I have no trouble with the accuracy of historical dates. I have no doubt about the existence of famous people of the past. However when we dig deeper, researching old texts and eyewitness accounts I have to admit I have have a hard time accepting the culled information as totally accurate. Historical information should never be taken as 100% accurate in my estimation. I feel this way because human beings tend to forget, make up or embellish the truth.

I could start a rumor one day and by the next day it is completely different. That doesn't bode well for any historical information handed down thru generations only to be penned by scribes. I don't want to demean any occupation dealing with history and wonder how historians feel about their subject's credibility.

I have no trouble with the accuracy of historical dates. I have no doubt about the existence of famous people of the past. However when we dig deeper, researching old texts and eyewitness accounts I have to admit I have have a hard time accepting the culled information as totally accurate. Historical information should never be taken as 100% accurate in my estimation. I feel this way because human beings tend to forget, make up or embellish the truth.

I could start a rumor one day and by the next day it is completely different. That doesn't bode well for any historical information handed down thru generations only to be penned by scribes. I don't want to demean any occupation dealing with history and wonder how historians feel about their subject's credibility.

Quite a lot of it is totally inaccurate. You see, this doesn't reduce the importance of, or demean, the field of history to all historians. The reason for this is simple: not all historians treat history as a science. Precision isn't that important to all. In fact, a great deal of historians treat history as a branch of literature.

Quite a lot of it is totally inaccurate. You see, this doesn't reduce the importance of, or demean, the field of history to all historians. The reason for this is simple: not all historians treat history as a science. Precision isn't that important to all. In fact, a great deal of historians treat history as a branch of literature.

Never thought of history as literature. Does that mean non-fiction is a misnomer?

Never thought of history as literature. Does that mean non-fiction is a misnomer?
No... not quite. It all depends on whether or not it's considered true. If you know that it's not true, then it's fiction, of course. If you consider it to be true, it's non-fiction. This may sound weird to a culture that is obsessed with precision in history, but it's quite the common attitude throughout history (oddly enough).

History as literature is more about drawing lessons from history, rather than learning history for it's details. If you're illustrating a point that is meant more to teach the reader a lesson, then total accuracy is not important at all. Presentation becomes more important, in this instance.

No... not quite. It all depends on whether or not it's considered true. If you know that it's not true, then it's fiction, of course. If you consider it to be true, it's non-fiction. This may sound weird to a culture that is obsessed with precision in history, but it's quite the common attitude throughout history (oddly enough).

History as literature is more about drawing lessons from history, rather than learning history for it's details. If you're illustrating a point that is meant more to teach the reader a lesson, then total accuracy is not important at all. Presentation becomes more important, in this instance.

That kind of reasoning and a trip to the religion section of this forum could make you a cult hero. :D

Yet a lot of fiction contains historical references. Its like we're living in a lie.

You intimate that any book containing historical references can never be considered accurate. That kind of thinking will also gain you notoriety in the religion section. :D

How much value is placed on hard evidence that supports history? Ironically there are people who dedicate their lives to better determining the truth of the past and yet have to depend on acceptance of their finds based on the inaccuracy of the historical data of the time period they're working on. If we have to weed through text to determine what's accurate and what's not then I really see the study of history as nothing more than a lesson in futility.

That kind of reasoning and a trip to the religion section of this forum could make you a cult hero. :D

Yet a lot of fiction contains historical references. Its like we're living in a lie.

You intimate that any book containing historical references can never be considered accurate. That kind of thinking will also gain you notoriety in the religion section. :D

How much value is placed on hard evidence that supports history? Ironically there are people who dedicate their lives to better determining the truth of the past and yet have to depend on acceptance of their finds based on the inaccuracy of the historical data of the time period they're working on. If we have to weed through text to determine what's accurate and what's not then I really see the study of history as nothing more than a lesson in futility.

You misunderstood what I said. I wasn't saying that historical information can never be considered accurate, but rather that any piece of historical information must be looked upon with a certain level of skepticism, because no matter how credible the source, or how supportive of archaeological evidence the information is, it can never be as precise as some people expect it to be.

What you don't seem to understand, and many people along with you, is that any historical account rests firmly upon the interpretation of the person giving the account. There is no such thing as a completely unbiased look at history, because everyone has their own unique viewpoint on whatever subject is being studied. Thus, there is no such thing as a totally reliable account.

All history is anecdotal, and all of the fields associated with history are merely supportive of this anecdotal evidence of events. What I was trying to illustrate was that, unlike a forensics expert investigating a crime, not all historians are concerned with unerring fidelity to the events, but only to give the reader a general sense of the implications of those events.

