:30 PM Ayran, do you have any evidence for this 2 earth thing? I mean besides a sentence or two of fairy tale here and there? Posted by: moorezw Mar 5 2004, 06:23 PM Aryan- So far, your argument consists of the following- 1) A reference to the King of Tyre existing in Eden. 2) A reference to 'Lucifer' in a condemnation of the King of Babylon. 3) An interpretation of 'was' as 'became'. From these, you derive a fantastical tale that has more to do with Milton than Gutenberg. This is in no way the 'extraordinary evidence' that is needed to support your position. I would ask that you provide the original Hebrew text for Isaiah 14. Is the name 'Lucifer' even mentioned? Is it mentioned anywhere else in the Bible? Posted by: Aryan Mar 6 2004, 01:14 AM QUOTE (moorezw @ Mar 5 2004, 09:23 PM) Aryan- So far, your argument consists of the following- 1) A reference to the King of Tyre existing in Eden. 2) A reference to 'Lucifer' in a condemnation of the King of Babylon. 3) An interpretation of 'was' as 'became'. From these, you derive a fantastical tale that has more to do with Milton than Gutenberg. This is in no way the 'extraordinary evidence' that is needed to support your position. I would ask that you provide the original Hebrew text for Isaiah 14. Is the name 'Lucifer' even mentioned? Is it mentioned anywhere else in the Bible? QUOTE 1 Corinthians 14:40 But all things must be done properly and in an orderly manner. 1 Corinthians 14: 33 For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. Since God is not the God of disorder, why would he create the earth void and without form? It wasn't created that way, it became that way. Now how do we know the original earth wasn't created void and without form like so many say the Earth was? Could there be a verses about the creation of the original earth? Yes! QUOTE Job 38 4 "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand.5. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it?6. On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone- 7. while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?? In these verse God is talking to Job. He is talking about the creation of the Earth. Does this sound like void and confusion? Why would the stars sing and the angels shout for joy over void and without form? Because they were wittiness the original creation of the Earth. It was created perfect. Then it became void and without form after the fall of Lucifer, Posted by: Aryan Mar 6 2004, 01:15 AM QUOTE (Starflier @ Mar 5 2004, 05:00 PM) QUOTE (Aryan @ Mar 2 2004, 09:51 PM) QUOTE (moorezw @ Mar 2 2004, 08:32 AM) Aryan- QUOTE There is no mention of the amount of time that passed between the creation of the universe and the creation of the first Earth nor the amount of time that passed between the creation of the first earth and the creation of the second Earth So there have been two Earths? What happened to the first one? The event that led to the destruction of the first Earth is described in Ezekiel 28:1-19 and Isaiah 14: 12-15 The first & second earth are also within astronomical legend & lore as the constellations, stars, planets, moon, sun, etc. were considered deities interplaying with one another by the ancients who named & mythologized them. Many astronomers have written of such cosmic mythological events. One of them is Dr. E.C. Krupp, astonomer & director of the Griffith Observatory in Los Angeles. He describes such creationist incidents in his books including "Echoes of the Ancient Skies, "In Search of Ancient Astronomies" & "Beyond the Blue Horizon: Myths & Legends of the Sun, Moon, Stars & Planets." In that latter book, he describes the planet/god Marduke as the cosmic reordering deity with Jupiter (Niburu) as his later appointed solar system supervisor. Jupiter takes over his managerial duties after Tiamat (Earth) is destroyed an older warfaring planet twice its current size. During the cosmic battle, rebellious Tiamat is split in two by god Marduke. Tiamat is now the second downsized Earth which is supposed to explain "The Fall" & also the previous "giants in the earth" on the larger Tiamat. Undoubtedly ancient myths such as this Babylonian one eventually became part of the ancient Hebrews' mythology & religion as explained somewhat differently in the Bible. It would appear that we are talking about the same event from two diffrent refference points. Posted by: Starflier Mar 6 2004, 02:12 AM QUOTE (Aryan @ Mar 6 2004, 01:15 AM) During the cosmic battle, rebellious Tiamat is split in two by god Marduke. Tiamat is now the second downsized Earth which is supposed to explain "The Fall" & also the previous "giants in the earth" on the larger Tiamat. Undoubtedly ancient myths such as this Babylonian one eventually became part of the ancient Hebrews' mythology & religion as explained somewhat differently in the Bible. [/QUOTE] It would appear that we are talking about