200,000-year-old flint tools found in Syrian desert

Originally posted by PublicDefenseCorp

Originally posted by helen670
Actually, according to Genesis,
man was quite civilized a few thousand years ago!
Adam named all the animals and farmed the earth,but ten the flood came...
Today if man only could be like Adam, he still wouldn't be as civilized!

The article claims that we were were stupid pre historic man,who probably didn't have a clue as to use tools, and now somehow, evolved(there's that evolution theory bull again)into modern paleolithic beings that we are!
Article is another Evolution propaganda!
How sad!

ICXC NIKA
helen

You claim to see no carbon dated proof of the age, yet you make claims of "Adam" without proof...talk about being a hipocrit.

Hi Public/
Genesis has been consistent in what the Word of God says!
The Bible has been consistent in what the Word of God Says!
Science has only lived up to it's theories!
Times have changed, but Gods LOGOS has yet to see change!
Times have changed, but man's LAW keeps up with the changes they create!

How am I a Hypocrite?

ICXC NIKA
helen

Originally posted by helen670
How am I a Hypocrite?

Something about the fact you have no proof... I would say

Besides the Bible as I recall was taken from the older Sumerian texts

reply to post by zorgon


Hi zorgan/

The Bible has not changed...to me that is a fact!
And I'm not talking about the falsified one's with deliberate deceived texts!
Im talking about the Bible of the Old and New Testament which in fact is the Word of God...no contradictions!
Whereas the Science theory of Evolution TEACHES it is in fact a theory and not a FACT!
iN THE Original post of the article stated,it is based on propagating that Evolution is fact!
How is that done?
bY IMPLYING THAT A TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND OLD Flint was found along with skeletal remains!
There are NO facts that prove the remains of the skeleton are in FACT two hudred thousand years old!
That, is a lie based on a THEORY....It is someones opinion and not a fact!

ICXC NIKA
helen

didn't King James kill and murder over 400 monks that did not decipher the acient texts to his liking?
I will do some digging to find the proof but I believe this is true.

Isnt it amazing the things they dig up.I would'nt be surprised if there were as much history waiting to be discovered than which already has.Good post OP.

Originally posted by VitalOverdose
This sounds interesting but it might be worth noting that this is only a report of a report in a newspaper and theres no link the original article from the linked article.

www.sana.sy...

Palmyra ,(SANA)-The Syrian-Swiss Expedition ended yesterday its work for this year at the site of Tal al-Koum ,Beer al-Huml in Palmyra desert.

Not much else comes up on this one

No name of the Swiss team... a search for Tal al-Koum ,Beer al-Huml Palmyra brings up nothing but the link above

al-Koum - Early Settlements on the Nile banks The term "al-koum" or "al-tal" - meaning hill or highland -

So far this seems a tourist trap

[edit on 13-7-2009 by zorgon]

Originally posted by helen670
Hi zorgan/

The Bible has not changed...to me that is a fact!

Well to some evolution is a fact and to others the Sumerian Anunnaki origin is a fact...

To Muslims by the millions the Qua'ran is a fact, to other millions Buddha is a fact

Your fact is no more or less than all these other facts

So where did Cains wife and all her people come from and how many animals got onto the ark?... I can never get a straight answer on that When you can explain that to me we can discuss the 'theory' of evolution

Originally posted by Doc Holiday
didn't King James kill and murder over 400 monks that did not decipher the acient texts to his liking?
I will do some digging to find the proof but I believe this is true.

Not sure about that but found this...

Although the title page of The King James Bible boasted that it was "newly translated out of the original tongues," the work was actually a revision of The Bishop's Bible of 1568, which was a revision of The Great Bible of 1539, which was itself based on three previous English translations from the early 1500s. So, the men who produced the King James Bible not only inherited some of the errors made by previous English translators, but invented some of their own. Desiderius Erasmus was a "Christian humanist" who collected Greek (and Latin) New Testament manuscripts and compared and edited them, verse by verse, selecting what he considered to be the best variant passages, until he had compiled what came to be known as the "textus receptus." Early English translations of the Bible, like those mentioned above, were based on his "textus receptus." Erasmus was also a monk whom some historians believe engaged in homosexual activities. But without both King James and Erasmus, the most widely touted Bible in Christian history would never have been produced, the KJV (or shall we say, Gay-JV?) Bible.

and this..

King James' favorite male lovers were the Earl of Somerset and the Duke of Buckingham.

- Ben Edward Akerly, The X-rated Bible James's sexual orientation was so widely known that Sir Walter Raleigh joked about it in public saying "King Elizabeth" had been succeeded by "Queen James."

- Catherine D. Bowen, The Lion and the Throne King James 1 was a known homosexual who murdered his young lovers and victimized countless heretics and women. His cruelty was justified by his "divine right" of kings.
- Otto J. Scott, James the First

and this...

How many folks know that King James (who commissioned the King James Bible and to whom it was dedicated) loved men and had sex with them? At the age of thirteen James fell madly in love with his male cousin Esme Stuart whom he made Duke of Lennox. James deferred to Esme to the consternation of his ministers. In 1582 James was kidnapped and forced to issue a proclamation against his lover and send him back to France. Later, James fell in love with a poor young Scotsman named Robert Carr. "The king leans on his [Carr's] arm, pinches his cheeks, smooths his ruffled garment, and when he looks upon Carr, directs his speech to others." (Thomas Howard, Earl of Suffolk, in a letter, 1611) Carr eventually ended the relationship after which the king expressed his dissatisfaction in a letter to Carr, "I leave out of this reckoning your long creeping back and withdrawing yourself from lying in my chamber, notwithstanding my many hundred times earnest soliciting you to the contrary...Remember that (since I am king) all your being, except your breathing and soul, is from me." (See The Letters of King James I & VI, ed., G. P. V. Akrigg, Univ. of Calif. Press, 1984. Also see Royal Family, Royal Lovers: King James of England and Scotland, David M. Bergeron, Univ. of Missouri Press, 1991)

Wiki Answers

I never knew that before...