Nah, I knew what you meant. Actually the title of this thread suggests that some history may not be totally credible. My high school history teacher certainly never taught us as if we were to get something more cerebral from it besides remembering dates. I like the way you think history should be taught.

Oh. Well, yea. You're absolutely right. History is taught in a very sub-standard manner. When you study history, you shouldn't just be studying the past, but the present, and the future. You should be studying human nature, as well as all of the things associated with studying people.

In effect, that's what you are doing. You are trying to study people with eyes outside of your particular timeframe. History should give you a broader perspective on life, rather than just a list of names and dates.

History is written by the victor. ;)

Nothing else to say.

- N

Neildo, one thing more to say, it is also defined by the winner.

I have no trouble with the accuracy of historical dates. I have no doubt about the existence of famous people of the past. However when we dig deeper, researching old texts and eyewitness accounts I have to admit I have have a hard time accepting the culled information as totally accurate. Historical information should never be taken as 100% accurate in my estimation. I feel this way because human beings tend to forget, make up or embellish the truth.

I could start a rumor one day and by the next day it is completely different. That doesn't bode well for any historical information handed down thru generations only to be penned by scribes. I don't want to demean any occupation dealing with history and wonder how historians feel about their subject's credibility.

Depends who's telling the story, it's up around 90%.

John99, can't be done just look at 9/11 with video and all and you still have people who can't agree on what the history of that event is.

When the American people are taught that the revered fathers of their nation were for the most part a bunch of landgrabbing gangster freemasons, and that the true Patriots (i.e. those that were true to the land of their fathers, England) were those who opposed the American Revolution . . . when that happens . . .

Well, actually, that probably will not happen. But if it were to happen, Americans would be learning something closer to the truth than earlier generations. But also, it would mean that America was on the brink of collapse. It would be unhealthy to get too close to the cynical historical reality. People need to be spun a story that allows them to see themselves both as the "good guys" and as the "winners".

Consider the poor old Germans! Not only did they lose the last show, but the victors saw to it that they were indoctrinated with the story that they were downright evil, and anyone who mentions the series of outrages on the Jewish side that led up to Kristallnacht can be jailed. Not a healthy situation! The Germans are declining in number, their land is filling up with Turks and sundry other untermensch, and they have been sold the idea that they are citizens of a (post-German) European entity now. Bavarians have taken refuge in considering themselves simply Bavarians and hardly German at all.

The British are currently coming round to the idea that the enormous outpouring of discovery, naval heroics, adventure and invention that led them to conquer a quarter of the world, and to establish English as the world-language, was actually something they should apologise for! God help them! No wonder the country is going down the drain, and that large parts of it have passed into the occupation of aliens.

History is a psycho-political tool. There's good bullshit and there's bad bullshit.

Correct, history is written by the winners. The farer we get in time from the events the better, the more objective the view, because less people have interest in twisting the facts. 4-5 generations away you can almost tell the truth, like:

- Lincoln was an asshole warcriminal
- the top of the US government knew about the planned attack on Pearl Harbour but they needed it as an excuse to enter WW2
Oupps, this last one wasn't 4-5 generations away, still the truth...

History is written by the victor. ;)

Is there such a thing as a French history book?

- Lincoln was an asshole warcriminal
How, exactly, was Lincoln a warcriminal?

This thread poses a good question.
It is somewhat of a conundrum these days in terms of honest efforts towards truthful information.

Not just history, but science.
It is possible that much of the history and science that we learn in academics and outside of academics is an intentional sham to keep the truth supressed.

Either way, what is taught in modern traditional academics is not the whole story, but based on what the puppetmasters want us to be exposed to in order to shape our paradigm.

And let's not forget that distortion in the presentation of current events is even more important a topic that bias in history. I hope everyone has watched this excellent video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8775995341064689390&q=outfoxed).

I think the accuracy of details is among the least of the problems with history. A much bigger problem is the disappearance of important events with the simultaneous emphasis of trivia.

In high school on a history test I was asked, "What American general said NUTS to the Germans at the Battle of the Bulge?" I of course missed this question since it is the kind of thing I regard as too unimportant to remember. But I have seen a movie where this exact event is a scene. It comes across as very funny with the Germans trying to figure out American slang.

But a much more significant occurence wasn't mentioned in the history book at all. Henry Ford donated money to the NAZI party during the 20s. What If Ford hadn't done that and Hitler hadn't risen to power? There might not have been a Battle of the Bulge.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/fordnazi.jpg

http://www.thememoryhole.org/fordnazi.htm

psik

history is total bullshit, we were put here by aliens and that got lost in translation over the years.

