Which do you feel is most plausable?

The universe and everything in it is something I am dreaming right now. When I die in this dream I will wake up then you will all cease to exist at that point I will go to work in universe Zeta.

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
I have no problem with the Genesis account. If people do, I do have a theory that they reject the Genesis account because to do so relieves them of responsibility (in their own eyes) to a sovereign God. They thus try to move God as far away as possible. Futile...

I have a theory that you believe only what you want to believe, regardless of the facts, because it makes you feel warm and cozy at night.

I reject the Genesis account as written in the Bible because for one thing the English bible is not the original text, and the original Hebrew bible is not even the original text, it's a compilation of texts which have been edited many times over the years and merged together as one text, while leaving out many other parts which the church deemed to be blasphemous.

Believing every word of the bible at face value as if it were a literal description of the past is absurd. If there is any truth to the bible it's meant to be understood symbolically and not literally. It's not a history book full of indisputable facts, it's a highly edited and manipulated book created by man to carry out certain agendas.

Originally posted by Lazarus Short

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by HomeBrew

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
I have no problem with the Genesis account. If people do, I do have a theory that they reject the Genesis account because to do so relieves them of responsibility (in their own eyes) to a sovereign God. They thus try to move God as far away as possible. Futile...

Well, personally I reject it because it's bollocks.

Shocker, and once again just trolling this thread for no other reason but to argue and belittle opinion.

I'm not trolling, I was offering an alternative opinion. Is that not welcome?

"Bollocks" is not an opinion - it is a scoff.

How about this, tell me if it sounds like bollocks:

As stated by Einstein, reality is TIME, SPACE, MATTER and ENERGY. As stated by God, it is the same.

Genesis 1:1
In the Beginning (Time), God created the heavens (Space) and the earth (Matter). Let there be light (Energy).

No, my opinion is that it's bollocks. That is indeed an opinion.

There's no connection between those two statements, and further more the words in brackets are just conjecture. They're not the same at all (I'm assuming you're referring to what Einstein actually said).

reply to post by HomeBrew


These are just my assumptions and should not, in any way, be viewed as facts:

1.Genisis:

This is my first attempt at any kind of semi-thorough time line, so sorry if it's too narrow:
1a. God created angels and then,
1b. God created humans.
1c. The angels mated with women, which
1d. Resulted in the creation of the nephilim.

Explaination:
1a. The angels are what is referred to by pop-culture as aliens
1b. Needs no explanation, as you know what humans are
1c. The angels who come to earth to deceive are known as fallen angels, annunaki, egyptian gods, greek gods, dagon, sky brothers (lure from hopi indians), quetzalcoatl, kukulcan, etc, etc
1d. The nephilim are the offspring of angels and women that occured before the deluge. They're now known as the mighty ones (buddism), the giants (the 6 fingered red heads from mesa-american lure), the titans, egyptian demigods (children of ra and all those countless gods thereafter), etc, etc

The biblical flood wiped out most of the nephilim and they became demons, evil spirits, the mighty ones, etc



2. Evolution is not just the evolution of life. It is the evolution of this realm; this reality that we call the visible universe. Each time God spoke something into existence, he created a new form of evolution in the word and with the word.

Explaination:
2a. The first light is most likely what we call energy, strings, super strings, planck's length, etc. It is the stuff that quarks and leptons are made of, and it evolves in its own way, just as we do.
2b. The heavens and the earth are made up of Gods word as well, and it too, evolves. It's evolution is that of chemical reactions and the periodic elements.
2c. Then you have the animal evolution and its evolution is that of dna, proteins, acids, etc.
2d. Then you have us - the evolution created from the dust of the earth.

Combined, all of the evolutions are the same evolution of God's word, but each is an alteration(day) and is the creation of a new form and path of evolution.

more

That's what I think at the moment, anyways. And I realize I over simplified the cuss out of it, but I'm not one for going too deeply into a single subject, if it's not needed to explain something.

reply to post by HomeBrew

For me, I think the Nephilim (fallen angels) who allegedly genetically manipulated mankind has the most supporting evidence littered through history

The Nephilim? The giants so large the Israelites likened themselves to grasshoppers compared to them? “and we were like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight” (Numbers 13:33).

That's at least King Kong size if not Godzilla size, with skeletons so big they couldn't be mistaken for anything else...

