Two pics from Oilantaytambo that 100% defy evolution

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

The bible is the only source of history from ancient times that has that degree of historical accuracy because of that.

Not at all true.

a reply to: seabhac-rua

And if science provided a "body", or whatever evidence demanded by creationists, do you think they would ever accept it?

Creationist aren't demanding evidence of anything.
We're to sickened by the ridiculous demands, of the secular,
scientific, godless community. That we provide evidence of
a supreme spirit being. When it wouldn't make a difference
to them, if one of us were so annointed.

It's men such as these, that have vacated a relationship with
the creator, in the first place. They chose to live without God
and his laws. People have recieved an education today, from
the decendants of those powerful generations of elite.
Who chose to " Do what thou wilt" thousands of years ago. They
hate God and set up secular education world wide. Why? To brain
wash as much of humanity as they could. Why?

Because as "his story" (Satans) teaches us in repetiton, that's what
you do before you war. Brainwash the people to hate the
enemy. Then they do much better job of fighting for you. So to
answer your question. We know it won't ever come to that.

The coming war, is what it has always been about in the first place.
Believe me, if the evidence you speak of were out there? It would
would've been found by now. There's a common ancestor sure
enough and he's likely on his way very soon. And there is an
absolute slaughter come'n. If it weren't for Armeggedon coming
upon them, they wouldn't have let the numbers on earth get so
high. They would've slaughtered us years ago.

This age is at an end.

a reply to: randyvs

With respect Randyvs, I see you are deep in your convictions, so therefore why bother to even make a thread like this?

a reply to: seabhac-rua

I make a lot of em huh?
I do it for myself, as it keeps me focused on what God say's
is coming. If by some remote chance I happen to bare
fruit or even help someone else in any way. That's a
tremendous plus for me, but not in any material way.
But I learn so much from doing these threads. That's
the addiction. That's the truth.

Even as I write this those of us,( I don't know how to say
this without sounding all holier than thou ) that by total luck
have managed to see the truth thru the veil, I guess one could
say? The absolute evidence of our convictions is in the works
against us.
And do you know something? The clammering of
those sabers that were once only a winds whisper, occurring
sparsely over a few years. Now are rattling almost daily and
they sound close. You ask why? Because this whole existence is
a tapestry. And every thread is beautiful.

Hell IDK.

originally posted by: seabhac-rua

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

The bible is the only source of history from ancient times that has that degree of historical accuracy because of that.

Not at all true.

Why isn't it true? Sort of reversed thinking to say books that are telling a story that was handed down for many generations as opposed to a story someone witnessed themselves and had a part in telling it, and writing about it, would be more dependable, wouldn't you say?
That at least, is a logical deduction most scientists make when confirming something. What is more dependable, a story told over and over and then written about 1000 years later, or a story told and then immediately written about? Which written version would be more dependable?
Are you sure you understood what I was relaying earlier?

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

The statement he said was "Not at all true" was "The bible is the only source of history from ancient times that has that degree of historical accuracy because of that." And he's demonstrably correct. The bible is one of many texts, religious and otherwise, written in ancient times about ancient times. Nor is it even the oldest (I believe that honour would go to the Sumerian tablets?) I'm far from an expert on this stuff, so correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'm under the impression there are ancient texts from all over the world, Egyptian, Indian, Chinese, Incan, Mayan etc. What makes the bible any more accurate than any other ancient writings?

a reply to: tommyc1873

What makes the bible any more accurate than any other ancient writings?

I don't want to step on corruptions toes. So just a quicky.

It's something you'll understand soon. As I just referred to it
vagely. When you see Christians briefly persecuted and then
directly being exterminated ? Get a clue from that. And I don't
believe you're gonna have to wait very long at all. It is very much
being worked out. Fema camps aren't for everyone. But they're
definitely for us.

originally posted by: tommyc1873
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

The statement he said was "Not at all true" was "The bible is the only source of history from ancient times that has that degree of historical accuracy because of that." And he's demonstrably correct. The bible is one of many texts, religious and otherwise, written in ancient times about ancient times. Nor is it even the oldest (I believe that honour would go to the Sumerian tablets?) I'm far from an expert on this stuff, so correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'm under the impression there are ancient texts from all over the world, Egyptian, Indian, Chinese, Incan, Mayan etc. What makes the bible any more accurate than any other ancient writings?

As I said before, : what makes it more accurate is when it was recorded and written was around and closer to the time that it actually happened. The bible is the only ancient book that has that degree of historical accuracy.
The Bible has proven to be more historically and archaeologically accurate than any other ancient book. It has been subjected to the minutest scientific textual analysis possible to humanity and has been proven to be authentic in every way.
I think it is humorous that those who can't stand the thought of this being true, will just "claim" it isn't and hope they are right. Or "claim it isn't true, and then prop each other up with affirmatives and stars for self affirmation.
Show me some ancient text and show me why it is more accurate historically than the Bible, k?

Try researching the historical accuracy of the Bible yourself, and then come and tell me it isn't true.
Those who cling to their hope in it being a myth are doing so from handed down deceptions. Just respond with nope, that ain't true, it's all a myth. Instead of actually wanting to know the truth, if it really is or not, you will just stand proud and firm with others of the same feather, and profess that it isn't true, it's just a myth because it is politically correct to say that now.
I sure am glad I don't let that pathetic hive mentality dictate to me what is what, I still have the self individualism to check it out.
Measure your findings not so much by the sources, but how things stack up to facts and common sense, and keep in mind human behavior to social manipulations and political agendas world wide and anything else you can think of that has a vested interest in making you decide truths, by twisting and spinning them to fit the current agendas while also supporting those agendas at the same time.