On a lighter note, in a political history context, i think its more false interpretation and justification for actions and motives. For instance, the victor might claim they invaded a country due to a direct threat when thats not really the case. Just like how some american history books would justify the vietnam war. You'll rarely read a textbook without political bias as you'll never be taught that america stomped on the soverieignty of other countries to deter the spread of communism. It would be interpreted as they were protected without mentioning they forcibly subjugated so they had no choice.

How Much of History is Bullshit?
Around 90%, if you live in the US and you attend regular school.... :rolleyes:

Most of it is steaming, mushy, warm bullshit.

How Much of History is Bullshit?
Around 90%, if you live in the US and you attend regular school.... :rolleyes:

not as bad as biology in the southern states though

not as bad as biology in the southern states though

Biology is bullshit in Southern USA....how so?

because you have to learn creationist theory as well

there is no history...because there is no more past. In fact we are living in one instant of time and history and current events are being feeded into us through progression of time. yup.

History is written by the victor. ;)

Nothing else to say.

- N

So there are no German historians writing about WWII?

Is there such a thing as a French history book?

Whoops, he said it first.

So there are no German historians writing about WWII?
How many Nazi historians writing about WWII?

I think most of history is BS. Aside from that who really can make themselves concerned with such old problems when new ones are on the horizon. I suggest that we as a people are meant to live life now instead of retreating to the past. A good example is whenever someone gets upset because of a colored joke, etc. It's not like they were directly involved in slavery so getting mad really makes no sense.

Interpretation of historical events is more or less bullshit. Why did this or that happen? We change our minds with every cultural paradigm.

Interpretation of historical events is more or less bullshit. Why did this or that happen? We change our minds with every cultural paradigm.

I agree with that. But that doesn't change the historical event. History should be about the actual events of the past, NOT about the why's and how's of it all. To me, that attempted interpretation should be called something else ....like, perhaps, "Historical Psycho-Babble".

Baron Max

As iam (post #20) said “You'll rarely read a textbook without political bias..” Most all books history and otherwise are written from a specific point of view. That is why it is important to read many books about a particular event or time period.
This is especially true of events in the ancient world and ancient religions. Unfortunately, most believers of my acquaintance only read one book the same book, over and over and over and over..

Most all books history and otherwise are written from a specific point of view. That is why it is important to read many books about a particular event or time period.

We don't all have such vast amounts of free time to study history! There are literally millions of history books ...no one can read them all.

History should be a chronological list of EVENTS ....not a perspective of how's, why's and reason's. History is just that, history. It shouldn't be anyone's ideas or perspective!

Baron Max

Most all books history and otherwise are written from a specific point of view. That is why it is important to read many books about a particular event or time period.

We don't all have such vast amounts of free time to study history! There are literally millions of history books ...no one can read them all.

History should be a chronological list of EVENTS ....not a perspective of how's, why's and reason's. History is just that, history. It shouldn't be anyone's ideas or perspective!

Baron Max

Most all books history and otherwise are written from a specific point of view. That is why it is important to read many books about a particular event or time period.

We don't all have such vast amounts of free time to study history! There are literally millions of history books ...no one can read them all.

History should be a chronological list of EVENTS ....not a perspective of how's, why's and reason's. History is just that, history. It shouldn't be anyone's ideas or perspective!

Baron Max

Most all books history and otherwise are written from a specific point of view. That is why it is important to read many books about a particular event or time period.

We don't all have such vast amounts of free time to study history! There are literally millions of history books ...no one can read them all.

History should be a chronological list of EVENTS ....not a perspective of how's, why's and reason's. History is just that, history. It shouldn't be anyone's ideas or perspective!

Baron Max

A problem with most history books is that they largely cull their information from the same sources. You wind up getting the same story, just worded differently. If the main source they're culling from is inaccurate, well, garbage in, garbage out. Many of the sources drawn from are dated to the Victorians who whitewashed the crap out of everything. Case in point, Commodore Stephen Decatur. I have 21 bios of the man, and every one written during and after the Victorian age has him as a teetotaling boy scout. The one I have that dates to one year after his death paints a different picture, one that puts more of a human face on him. Drinking, late night card parties, outspoken in his dislike of Jefferson's administration, explosive temper, and hints at a past he may have been trying to hide. Yet it isn't a smear campaign, as that same author describes his unquestionable courage, his dedication to honor and honesty, and describes several examples of anonymous generosity that only came to light after his death.

