We Have Been Lied To

Did you know that all of this is pure conjecture and not a shred of archeaological evidence to support any of this? Did you know that archeaology supports the bible as being truth? See my signature link for real science proving the bible.

Kthxbai.

reply to post by 1nOne




I appreciate your OP and your responsses to those of us (or maybe just me INFOKARTEL) who are ignorant; and may not have the time to educate ourselves thoroughly on topics such as the various points of religion you mentioned thus far. There are many of us in the "did not know colomn" and I believe that is one of the reasons we are here. To learn more from those who are interested in similiar subject content, conspiracies, theological reasoning and counter theories, and all things found within ATS.

reply to post by 1nOne


Did you know that the bull (taurus) is the 9'th configuration in the mazzaroth?

reply to post by 1nOne


Yes, the Eve from Adams rib just seems like a bone marrow transplant from adam's rib (so she could conceive?). Of course that has been theorized from ideas such as Zacharia Sitchen, though many think he is wrong such as Michael Heiser, You can't help but wonder how Eve from Adam's rib could be anything else but a dna alteration in some way.

Something that makes me wonder about and I mean REALLY wonder about this is that is that a medium called James E. Padgett claimed he received information from Jesus and he stated the words "supposed" first parents.
That WORD "supposed" really seems like maybe Adam and Eve could be a species such as followers of Zacharia Sitchen's work state. The Adamu, or groups of beings created at the same time to mine for gold. Being that Michael Tellinger (book author from Africa) has seen a lot of ancient gold mines and of course all those biological looking cell looking ground prints that are giant imprints that could be over 100 thousand years old. Things that mainstream archeologist seem to glance over bigtime.

Oops -- forgot "Peter Pan" and the lost boys (lost tribes) of the mythical island "Neverland".

Pan crater on moon of Jupiter: Jupiter = Zeus + peter
Peter = father (Gk pater)
Pan = early Greek deity
Peter Pan = Father of Gods = Jupiter

L. Iupeter, from PIE *dyeu-peter- "god-father" (originally vocative, "the name naturally occurring most frequently in invocations" [Tucker]), from *deiw-os "god" (see Zeus) + peter "father" in the sense of "male head of a household" (see father). Cf. Gk. Zeu pater, vocative of Zeus pater "Father Zeus;" Skt. Dyauspita "heavenly father. (Online Etymology Dictionary)

Jupiter/Zeus is father of 12 Olympians on rock of Mt. Olympus.
Peter is father of Roman Catholic Church: Peter "the rock"; Peter the leader of the 12 disciples

Quite the pantheon.

Etymology never lies.

Check out this "jovial" statue of Jupiter/St. Peter at Vatican's St. Peter's Basilica:
www.the-ten-commandments.org...

reply to post by 1nOne


You're just taking little bits and shoving them together like broken puzzle pieces now. That last didn't even make sense.

reply to post by Starchild23


Sorry -- was trying to show contemporary evidences of our collective memory of the lost island of Pan through philological examples...

It made sense to me.

reply to post by 1nOne


I have never heard of Pan. I've heard of Lemuria and Atlantis, and even Maldek, but not Pan...

reply to post by 1nOne


Um...

You do know that Bel/Baal just means Lord?
The Babylonian Marduk and the clan god Yahweh have nothing in common.

reply to post by CodyOutlaw


Baal, unless my memory is mistaken, was the name of Satan, or one of his great demons...

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
Did you know that all of this is pure conjecture and not a shred of archeaological evidence to support any of this? Did you know that archeaology supports the bible as being truth? See my signature link for real science proving the bible.

Kthxbai.

edit on 10-5-2012 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)

C'mon now! While archaeology does support SOME of the "history" in the bible to say it "supports the bible as being truth" is not the truth.

Archaeology refutes many biblical claims. For instance:

1. According to biblical chronology Adam was created 6,000 years ago as the first human. Archaeology shows that there were humans in Ethiopia 160,000 years ago. www.cbsnews.com...

Archaeologists have also unearthed buildings that were 8,000 years old in Israel itself. " Israeli archaeologists uncovered the 8,000-year-old remains of a prehistoric structure nestled away in the upscale neighborhood of Ramat Aviv. The cornerstone of the ancient building, which lies on a construction site for exclusive apartments, long precedes the time of Abraham and the rest of the Bible's figures." abcnews.go.com...