the same event from two diffrent refference points. Indeed it is the same event. From Babylonian into Hebrew. There are others about the same event as well. They are all from the earlier "wandering" sky gazing tribes who passed them down through the generations via word or mouth or later writings on stone tablets & such. But that is all they are. Merely legends or lore or myths of what they learned from previous generations about who/what they considered deities. They thought the stars & planets themselves were deities & named them as such. In another account, Marduke was supposedly a planet that once existed between Mars & Jupiter until there was some kind of disaster that destroyed it. So it's now the asteroid belt, or so the myths tell it. But there's no solid proof of any of it. That's just it. They're just myths or tales of what they thought might have happened. Just as the biblical accounts & god are only myths & nothing more. One can believe a myth or not. But believing doesn't make it true. Posted by: biggles7268 Mar 6 2004, 02:25 AM QUOTE In these verse God is talking to Job. He is talking about the creation of the Earth. Does this sound like void and confusion? Why would the stars sing and the angels shout for joy over void and without form? Because they were wittiness the original creation of the Earth. It was created perfect. Then it became void and without form after the fall of Lucifer, your making some pretty broad assumptions there, your trying to make it say what you want it to say. Posted by: Aryan Mar 6 2004, 07:00 AM QUOTE (biggles7268 @ Mar 6 2004, 05:25 AM) QUOTE In these verse God is talking to Job. He is talking about the creation of the Earth. Does this sound like void and confusion? Why would the stars sing and the angels shout for joy over void and without form? Because they were wittiness the original creation of the Earth. It was created perfect. Then it became void and without form after the fall of Lucifer, your making some pretty broad assumptions there, your trying to make it say what you want it to say. Yes, your are correct, I am. Earlier I said QUOTE I don't have all the answer. I struggle with this. I have the basic outline, but still have a lot of unanswered questions to fill in. I am not jumping up and down screaming at the top of my lungs, "You are all going to Hell if you don't believe this!" I believe that the Bible is the true word of God. I am not going to dismiss it because there are things that I don't understand. Nor am I going to dismiss the laws of nature when I can't reconcile the two. This is what gets me in trouble with the fundies. I have an open mind, I question the Bible and struggle for answer. About the only thing I know for certain is the sugar coated answers I got in church when I was young, are not the answers. Posted by: Aryan Mar 6 2004, 07:09 AM QUOTE (Starflier @ Mar 6 2004, 05:12 AM) QUOTE (Aryan @ Mar 6 2004, 01:15 AM) During the cosmic battle, rebellious Tiamat is split in two by god Marduke. Tiamat is now the second downsized Earth which is supposed to explain "The Fall" & also the previous "giants in the earth" on the larger Tiamat. Undoubtedly ancient myths such as this Babylonian one eventually became part of the ancient Hebrews' mythology & religion as explained somewhat differently in the Bible. QUOTE It would appear that we are talking about the same event from two diffrent refference points. Indeed it is the same event. From Babylonian into Hebrew. There are others about the same event as well. They are all from the earlier "wandering" sky gazing tribes who passed them down through the generations via word or mouth or later writings on stone tablets & such. But that is all they are. Merely legends or lore or myths of what they learned from previous generations about who/what they considered deities. They thought the stars & planets themselves were deities & named them as such. In another account, Marduke was supposedly a planet that once existed between Mars & Jupiter until there was some kind of disaster that destroyed it. So it's now the asteroid belt, or so the myths tell it. But there's no solid proof of any of it. That's just it. They're just myths or tales of what they thought might have happened. Just as the biblical accounts & god are only myths & nothing more. One can believe a myth or not. But believing doesn't make it true. The same can be said for Noah's flood. It should be remembered that Abraham was from Ur, in southern Babylon Posted by: Judyism Mar 6 2004, 08:05 AM Sounds like somebody's been reading too much Zecharia Sitchen. Posted by: Aryan Mar 6 2004, 08:37 AM QUOTE (Judyism @ Mar 6 2004, 11:05 AM) Sounds like somebody's been reading too much Zecharia Sitchen. I have not read Zecharia Sitchen, but I believe he has been on http://www.coasttocoastam.com/ The Flood was also talked about on the more mainstream