Another problem I have with a lot of modern history books is that they tend to judge the past with today's sensitivities. When Banastre Tarleton was serving in Parliament, the slave trade was crucial to Liverpool's economy. As he had been elected to represent and safeguard the interests of his fellow Liverpudlians, he defended the trade with every sensible argument he could muster. Rather than leave it at that, most history books that cover this part of the man's life will openly pass judgement, declaring it a 'black spot on his record' or as a 'despicable' act. I really wish the biographers will leave their opinions out and rely on facts. Personally, I'm against slavery. But to see how well he represented his constituents, winning the first round of the argument, although we now know today the reasoning to be faulty (one of the arguments being 'scientific proof' that the black race was mentally inferior to the white race and therefore incapable of civilizing themselves), the fact is that he was working with the knowledge of his time. We shouldn't shake our fingers and cluck our tongues. Rather we should be aware of how far we've come and how far we have to go.

My solution to this was to study the art of propaganda and the techniques of advertising, which pretty well describes history books. I am fortunate to have a little extra time for reading, and my studies have allowed me to sift through the bullshit of history pretty well. I still get tripped up now and then, but each new stumble shows me yet one more thing to look out for.

Another problem I have with a lot of modern history books is that they tend to judge the past with today's sensitivities.

History should not judge anything! History should be a simple chronological list of events. History should make no judgements nor analyses of those events, just list what happened ....not why!

The "history" books of today should be named "Historical Analysis", not history.

Baron Max

Quite a lot of it is totally inaccurate. You see, this doesn't reduce the importance of, or demean, the field of history to all historians. The reason for this is simple: not all historians treat history as a science. Precision isn't that important to all. In fact, a great deal of historians treat history as a branch of literature.

wow, ye, i agree, i never thought of that before, but whenever i was trying to explain why much cannot be true, this was always the answer i was trying to get to, and i never really connected the word "literature"

stupid me

well said

Good point about literature. I have always regarded history as a science. To me, it's about facts. Unfortunately, the facts often get editted and skewed through the years, so you have to pick back to as close to the original source as possible, but even then you have to sort out perception from fact. Not easy at all.

Good point about literature. I have always regarded history as a science. To me, it's about facts. Unfortunately, the facts often get editted and skewed through the years, so you have to pick back to as close to the original source as possible, but even then you have to sort out perception from fact. Not easy at all.

It's hardly a science.
You have no controls.
No variables.
No experiments.
No falsifiable hypotheses.

I guess that would make it a social science.

Oops! Yeah, sorry, I forgot about the subtleties of definition there. :) But there are still facts to be discovered through seas of opinion and propaganda.

How, exactly, was Lincoln a war criminal?
One theory is Lincoln was assassinated by a militant branch of the Catholic church, the Jesuits.
He was their most powerful adversary, and stood between them and their effort to take over the United States by backing the South in the Civil War.
He defeated them in court while still a lawyer in Illinois, and was on their hit list before ever becoming president.
They tried to keep that from happening at all costs, and having failed began the plans for his assassination.
Read the story of the man he defended in Illinois, the ex-Jesuit Charles Chiniquy in the book "Fifty years in the church of Rome"
Lincoln was famous for his saying; "The United States would not be overcome by any outside invasion of another nations' armies, but had the most to fear by the daily infestation of our shores by the "black robed priests".

Yes, history is written by the victors....and most of it is lies.

in that case why not call it propaganda?
do we not have powers of discernment?
perhaps take in multiple accounts
then figure out probabilities?

are all these accounts of a fanciful nature or do they include rather routine and mundane descriptions of events?

can the anecdotes be corroborated
by other players?
thru the physical sciences?
to some degree? or all?

lets consider the age of the earth
the geological record indicates a history that spans billions of years
wandering jewish loons estimate 6000 yrs

which history will you choose?

6000 years? Because it is written down in The Authoritive Document?

All the great things said about Mr. Columbus back in 1497 is all bullshit.

6000 years? Because it is written down in The Authoritive Document?

excellent
a+

understand this heathens
god trumps all

All the great things said about Mr. Columbus back in 1497 is all bullshit.

Have you read "Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong" James Loewen?

It completely reconstructs your idea of America in contrast to the versions we are so used to hearing.

Have you read "Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong" James Loewen?

It completely reconstructs your idea of America in contrast to the versions we are so used to hearing.

I will have to check out that book. I actually learned about Mr. Columbus in "A People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn.

Avodhya:

That book is nothing but White Guilt nonsense.

How much of history is bullshit?


Probably alot easier to ask how much of history isn't bullshit.....

How much of history is bullshit?


Probably alot easier to ask how much of history isn't bullshit.....