Do you believe these monstrous creatures mated with humans? Was their (the Godzilla sized Giants) genitalia compatible with ancient human's genitalia? Did this mean the giant Nephilim have extraordinaryly small? Or was it vice versa?

Does anyone ever consider such specifics?

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder

I have a theory that you believe only what you want to believe, regardless of the facts, because it makes you feel warm and cozy at night.

Wow, ChaoticOrder, I think you actually know what's going on. :-) Beliefs are beliefs.
Their purpose is not to find the truth, but arguably could be of the opposite purpose.

I find belief is helpful to get me moving, but I won't confuse that with truth.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


The Genesis account of the Bible is not meant to be taken literally. It was NEVER meant to be taken literally. It was only until relatively modern times did Christians begin to read into it literally, and come up with the whole Young Earth Creationism nonsense. Really? The Earth is 6000 years old? Cool story, I wonder what all those Native Americans that were here for thousands of years before that would have to say.

However, just because it isn't a literal account doesn't negate God. It doesn't even negate Jesus. In fact, one could say the structure and law of the cosmos is evidence enough that God willed it into existence.

But He didn't have to say, "Let there be light", and poof, there was light instantly, for this to happen. It could very well have been a process. Imagine. "Let there be light" = Big Bang. Think about that for a moment.

reply to post by FollowTheWhiteRabbit


I think it is definitely a kind of parable... the interesting thing is the two different Genesis accounts. When I was in a Catholic High School, we wrote an essay comparing and contrasting them. Later on, I learned that they were actually accounts given by two *different* Gods, one masculine and one feminine - one Yahweh, and one Elohim, I believe.

I'd have to go with interventionism, but can't distinguish beyond that. I can't comment on reptilian vs annunaki vs nephilim as they could all easy be the same thing. God, however, is the least likely of them all (or was alien himself(themselves)) because the bible is demonstrably wrong in many cases and evolution is a fact of reality. Interventionism and evolution are perfectly compatible, although there is much to be proven with aliens before I'll accept any of those explanations as reality.

2. There is a gap in our traceable genetic history ( the missing link ). I think a species tampering with our DNA or otherwise inserting their own DNA into ours would make our 'theory of evolution' make sense.

Is this true? Traceable genetic history only goes back to Neanderthals, Denisovans and homo erectus if I'm not mistaken, largely because we haven't found DNA of our other ancestors and therefor couldn't genetically trace them. I'd say there are much bigger gaps in the rest of the animal kingdom than with human ancestors. The missing link argument is old news because over a dozen links have been found. There might be a few in there we haven't found, but expecting to find every single creature to ever exist in the planets past is a pretty unrealistic expectation when you look at how rare the fossilization process is, especially in a climate such as Africa.

In fact, one could say the structure and law of the cosmos is evidence enough that God willed it into existence.

Yeah, one could say that, but they would be speculating heavily. Existence alone is not evidence of creation. The laws of the cosmos are our measurements, they aren't actual rules that were set up by somebody. It's simply the way it is. Whether or not the laws were created bears no relevance to our ability to measure them. That's no reason to assume creation, at least not logically.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
I have no problem with the Genesis account. If people do, I do have a theory that they reject the Genesis account because to do so relieves them of responsibility (in their own eyes) to a sovereign God. They thus try to move God as far away as possible. Futile...

I have a theory that you believe only what you want to believe, regardless of the facts, because it makes you feel warm and cozy at night.

I reject the Genesis account as written in the Bible because for one thing the English bible is not the original text, and the original Hebrew bible is not even the original text, it's a compilation of texts which have been edited many times over the years and merged together as one text, while leaving out many other parts which the church deemed to be blasphemous.

Believing every word of the bible at face value as if it were a literal description of the past is absurd. If there is any truth to the bible it's meant to be understood symbolically and not literally. It's not a history book full of indisputable facts, it's a highly edited and manipulated book created by man to carry out certain agendas.

edit on 8/4/2013 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

You seem to be doing just as my stated theory predicted. Thanks for the confirmation!

Originally posted by SpearMint

No, my opinion is that it's bollocks. That is indeed an opinion.

There's no connection between those two statements, and further more the words in brackets are just conjecture. They're not the same at all (I'm assuming you're referring to what Einstein actually said).