http://www.historychannel.com/perl/print_book.pl?ID=83184 Posted by: Judyism Mar 6 2004, 10:51 AM Sitchen has been on Coast to Coast. Basically, Sitchen's theories are similar to Starflier's description above, but Nibiru is the 12th planet or Planet X that, according to Sitchen, is in a diffferent type orbit around the Sun than the other planets.... making a pass by the sun every 3660 yrs. The 12 planets include the sun, moon & a now destroyed Tiamet. supposedly, Tiamet, located just on the other side of Mars, was destoyed when struck by 2 of Nibiru's satellites long ago, splitting to form both the Milky Way and Earth. The "Gods" of mythology are supposed to be an intelligent advanced race from Nibiru and/or Tiamet who came to the Earth to mine gold & other resources. Man supposedly was genetically created by this race to mine the gold after the others got tired of the manual labor - according to Sitchen, we were created as a slave race and was programmed to "worship" the "Gods" who created us. The flood that supposedly cleansed the earth happened when either Enlil or Enki (I can never remember which) got disgusted that the "sons of god" got involved with the "daughters of man" and started breeding. That's the VERY short abbreviated version.... it's a fascinating read, but Sitchen has been debunked on his Sumerian, Aramaic, and Hebrew translations of the cylinder seals & clay tablets he uses as examples. Posted by: Starflier Mar 6 2004, 11:28 AM QUOTE (Aryan @ Mar 6 2004, 07:00 AM) Then it became void and without form after the fall of Lucifer,[/QUOTE] I believe that the Bible is the true word of God. Lucifer...aka the Goddess Diana Lucfieria in a previous feminine mythological incarnation, i.e. Venus, the morning star or "light bringer". [Acts 19:27, 35, 37] Word of God? Whose god or deity? There are tons of ancient dieites. Which one is the true original creator or truth-teller? That's if there ever was an original creator or if the universe, as we know, it ever had a beginning at all. No one can ever know that, IMO. Parts of it may be true, yes. But even historically, it's flawed quite a bit. Mostly a mixture of previous cultures' myths, legends, folk lore & urban legends. Where the original stories got seriously polluted over time after telling, writing, editing, translating & retranslating it over & over again. So deluded & qualfied by whomever was writing or telling it any given time. Like playing the group circle game "telephone". The original message is passed around the circle & it never is the same as the last person hearing it recounts it as the original telling of it. Do that for over 5,000 years & imagine the immense distortions. Posted by: Starflier Mar 6 2004, 11:36 AM QUOTE (Judyism @ Mar 6 2004, 08:05 AM) Sounds like somebody's been reading too much Zecharia Sitchen. Too much? Immanuel Velikovsky too, if you want to add another. Interesting reading tho. But again, these scholarly, researcher, educated types are no less or more like the biblical writers were. They're just current "gospel" writers telling it from their own translated, theorized viewpoint. There will always be myths & mythmakers/enhancers, IMO. Posted by: Lokmer Mar 6 2004, 11:37 AM It also bears pointing out, for those of you who are wondering where he is getting this, that there is actually a source for this bizarre bit of hermeneutic, but most Christians who hold the view do not know where it comes from. The Judaic Apocryphal books of Enoch outline this story almost exactly as he is relaying it. The early church - particluarly the author of Jude, the author or Revelation, and probably Paul (since Jude quotes from it and Paul and Revelation strongly allude to it) as well as many of the Patristic writers believed that 1&2 Enoch (and sometimes 3 Enoch) were actually written by Enoch who returned to earth in the 2nd c. BCE with the "real story" of the history of the universe from the mouth of God himself. The cosmology outlined in the books of Enoch became unofficial, and later official, Catholic doctrine, and has been passed down by theologians and priests since then (without attribution to the original source, instead finding two or three little verses in the Bible on which to rest this immense teetering pyramid of a spiritual cosmology). -Lokmer Posted by: Starflier Mar 6 2004, 11:41 AM QUOTE (Aryan @ Mar 6 2004, 08:37 AM) QUOTE (Judyism @ Mar 6 2004, 11:05 AM) Sounds like somebody's been reading too much Zecharia Sitchen. I have not read Zecharia Sitchen, but I believe he has been on http://www.coasttocoastam.com/ The Flood was also talked about on the more mainstream http://www.historychannel.com/perl/print_book.pl?ID=83184 Yes he's been on C2C but he's getting too old to do that much, if at all, anymore. Still he wrote some very interesting, fascinating stuff & others have now picked up where he left off. But again, even with the tv documentaries, it's