Hmmmmm
- Thread starter CoreIssue
- Start date
Heather Frank
restricted access
Creationist vs Egyptologist? Good way to phrase it. I remember that from when I was living in England, where basically regular people thought that the first "pyramidiot" as they put it was Napoleon (English people hate Napoleon). Napoleon was a contemporary and an inspiration for people like Clausewitz, Marx, and even the English Darwin. Seriously, before Nietzsche and his "master morality", which is related to masters and slaves in Genesis and Exodus (are you a Hebrew or an Egyptian), the primary leader in all the modernist atheisms is Napoleon Bonaparte. Funnily enough, ancient pagans were seldom atheists, usually they were very closed in nationalist people who thought there was more than one national god. As for the pyramids surviving the flood, that's really doubtful. The whole world covered with enough water to cover the highest mountain for forty days and forty nights? That should have rooted out even the pyramids, which are low lying compared to Everest, the Himalayas or the Andes, and in a low lying plain at that.
You are not considering how many cities have been buried under the sea for millennia and are well preserved due to the water. The reality is there is enough water in the atmosphere and subterranean seas to completely drown the earth today. As well the earth was one mass until the days of Paleg. Plate tectonics did not raise those mountain ranges until God divided the earth into continents.
Dating of the Sphinx and great pyramid are so ancient it goes back to Pre-Adamic. More and more things are being discovered that defy human construction.
Dating of the Sphinx and great pyramid are so ancient it goes back to Pre-Adamic. More and more things are being discovered that defy human construction.
Last edited:
Heather Frank
restricted access
Muummmm, nahhhh, buried under tides for thousands of years and subject to normal lunar controlled sea current erosion isn't quite the same as a massive but short term catastrophe as the flood is reported to be. However, pre Adamic construction does have some attractions. For it to be true, you'd have to stretch out the creation timeframe a little bit, and who do you attribute the construction to? Now you're talking prehuman here, and this is Egypt, land of original enslavement we mean here, right? So, demonic origin? Wow. Sounds cool, like Eric Von Daikon or Renee Noor Bergin. I totally cant wait to find out.
I am talking the destruction of Genesis 1:2, not the great flood of Noah. There were no oceans or seas, just land. So when the single landmass was raised from destruction we do not know what was revealed. But we know mankind spread over this single landmass at the Tower of Babel. So humans found these ancient things and adopted them as their own. Then, at the time of Paleg God further dispersed humanity by dividing the land and carrying the various groups living on it away from each other.
Think about it. It makes sense. All the ancient things that humans could not have built secularist struggle to explain. All the things on different continents that share similarities.
Think about it. It makes sense. All the ancient things that humans could not have built secularist struggle to explain. All the things on different continents that share similarities.
Heather Frank
restricted access
There is no destruction of Genesis 1:2. Genesis 1:2 describes as best as the scribe was able the conditions of what is now the material earth before God began to speak, which was the cause of the seven days of creation. Noting existed before the creation week, so there cannot have been a destruction such as you postulate.
Pre-Adamic Creation
The Hebrew definitions, etc, strudy tools are provided in the Category Study Resources. When people crack open the Bible, the most common assumption accepted by Christians is that all matter and energy came into existence within the six days in chapter one of Genesis, thus meaning the earth is...
Bruce-Leiter
Advanced Poster
It's very easy to speculate about what happened BETWEEN verses, but I prefer to think about what is IN verses!
Bruce-Leiter
Advanced Poster
Yes, it is. It reads a lot of meaning into the gap between Genesis 1:1 and 2. I don't believe in adding to Scripture what isn't there.
Pre-Adamic Creation
The Hebrew definitions, etc, strudy tools are provided in the Category Study Resources. When people crack open the Bible, the most common assumption accepted by Christians is that all matter and energy came into existence within the six days in chapter one of Genesis, thus meaning the earth is...
try again
You mean like people in your camp - literal 6-day creationist - claiming that Noah put the dinosaurs on the ark?
You don't believe in ADDING yet your diabolical trinity doctrine is the most fabricated FALSE DOCTRINE IN CHRISTIANITY!
Bruce-Leiter
Advanced Poster
That's not my "camp," CoreIssue. I find such an idea ludicrous to think that about Noah. The "days" were probably much longer than 24 hours because the sun wasn't created until the fourth day, and God's statement that the earth was to bring forth this and that implies a longer period. Also, the word "day" in the Bible, when it involves God has an undefined time, whereas when it deals with humans, it is 24 hours. (I did a word study.)
Bruce-Leiter
Advanced Poster
I suggest that you read the whole Gospel of John and notice how the book mentions three Persons of God. The rest of the Bible testifies to God's oneness. He is, therefore, mysterious in that aspect of his divine Being.
Pre-Adamic Creation
The Hebrew definitions, etc, strudy tools are provided in the Category Study Resources. When people crack open the Bible, the most common assumption accepted by Christians is that all matter and energy came into existence within the six days in chapter one of Genesis, thus meaning the earth is...
Bruce-Leiter
Advanced Poster
@Ben There, I suggest that you read the whole Gospel of John and notice how the book mentions three Persons of God. The rest of the Bible testifies to God's oneness. He is, therefore, mysterious in that aspect of his divine Being.
Bruce-Leiter
Advanced Poster
@Ben There, I suggest that you read the whole Gospel of John and notice how the book mentions three Persons of God. The rest of the Bible testifies to God's oneness. He is, therefore, mysterious in that aspect of his divine Being.
AH so you believe in these mysterious conspiracy theories. Trinity is diabolical nonsense. I hate it and so do millions of others who have common sense.
Zombies eat brains. Don't worry, you're safe.
Bruce-Leiter
Advanced Poster
So, you trust your common sense rather than the Bible. Is that right? God had to let the Bible, especially John's gospel, convince me of the truth of the Trinity. Why can't you accept such a mystery as being a truth that is beyond our capability to comprehend. After all, God is God, but we're not.