The parallelism is too obvious to ignore, and a simple denial will not do. The words in parenthesis [not brackets] are a fair and just interpretation of "beginning," "heavens," "earth," and "light." Not the same, but very, very close. Ignore it if you want to, but it is still there.

Originally posted by HomeBrew


I think you may be confusing evidence with proof, I claim no proof but there is a wealth of evidence (circumstantial or otherwise) for all the above. Please do not let that hang you up...

- Reptilian
- Anunnaki
- Nephilim
- Genesis

Please post even the slightest evidence for any of these. Thanks.

Originally posted by Lazarus Short

Genesis 1:1
In the Beginning (Time), God created the heavens (Space) and the earth (Matter). Let there be light (Energy).

LOL But, you got this from a work of fiction. If this is what you call evidence than I can claim that the universe was created by opening a wardrobe door, and on the other side is a Lion and a witch. Does this mean that it is proof or evidence or whatever you want to call it?

I am open to many theories and do not really dismiss any out of hand, but I was going to mention seeding via panspermia except it was alluded to on page one.

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by Lazarus Short

Genesis 1:1
In the Beginning (Time), God created the heavens (Space) and the earth (Matter). Let there be light (Energy).

LOL But, you got this from a work of fiction. If this is what you call evidence than I can claim that the universe was created by opening a wardrobe door, and on the other side is a Lion and a witch.

Does this mean that it is proof or evidence or whatever you want to call it?

edit on 4/9/2013 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)

I'm just saying that Genesis 1:1 meshes with modern concepts of physics - quite a bit more substantial than pagan creation myths, denials notwithstanding.

Originally posted by Lazarus Short

I'm just saying that Genesis 1:1 meshes with modern concepts of physics - quite a bit more substantial than pagan creation myths, denials notwithstanding.

But that's my point. Genesis only meshes with modern concepts because that's what we've been exposed to since the very first man walked the earth. The stars, the sun, the earth - who wouldn't wonder about their beginnings? Of course we would work to find out the answers to how these things came to be, so of course they would be in the bible as god's creation. These things were written by man.

If the bible was truly inspired by the spirit of a god, then Genesis should have gone something like this: In the beginning, god created a huge gas cloud whereby atoms formed and collected to create suns. These suns created the carbon for life... But, the writers of the bible had no such inspiration, so they wrote only what they knew at that time.

So, I disagree that Genesis offers any valid evidence of creation.

reply to post by jiggerj


But then, you weren't there - God was, and that makes His account authoritative. Do you judge the Genesis account by the standard of your own theory? Other creation accounts from antiquity are not held to such standards, are they? Anyway, I don't think the Genesis account, in its brevity and simplicity, violates your theory.

Originally posted by Lazarus Short

Originally posted by SpearMint

No, my opinion is that it's bollocks. That is indeed an opinion.

There's no connection between those two statements, and further more the words in brackets are just conjecture. They're not the same at all (I'm assuming you're referring to what Einstein actually said).

The parallelism is too obvious to ignore, and a simple denial will not do. The words in parenthesis [not brackets] are a fair and just interpretation of "beginning," "heavens," "earth," and "light." Not the same, but very, very close. Ignore it if you want to, but it is still there.

They're a very loose interpretation with no real connection. Also, that isn't an Einstein quote, there's even less of connection to stuff that he's actually said. () are also brackets.

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
reply to post by jiggerj

 

But then, you weren't there - God was, and that makes His account authoritative. Do you judge the Genesis account by the standard of your own theory? Other creation accounts from antiquity are not held to such standards, are they? Anyway, I don't think the Genesis account, in its brevity and simplicity, violates your theory.

Last I checked, none of us were there when the universe began or when the bible was written. That's not a good argument. You weren't there, so god exists? You weren't there when humans evolved, so I guess that proves it! Saying god was there is speculation at best. at trying to make him an authoritative source when we don't even know if he exists or where the stories originate from. People that try to tie in the genesis account with modern science stretch things like crazy to give them different meanings in a poor attempt to justify their faith. Faith, by definition, is a guess and cannot be proven. Stop trying to make it more than it is by trying to prove it. You cannot prove it. It is faith based. I'm not saying it's definitely wrong, just that there's no tangible evidence to suggest it.