all to be taken with a grain of salt as to one's own taste. Personally I like salt but it's not my deity for "the truth, the whole truth & nothing but the truth" anymore than the Bible is. But then, if variety is the spice of life, bring it on I say. Diversity is what makes the world go round, more or less. I happen to like pepper too tho. Posted by: Starflier Mar 6 2004, 11:47 AM QUOTE (Judyism @ Mar 6 2004, 10:51 AM) Nibiru is the 12th planet or Planet X that, according to Sitchen, is in a diffferent type orbit around the Sun than the other planets.... making a pass by the sun every 3660 yrs. But those trying to make the case of the "Second Coming" of Jesus whose "heavenly father" was either on or was Niburu itself, seem flawed in their math. How do they get the 3600+ year orbit of Niburu to equate to the 2,000yo first "coming" of Jesus? It does not compute. Posted by: Starflier Mar 6 2004, 12:09 PM QUOTE (Lokmer @ Mar 6 2004, 11:37 AM) The Judaic Apocryphal books of Enoch outline this story almost exactly as he is relaying it. Oh yes, can't omit the Enochian legends. "The Keys of Enoch: The Book of Knowledge" (author?) brings this up to date in a new agey hi-tech "star seed" manner. The author was accused of trying to start a new religion. But it's the same old stuff really, albeit modernized. Posted by: chefranden Mar 6 2004, 12:37 PM QUOTE (biggles7268 @ Mar 6 2004, 04:25 AM) QUOTE In these verse God is talking to Job. He is talking about the creation of the Earth. Does this sound like void and confusion? Why would the stars sing and the angels shout for joy over void and without form? Because they were wittiness the original creation of the Earth. It was created perfect. Then it became void and without form after the fall of Lucifer, your making some pretty broad assumptions there, your trying to make it say what you want it to say. Ayran's first assumption is that there is a creator. His second assumption is that this creator is XianGod. From there you can make up anything that you like from a few bits of fairy tale. Look at Middle Earth. It was so detailed, and internally coherent that in my early youth I thought that somehow it must be real. In my late youth I hoped it would be real. It is just a story, like Jesus, Lucifer and Luke Skywalker. (sigh) Maybe Ayran can get Mel to do the film. It would make a great end of everything video game series too. Lucifer I through X. Think of the action figures. Posted by: ~Josalo~ Mar 6 2004, 01:38 PM QUOTE (Aryan @ Mar 2 2004, 04:28 AM) QUOTE (~Josalo~ @ Feb 29 2004, 03:33 PM) http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4274187/ So???? I don't recall ever reading in the Bible that the universe was 6,000 years old or the Earth for that matter. If the Earth is located in the universe, then the universe had to be created first. Therefore the universe is older than the Earth. Duh! How much later was the Earth created then the universe? I don't know. There is no mention of the time span between the creation of the universe and the creation of the Earth. Add up the dates. Creationists claim the earth is 6,000 years old. The universe and earth were all created in a 6 day period, according to genesis. Posted by: ~Josalo~ Mar 6 2004, 01:45 PM Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" Heavens referring to the universe, as ancient people saw it. Posted by: Starflier Mar 6 2004, 01:54 PM QUOTE (chefranden @ Mar 6 2004, 12:37 PM) It would make a great end of everything video game series too. Lucifer I through X. Think of the action figures. Though I'd prefer Diana Lucifiera for women to play. I wish more women would make video & computer interactive virtual reality type games. Playing the same old guy action figure stuff is geting old. But that's what I get when my son & his friends work on my computers & program them. Posted by: moorezw Mar 6 2004, 02:26 PM QUOTE (Aryan @ Mar 6 2004, 04:14 AM) QUOTE 1 Corinthians 14:40 But all things must be done properly and in an orderly manner. 1 Corinthians 14: 33 For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. Since God is not the God of disorder, why would he create the earth void and without form? It wasn't created that way, it became that way. Now how do we know the original earth wasn't created void and without form like so many say the Earth was? Could there be a verses about the creation of the original earth? Yes! QUOTE Job 38 4 "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand.5. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it?6. On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone- 7. while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?? In these verse God is talking to Job. He is talking about the creation of the Earth. Does this sound like void and confusion? Why would the stars sing and the angels shout for joy over void and without form? Because they were wittiness the original creation of the Earth. It was created perfect. Then it became void and without form after the fall of Lucifer, Aryan- I'm still waiting to see that original Hebrew text... Posted by: biggles7268 Mar 6 2004, 02:30 PM QUOTE Though I'd prefer Diana Lucifiera for women to play. I wish more women would make video & computer interactive virtual reality type games. Playing the same old guy action figure stuff is geting old. But that's what I get when my son & his friends work on my computers & program them. my friend tells me there are alot of PS2 games out that the main characters are all women, I think the new FF games are like that. Posted by: Starflier Mar 6 2004, 03:36 PM QUOTE (biggles7268 @ Mar 6 2004, 02:30 PM) QUOTE Though I'd prefer Diana Lucifiera for women to play. I wish more women would make video & computer interactive virtual reality type games. Playing the same old guy action figure stuff is geting old. But that's what I get when my son & his friends work on my computers & program them. my friend tells me there are alot of PS2 games out that the main characters are all women, I think the new FF games are like that. What are PS2 & FF games? Posted by: biggles7268 Mar 6 2004, 03:43 PM PS2 = Playstaion 2 FF = Final Fantasy personaly I'll stick with computer games though, since I can't afford a playstation. Posted by: chefranden Mar 6 2004, 03:45 PM Aryan, I forgot to ask. Do you still go for crystal spheres, and stars fixed in the firmament, earth at the center and all that? Where is/was the heaven that Lucifer fell from? Did he break a leg? Did those other angels fall on top of him or did god spread them out a bit? Did they have to walk the plank? God screwed up with that free will thing, didn't he? Back to the film: Would Johnny Depp be a good Lucifer? Maybe Mel should play God? chef Posted by: Starflier Mar 6 2004, 03:46 PM QUOTE (biggles7268 @ Mar 6 2004, 03:43 PM) PS2 = Playstaion 2 FF = Final Fantasy personaly I'll stick with computer games though, since I can't afford a playstation. Ty, me too. Posted by: Aryan Mar 6 2004, 04:41 PM QUOTE (moorezw @ Mar 6 2004, 05:26 PM) QUOTE (Aryan @ Mar 6 2004, 04:14 AM) QUOTE 1 Corinthians 14:40 But all things must be done properly and in an orderly manner. 1 Corinthians 14: 33 For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. Since God is not the God of disorder, why would he create the earth void and without form? It wasn't created that way, it became that way. Now how do we know the original earth wasn't created void and without form like so many say the Earth was? Could there be a verses about the creation of the original earth? Yes! QUOTE Job 38 4 "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand.5. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it?6. On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone- 7. while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?? In these verse God is talking to Job. He is talking about the creation of the Earth. Does this sound like void and confusion? Why would the stars sing and the angels shout for joy over void and without form? Because they were wittiness the original creation of the Earth. It was created perfect. Then it became void and without form after the fall of Lucifer, Aryan- I'm still waiting to see that original Hebrew text... I take it you are a Hebrew scholar. I'm working on it. Posted by: ~Josalo~ Mar 6 2004, 04:57 PM I see you avoided me again, Aryan. Posted by: Aryan Mar 6 2004, 05:22 PM QUOTE (Aryan @ Mar 6 2004, 07:41 PM) QUOTE (moorezw @ Mar 6 2004, 05:26 PM) QUOTE (Aryan @ Mar 6 2004, 04:14 AM) QUOTE 1 Corinthians 14:40 But all things must be done properly and in an orderly manner. 1 Corinthians 14: 33 For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. Since God is not the God of disorder, why would he create the earth void and without form? It wasn't created that way, it became that way. Now how do we know the original earth wasn't created void and without form like so many say the Earth was? Could there be a verses about the creation of the original earth? Yes! QUOTE Job 38 4 "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand.5. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it?6. On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone- 7. while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?? In these verse God is talking to Job. He is talking about the creation of the Earth. Does this sound like void and confusion? Why would the stars sing and the angels shout for joy over void and without form? Because they were wittiness the original creation of the Earth. It was created perfect. Then it became void and without form after the fall of Lucifer, Aryan- I'm still waiting to see that original Hebrew text... I take it you are a Hebrew scholar. I'm working on it. Ok, I'll take a stab at it. Isaiah 14:12 O shining star, the Hebrew is heylel from halal (in the sense of brightness); the morning-star: -lucife Posted by: Aryan Mar 6 2004, 06:12 PM QUOTE (~Josalo~ @ Mar 6 2004, 07:57 PM) I see you avoided me again, Aryan. Well, if you want to claim the world is 6,000 years old, go for it. Posted by: Baby Eater Mar 6 2004, 09:15 PM Aryan, in Genesis is a genealogy, with the years passed and all that. If you add each generations to one another, its comes to about 6000 years old. You also get a maximum, if you had the lifespan of all of the males in the lineage in Genesis, its can't really be more than a couple thousand years. Read Genesis. Open a bible! Duh! Why do you think its that way on the Jewish calendar? ("the" may be innacurate) Posted by: Baby Eater Mar 6 2004, 09:17 PM Ok Aryan, you might be too lazy: QUOTE Gen 5:1 This2088 is the book5612 of the generations8435 of Adam.121 In the day3117 that God430 created1254 man,120 in the likeness1823 of God430 made6213 he him; Gen 5:2 Male2145 and female5347 created1254 he them; and blessed1288 them, and called7121 (853) their name8034 Adam,121 in the day3117 when they were created.1254 Gen 5:3 And Adam121 lived2421 a hundred3967 and thirty7970 years,8141 and begot3205 a son in his own likeness,1823 after his image;6754 and called7121 (853) his name8034 Seth:8352 Gen 5:4 And the days3117 of Adam121 after310 he had begotten3205 (853) Seth8352 were1961 eight8083 hundred3967 years:8141 and he begot3205 sons1121 and daughters:1323 Gen 5:5 And all3605 the days3117 that834 Adam121 lived2425 were1961 nine8672 hundred3967 and thirty7970 years:8141 and he died.4191 Gen 5:6 And Seth8352 lived2421 a hundred3967 and five2568 years,8141 and begot3205 (853) Enos:583 Gen 5:7 And Seth8352 lived2421 after310 he begot3205 (853) Enos583 eight8083 hundred3967 and seven7651 years,8141 and begot3205 sons1121 and daughters:1323 Gen 5:8 And all3605 the days3117 of Seth8352 were1961 nine8672 hundred3967 and twelve8147, 6240 years:8141 and he died.4191 Gen 5:9 And Enos583 lived2421 ninety8673 years,8141 and begot3205 (853) Cainan:7018 Gen 5:10 And Enos583 lived2421 after310 he begot3205 (853) Cainan7018 eight8083 hundred3967 and fifteen2568, 6240 years,8141 and begot3205 sons1121 and daughters:1323 Gen 5:11 And all3605 the days3117 of Enos583 were1961 nine8672 hundred3967 and five2568 years:8141 and he died.4191 Sorry for the numbers. Posted by: Baby Eater Mar 6 2004, 09:23 PM I counted in chapter 5... around 1500 to 2000 years it seem between creation and the flood. Than up from the flood to jesus is about 2000 years, if you count it all. Posted by: Aryan Mar 6 2004, 10:24 PM QUOTE (Baby Eater @ Mar 7 2004, 12:23 AM) I counted in chapter 5... around 1500 to 2000 years it seem between creation and the flood. Than up from the flood to jesus is about 2000 years, if you count it all. I understand all that. That is what the closed narrow minded fundie believe. If you and ~Josalo~ which to believe that, that is fine by me. moorezw and I have been engage in a discussion of the creation of the earth. From the beginning in John 1:1 to the original creation of the earth Genesis 1:1 to it's destruction in Genesis 1:2, to the creation of Adam, an immense amount of time passed. The Bible gives no clue to the length of time that passed before the creation of Adam Posted by: Aryan Mar 6 2004, 10:42 PM QUOTE (chefranden @ Mar 6 2004, 06:45 PM) Aryan, I forgot to ask. Do you still go for crystal spheres, and stars fixed in the firmament, earth at the center and all that? Where is/was the heaven that Lucifer fell from? Did he break a leg? Did those other angels fall on top of him or did god spread them out a bit? Did they have to walk the plank? God screwed up with that free will thing, didn't he? Back to the film: Would Johnny Depp be a good Lucifer? Maybe Mel should play God? chef That was what my son was taught in college, crystal spheres, and stars fixed in the firmament, earth at the center and all that. Lucifer being an immortal being, could not break his leg. Not sure how they fell, but knowing Lucifer, he landed on top of the heap. The world became formless and empty, Gen 1:2 because of his rebellion. No, the only plank I ever read about was in Matthew 7:5. But he was forced to walk the Earth, no more frequent flyer miles. Job 1:7 Posted by: Baby Eater Mar 6 2004, 10:45 PM A couple of days maybe? Its doesnt matter how much time between the first Earth and its destruction (what is this theory anyways?), simply because it is just that: destroyed. The new Earth (the day later you know) is anew, young. Posted by: Aryan Mar 7 2004, 12:28 AM QUOTE (Baby Eater @ Mar 7 2004, 01:45 AM) A couple of days maybe? Its doesnt matter how much time between the first Earth and its destruction (what is this theory anyways?), simply because it is just that: destroyed. The new Earth (the day later you know) is anew, young. Pre-Adam Earth Theory Posted by: Ary |