Absolutely.
You want to find what really happened?
Try going 180 degrees from the official "history" fed to the masses by the main proponents of the lies.....
The Smithsonian, the historical societies, etc, ect....

Why do they find evidence of man recently in caves?

Because we were bombed back to the stone age.
India has records of a world wide nuclear war that devastated the planet 5000 years ago.....schematics of the flying machines they used to drop the bombs even.
Cleanup procedures for troops exposed to radioactive fallout.
In 5000 year old Sanskrit.
What....didn't the Smithsonian tell you ?
Better start wondering why...and thinking for yourselves.

Where will the survivors of the next war be holding classes for their kids?

Think about it.....CAVES!!!

The thing that will really stick in your craw is why they were lying about it all these years.
Its been part of the plan all along.
People who don't know what happened in their history to learn from it are doomed to repeat it.
Over and over and over again.

LMAO visitor.

Absolutely.
You want to find what really happened?
Try going 180 degrees from the official "history" fed to the masses by the main proponents of the lies.....
The Smithsonian, the historical societies, etc, ect....

Why do they find evidence of man recently in caves?

Because we were bombed back to the stone age.
India has records of a world wide nuclear war that devastated the planet 5000 years ago.....schematics of the flying machines they used to drop the bombs even.
Cleanup procedures for troops exposed to radioactive fallout.
In 5000 year old Sanskrit.
What....didn't the Smithsonian tell you ?
Better start wondering why...and thinking for yourselves.

Where will the survivors of the next war be holding classes for their kids?

Think about it.....CAVES!!!

The thing that will really stick in your craw is why they were lying about it all these years.
Its been part of the plan all along.
People who don't know what happened in their history to learn from it are doomed to repeat it.
Over and over and over again.

The evidence is in caves because stuff in caves lasts longer.

According to this Russian mathematician, a lot:

http://www.amazon.com/History-Fiction-Science-Anatoly-Fomenko/dp/2913621058/sr=8-1/qid=1163794521/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-3225229-9047867?ie=UTF8&s=books

How, exactly, was Lincoln a warcriminal?

Sorry for the late answer, but here it is:

--Violation of the Constitution and his oath of office by invading and waging war against states that had legally and democratically withdrawn their consent from his government.
--Subverting the duly constituted governments of states that had not left the Union, thereby subverting their constitution right to "republican form of government."
--Raising troops without the approval of Congress and expending funds without appropriation.
--Suspending the writ of habeas corpus and interfering with the press without due process, imprisoning thousands of citizens without charge or trial, and closing courts by military force where no hostilities were occurring.

For the real history of Lincoln read The Real Lincoln by DiLorenzo...

Here is a fictitious account of the Lincoln trials, if the South had won:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/wilson2.html

Here is a fictitious account of the Lincoln trials, if the South had won:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/wilson2.html

Why rely on some fictitious account?
There are real Lincoln trials, when He was the attorney in Illinois....
That's what got Him killed and prove He was a hero, not a war criminal.
He stood up to the same world power that murdered 68 million Christians.

The story that could never be printed in that papers was that it wasn't really about slavery so much, or even the North vs.the South.
The issue that got him assassinated was trying to save the very principals the United States were founded on to begin with.
Freedom of religion.

Actually history cannot be bullshit, because all actions are histories, whether something is made up or not, that is all history...it all becomes history.

Why rely on some fictitious account?


I didn't. I gave 4 very good reasons in my post why he was a war criminal. That account was just extra...
I didn't discuss his killing, I commented on his actions...He was a giant asshole and liar, you are correct, he didn't give a damn about slavery.

By the way history extra: getting out of the Union wasn't illegal, it was understood decades earlier that a State can do so if they want to...

Actually history cannot be bullshit, because all actions are histories, whether something is made up or not, that is all history...it all becomes history.

Stupidity alert: If something is made up, it was not an action. :bugeye:

By history we mean the actual happenings of an event, not the telling of it... Hello!!!???

SNIP

Think about it.....CAVES!!!

The thing that will really stick in your craw is why they were lying about it all these years.
Its been part of the plan all along.
People who don't know what happened in their history to learn from it are doomed to repeat it.
Over and over and over again.

HHmm, caves eh. So why cant we seem to find much evidence of this wonderful technology in caves?

TheVisitor:

Can you say "total insane nonsense"?

Wow a one liner!

Impressive.

HHmm, caves eh. So why cant we seem to find much evidence of this wonderful technology in caves?


That has been approached before many times and ways.
If they had aircraft carriers, airplanes ect...why didn't they use these to survive the flood?