There are a lot of factors involved in discovering what books are accurate and how those findings are made. It isn't just by wishing it to be true because of preconceived religious backgrounds, it is by archeology, paleontology, and alot of other things. And keep in mind how politics can get what were once honest scientists and academians to become spokespersons for the new agendas that support a new political need, just like global warming/cooling has been sold to support taxes and whatever, (regardless of truth) Everything is under assault and manipulation on a scale we have never seen before.. Don't be pulled along into the avalanche without at least putting in a tidbit of your own effort first.

Or just poopoo it all like the bandwagon crowd, doesn't matter to me what others finally decide, but it shoulkd matter a lot to each person as individuals. (actually it matters.)

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I didn't say the bible is not an accurate source. Personally, I think it is an invaluable resource, and I tend to take a fairly literal interpretation of it. My point was merely that it is not the only ancient text to be recorded at or not long after the time of the events it (certainly for the new testament, at least). No need to rant at me (though I suspect that was not exclusively targeted at me). I appreciate your point about the depth of study that has been done on the subject though. That answers my question. Certainly, corroborative archaeological studies have been conducted far more with the bible than with any any other texts that I know of. Given that, I can agree that it can be considered more reliable than the others. Fair enough.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

You would have to be pretty daft to believe the bible is historically accurate, let alone the most historically accurate of all ancient texts.

a reply to: tommyc1873

Thanks for the reply,
appreciate your honesty.

Also I was thinking about other old texts and thinking in the end, it comes down to it being true or not true, and for me, even without all the factors of accuracy and whatnot adding to a text's authenticity, there is always instinct, and instinct isn't a bad thing to use either, sometimes the truth of a story can be determined just by the way the story is being told, and what context, and any noticeable motive, ie, is it for the good of future people, or serving some unpure agenda. and such factors like that for example.

Many stories long ago had very strong moral reasons for being made into a story, so to tell an important lesson that shows the good and the bad of following a certain path or doing the opposite, and learning the consequences. All of these things can be seen as obvious of course, but just based on the how and the why, or purpose of a story being a story is an accurate way to measure if it happened or not, (at least to me )..

Okay, before I get carrierd away again..heh..

The problem with using the bible as a historical source, is that it was compiled thousands of years after the stories were written. People mistakenly think that the bible is one big book that's all related, but that's not true at all. It is a compilation book of hundreds of individual stories and writings that were written over a long time period. You have to analyze each story individually to determine historical accuracy. Sure, some of it is accurate, but in the same regard, there's a lot of it, in fact the large majority of it, where the historical accuracy cannot be verified. Many folks mistakenly assume that if one story is accurate then they all must be. That is the wrong way to look at it, IMO.

a reply to: Barcs

Only up to the new testament, then those are all having happened very close in the timeline to each other.

Both old and new use an incredible amount of symbolism which was done on purpose to make people really have to work hard to discover the meanings. This was done to seperate those who don't care and don't want to know what those stories are trying to teach, from those who have humbled themselves and are willing to let the lessons teach their hearts and not let life and the world teach your own desires and egos instead. At least that is one way to look at it.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

This reads like a rationalisation on your part to hand wave away all the inconsistencies and contradictions in the bible. It also conviniently allows you to interpret the bible however you please because "symbolism". The bible is littered with so many contradictions, inconsistencies and downright awful morality tales you'd have to be schizophrenic to live your life by it if you read it at face value. Which again, a lot of people posting here do, except they cherry pick the bits they like (genesis, for example) and conviniently ignore the horrid stuff (filicide, killing homosexuals, and so on).

Creationists really are blind to the truth,evolution is as good as fact like it or not the evidence is in abundance but creationists refuse to look at it and understand it,god may have created us but if he did he used evolution to do it.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

This reads like a rationalisation on your part to hand wave away all the inconsistencies and contradictions in the bible. It also conviniently allows you to interpret the bible however you please because "symbolism". The bible is littered with so many contradictions, inconsistencies and downright awful morality tales you'd have to be schizophrenic to live your life by it if you read it at face value. Which again, a lot of people posting here do, except they cherry pick the bits they like (genesis, for example) and conviniently ignore the horrid stuff (filicide, killing homosexuals, and so on).

Credit for providing us with evidence, that you
are opininated beyond reason.

a reply to: randyvs

YOU are calling OTHERS out for evidence?? Please, keep 'em coming!

a reply to: GetHyped

No! But you have the right to assume i suppose.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: Barcs

Only up to the new testament, then those are all having happened very close in the timeline to each other.

Both old and new use an incredible amount of symbolism which was done on purpose to make people really have to work hard to discover the meanings. This was done to seperate those who don't care and don't want to know what those stories are trying to teach, from those who have humbled themselves and are willing to let the lessons teach their hearts and not let life and the world teach your own desires and egos instead. At least that is one way to look at it.

That's exactly the thing. There is a lot of symbolism, and the purpose is to teach a lesson, not to be historically accurate. When people look at it literally or claim it's a historical document, they miss the purpose. The stories aren't meant to be literal, they are meant to teach about the inner conflict between benevolence and malevolence and applying it in your life.

a reply to: randyvs

Sooo.. what you're really saying is you make all the threads on ATS as a means of pushing your religion and religious views on others, in order to get them to believe in your religious convictions.

I didn't think that sort of thing was allowed here..?