2. The Exodus:

Archaeology proves, according to the rules of argumentation and evidence of the game of archaeology, that there were only 3 million people in Egypt in the Late Bronze Age. The Bible’s own proposition is that some 600,000 fighting men, aged 20 and upwards, migrated out of Egypt during a period which may be correlated with the Late Bronze Age. When we add women, children and elderly, 600,000 fighting men implies some 2.5 to 3 million people who migrated from Egypt in the Late Bronze Age. However, the archaeological evidence shows no such thing at all. There is no such disruption to the archaeological record. In fact, Egypt generally grew in strength throughout this period.

So, the Bible’s proposition that 600,000 fighting men migrated out of Egypt in the Exodus is proved false by archaeology. The idea that God has called a certain people to him is also affected by this evidence. Without an Exodus, there’s no theological establishment of Israel. And the only biblical account of the Exodus is disproved. So, archaeology disproves this part of the Bible.

Numbers chapter 1 gives an idea of the huge number of Israelites that apparently wandered in the wilderness for 40 years. However, the Israeli archaeologist Eliezer Oren spent 10 years excavating the site, and "failed to provide a single shred of evidence that the Biblical account of the Exodus from Egypt ever happened" (Barry Brown, "Israeli Archaeologist Reports No Evidence to Back Exodus Story," News Toronto Bureau, Feb. 27, 1988)

3.Joshua 8:26-28: For Joshua drew not his hand back, wherewith he stretched out the spear, until he had utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of Ai. Only the cattle and the spoil of that city Israel took for a prey unto themselves, according unto the word of the LORD which he commanded Joshua. And Joshua burnt Ai, and made it an heap for ever, even a desolation unto this day.

Joseph Callaway, professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, excavated the ruins of Ai between 1964 and 1976 and afterwards reported that what he found there contradicted the Bible version completely:

The evidence from Ai was mainly negative. There was a great walled city there beginning about 3000 B. C., more than 1,800 years before Israel's emergence in Canaan. But this city was destroyed about 2400 B. C., after which the site was abandoned. Despite extensive excavation, no evidence of a Late Bronze Age (1500-1200 B. C.) Canaanite city was found. In short, there was no Canaanite city here for Joshua to conquer (Biblical Archaeology Review, "Joseph A. Callaway: 1920-1988," November/December 1988, p. 24).

I could go on, but I think the above shows my point.

reply to post by Starchild23


Not originally, no. It was a common title for most gods of the Levant, and it was also common for high ranking human officials. The word itself has no religious connotation.

reply to post by CodyOutlaw


This is what I was thinking of:

Baal

reply to post by Starchild23


Yep, that's why I said not originally.
Like most things, it has become so convoluted over time.
This is the reason that "demonology" is so inaccurate.

Originally posted by wearewatchingyouman

So, the Bible’s proposition that 600,000 fighting men migrated out of Egypt in the Exodus is proved false by archaeology. The idea that God has called a certain people to him is also affected by this evidence. Without an Exodus, there’s no theological establishment of Israel. And the only biblical account of the Exodus is disproved. So, archaeology disproves this part of the Bible.

Nuh uh! They were just really good at cleaning up after themselves or something.

reply to post by wearewatchingyouman


So, if we take your evidence to be fact, then everything that reportedly occurred after Exodus didn't happen at all...or at least, didn't happen to the people in Exodus. This confirms the idea that all of the Bible is just like a comedian act...jokes taken from other comedians and reworked to fit the show.

All of the Bible is stories taken from other faiths, in order to impart the essentials of what we need to survive. Unfortunately, examples of bad behavior were also included and everyone assumed that these were also examples of how to live...

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


Your evidence proves the existence of places, not of conversation. You don't have a shred of proof that Jesus was ever in Nazareth.

reply to post by Starchild23


It's hard enough to prove that Nazareth even existed as a settlemrnt in the time Jesus is supposed to exist. Let alone that God(Jesus) existed there.

reply to post by wearewatchingyouman


So we're supposed to take it on faith?

That's exactly what I want to base my life on. A literal fairytale.

History is such a blur...

Did you know that here in Norway; roofers are hired in from Thailand to to do maintenance on our stave churches!