It wasn't just a flood.
What I have said before is when God said He would destroy the Earth, the truth between those lines is He used Man as the "mechanism" to do it.
Just like evolution.
God said He created Man.
But he used a "mechanism" to do it....some are calling evolution.

What Oppenheimer was referring to quoting the Vedas.
What many other sources had hinted at, have seen in visions or hid from public view is this...
It wasn't "just" a flood that destroyed the world in Noah's day.
It was a nuclear war.
Total devastation, to the point the Earth itself was thrown out of its orbit around the Sun.
A circle is 360 %.
Ancient calenders have 12 months with 30 days each = 360 days.
The Earth's axis in relation to the Sun in now tilted 33 %.

There was a nuclear explosion so great it changed all this in an instant.
The oxygen content was 200 % of present levels.
The water vapor held in the atmosphere, the poles and the axis were aligned perfectly so that there had never been a cloud in the sky...ever to that day.
Neither had it ever rained.
The ground was watered with dew, condensed by the cooling of the evening each night.
Not only was the nuclear explosion so great it changed all this in an instant, but there would have been other secondary effects.
Think about just the weather....The pole positions instantly changed, fresh fern leaves still unchewed frozen solid in the mouths of mammoths.
Category 10 hurricanes must have swept the face of the earth, with the massive water vapor held suspended before suddenly released.
The nuclear destruction, the poles changing place, the flood, nuclear winter, a sudden ice age.....

No one even saw it coming...except according to the bible Noah, or whatever his name is being called in other cultures.
They probably never even made it to the caves, and even if they did the water would have drown them there.
What is found in caves is man's climb back after the destruction.
Back the long road to civilization, starting from scratch.
Left with the stern warning.....it's death to eat of the tree of knowledge.

How many times have we crawled back from the caves?
Greek history says....at least nine times they have record of.
The bible hides real truth between the lines to be mined like precious nuggets.
It starts with the Spirit upon the face of the water, flooded....the Earth formless and devoid of life,
Man's given the command..."multiple and replenish the Earth"
Replenish implies something other than just "multiply"
It implies a previous population and a destruction......even before Adam.


I didn't just make this up....
It's recorded in sanskrit, cuneiform, papyrus scrolls, and is the stuff of legends.
It's been seen in visions, and recorded in nearly every culture on Earth.
Official circles in archeology, anthropology, historical societies like the Smithsonian, all have a hand in this cover up.
It's an international security issue.
Ask what happened to the red haired 12 foot mummies dug up sent to the Smithsonian that the local papers published all over the United States in the late 19th century.
They will say they lost the remains, if they admit ever receiving them in the first place.

You've just touched the tip of the iceberg.

TheVisitor:

I'd have you list the full extent of your supposively scientific findings regarding an antedilluvian civilization on par, or exceeding that, of the modern ages.

This shall exclude all scientifically invalid forms of knowledge - including visions by Edgar Cayce or other mediums. It shall also not take at face value the testimonies of ancient sources, which also simulteneously affirm "swords and horses" alongside the supposed "nuclear weapons".

TheVisitor:
I'd have you list the full extent of your supportively scientific findings regarding an antediluvian civilization on par, or exceeding that, of the modern ages.
This shall exclude all scientifically invalid forms of knowledge - including visions by Edgar Cayce or other mediums. It shall also not take at face value the testimonies of ancient sources, which also simultaneously affirm "swords and horses" alongside the supposed "nuclear weapons".


I see you have heard of some of my sources.
I could list more....write you a book, but you've already chosen to ignore and refute the ones you are familiar with.

I just tied together at least fourteen separate sources with 20+ references from....

1)The Bible, 2)The Vedas, 3)Geometry...360%-365 days, 4)Astronomy...33% tilt, 5)Geology...Oxygen content found in soil layers., 6)Archeology- the Mammoth found frozen with fern leaves still in mouth, 7)Ice age info, 8)Sumerian "Noah" story, 9)Greek history - Plato, 10)The Atlantis/Athenian war, 11)The Rama empire, 12)Pre-Adamic reference in "Replenish", 13)Visions of Cayce, 14)William Branham's reference to Atomic weapons and the flood., 17)Disappearance of "evidence" given to Smithsonian, 18)"Kansas City Star" article from 19th. century, 17) Serpent Mound Ohio digs., 18) The Great Native American/Se-Ti-Cah war in Pre-Columbus America,
19)Gilgamesh 2/3 god 1/3 man mixture, 20)Hercules 2/3 god 1/3 man mixture

Both of these last two "epics/legends" match the same proportion of God/Man mixture found in the biblical account that resulted from the event in Genesis chapter.6 ...
Adam/Eve's descendants...the Sons of God through Seth's linage interbreeding with the Serpent/Eve's descendants Cain's linage, the Sons of Man.

As for your request for any technology surviving the flood.
The Great Pyramid is one....that's exactly what it was created for.
It's not Egyptian but it's older....built by pre-flood Enoch and the Sons of God as a monument to the Book of Life and the Plan of Redemption.

Like all the temples built to Jehovah by Seth's desendants....the offspring of the Serpent defaced it, defiled it, and built temples to their gods with the very pieces they striped from its exterior.
They usually build their temples right on the spot where Jehovah's temples were torn down, to defile them and attempt to erase even their memory from existence.
Look at Solomon's temple and the Mosque that now sits there.

I suspect they had a hard time destroying the Great Pyramid, it was constructed so well, so they had to settle for building cheap copies all around it of lesser quality, thereby trying to claim it as their own.....and then they defaced it.

They still do that today.
Egypt the man, was a descendant of Canaan.

There's about 20 references.
One should be enough.
If it's the truth.

No evidence is enough for those not looking for it.

UMM, Visitor, you are aware that the 360 day thing is because many acnient civilisation used lunar calendars, 30 days being the phases of the moon?

Also, there is no credible geological evidence for the kind of catastrophe you are proposing. None at all. If there was, there would be clearly dateable remains found in appropriate positions, buried under silt, etc etc. These debris WOULD contain artefacts of various kinds.

Now, you can propose that someone came along and cleared up afterwards very, very carefully, but I am afraid that would make your propositions about as believable as ID.

Oh yes, I just looked at your last comment. You do realise that an oxygen content of 40% would mean that just about everything plant and animal would combust far, far more readily, leading to large fires all the time? Just about nay source of energy would spark huge fires that would rage out of control across entire continents. HHMMM, we cant seem to find much evidence for that can we?

UMM, Visitor, you are aware that the 360 day thing is because many ancient civilization used lunar calendars, 30 days being the phases of the moon?


The moon cycles every twenty eight days, just exactly like a woman's body, which is 98% water.
You are Assuming they were too stupid to not know the difference between a lunar year and a sidereal year, yet they could build a Pyramid and set it within a thousandth of an inch to the earths center of gravity......
You are still thinking with that "We modern", "They caveman"..... mentality I am challenging you to rise beyond here.
Please........
I can see him shaking his head now in those Gieko commercials. :rolleyes:

You also Assume I haven't heard this nay-saying before.
As for oxygen content, I hope you didn't imply I meant 200% literally, I mean double today's levels........please,....... again.

Don't shoot the mailman, I'm not the one that found the evidence in the soil samples.

The "scientists" were who published the article awhile back.
No one had any problem with it then, but when I put that together with other data to paint a picture , suddenly you've got every schoolboy on Earth coming out of the woodwork parroting what they "learned" in college.

...You do realise that an oxygen content of 40% would mean that everything plant and animal would combust far, far more readily, leading to large fires all the time? Just about nay source of energy would spark huge fires that would rage out of control across entire continents. HHMMM, we cant seem to find much evidence for that can we?


Speaking of the atmosphere combusting......with the right kind of nuke, that might be possible.
Did you realize thats exactly what the scientist's were afraid would happen when they tested the first bomb?

They were praying.....some for the first time maybe, that they would be lucky enough to have air left to draw another breath, and Robert Oppenheimer was over in the corner reciting the Vedas' "I am become death, the destroyer of worlds"

And what makes you think there would be any evidence of this left, if it did happen?
The world that emerged when the waters receded was a vastly different place.
The great forests were gone, mud and silt covered everything and the decomposing flesh......Whew!

Hey, one other thing.....
You know how they told you all that oil they pump out of the ground is from dinosaurs?
Ever see the movie "Soylent Green"?............It's People.
And the dinosaurs of couse all mixed together, side by side.
Oh, they didn't tell you that either did they.......my, my....

Maybe you haven't been asking the right questions.

Thats right, they told you it was a comet..that did in the dinosaurs millions of years ago.
Comets are mostly ice - frozen water.
Did you ever wonder how all that water got into space to begin with?

If you think what I'm saying we did to the Earth is hard to believe.......
Try finding evidence on the planet other side of Mars.
Whoops..what planet?

Thats how all that water got up there.
Once upon a time, it belonged in somebody's ocean.

You've been naked face lied to all your life.
Teacher...can I have permission to go to the bathroom?....please.
At what point do you start thinking for yourself?

You are aware that todays levels are something like 21% oxyegn, and my statement with regards to everything burning like crazy still stands? (Last I knew 200% of something is double, hence my statement about 40%- actually I should have said 42%, I just checked the O2 conc)


As for the 28 days/ 30 days, well, I have the flu right now so my brain is still mushy, but as we can see with the oxygen, I can still spot small problems.
As for pyramids and their gravity, how about the amazing idea that they didn know about the mass of the earth, and got something like it by chance?

What soil samples would they be? Some googling finds a suggestion that there was a percent or two more:
http://www.physorg.com/news6824.html
but 23% oxygen is not a 200% increase. Bear in mind that your sources may be decades old, and have been superseded.

As ofr the atmosphere combusting, you do know that when you run your car, you get nitrous oxides formed, by combustion of nitrogen in the air used to supply the oxygen? Thats probably the kind of thing the WW2 people were worried about, but I have yet to find a proper explanation of exactly what it was they were worried about. Needless to say much, much more powerful bombs have been detonated since and no worries about burning atmospheres have been brought up. So your simply making a distraction.

Thats right, things would eb completely different. You'd think we would have excavated half a mile thick of burnt forests, or old mudflats, but hhmmmm, seems we havnt.

It seems your ignorace is as boundless as the cosmos. You do know that Hydrogen is probably the most abundant element in the universe, and therefore water is ppretty common and can be found all over the solar system. It certainly doesnt need to come from earth.
Moreover, if the oil was people, how do you explain the isotope ratios, the evidence for plant forms in it and it source rocks, etc etc, which all point to origins millions of years ago, from plant life?

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/fuels/oil.html

http://www.searchanddiscovery.net/documents/abstracts/2005annual_calgary/abstracts/xiong.htm

The first one is the standard picture, the 2nd link gives you an idea of what real geologists look for.

It seems your ignorance is as boundless as the cosmos. You do know that Hydrogen is probably the most abundant element in the universe, and therefore water is pretty common and can be found all over the solar system. It certainly doesn't need to come from earth.
Moreover, if the oil was people, how do you explain the isotope ratios, the evidence for plant forms in it and it source rocks, etc etc, which all point to origins millions of years ago, from plant life?


I said nothing about the water in comets coming from the Earth...
I was implying it came from the planet that was destroyed completely on the other side of Mars, we now call the "Asteroid Belt"
I didn't say there were no plants in the oil deposits...
As for the millions of years....

Evolution is the mechanism of creation used alright.
I never said it wasn't millions of years in the making, just not the demise of the dinosaurs by some comet way back then.
They were around till after the flood, the change in climate only then finished them off.
Human footprints have been found in Texas inside T-Rex prints, bones have been unearthed so fresh they aren't even fossilized yet, with red blood cells still intact in the bone marrow.

Greek literature says the Earth has been wiped clean with the flood scenario nine times or so already, so that would account for layers and layers going back in depth and time.
Was it Homer, or Plato?
I can't remember which one that wrote something like;
"Every time man has reached the pinnacle of civilization the rains have descended from the gods in heaven like a resinous thickness that wipes clean the face of the Earth and man has to start again, at least nine times by the ancient records."
It went something like that just from memory, it's been years since I've read it.
Remember my reference to that.

The Bible implies this with the Earth in Genesis 1 as covered with water and Man's instructions to multiply and "Replenish" the Earth.
Replenish implies a definite Pre-Adamite population had existed, and they were already at the bottom of the ocean.

When I'm done here, I'm going to print out all my posts for the last three years and write a book.
Seriously.
I'm missing out on millions.
Graham did it and his stuff ain't near this good.
He wouldn't even publish the Pyramid story, saying it "lacked evidence or something like that.
I practically handed it to him on a silver platter, what more could you want?
I think it was just too controversial for his readers' liking.
Or his publisher's, truth be known I have a feeling.

I scrapped the book idea...
You want to know why I can't?
You're not to sell the truth.
My attitude is that of being grateful to have been one who's eyes have seen it.
That's payment enough for me.

MATTHEW 10:8
Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.

UMM, but theres no need to pstulate that the comets came from another planet, when in fact we know that they formed elsewhere. Also the research that has been done on the asteroid belt suggests that they were never part of a plentoid anyway.
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980810a.html

Of course, if there had been a civiolisation out there, on a hypothetical planet, how come all that ever comes to earth are bits of rock? No molten machinery?


You are aware that the demise of the dinosaurs is dated to 65 million years ago, and the start of the current interglacial to about 10,000 years ago? There is no evidence of dinosaurs and humans being around at the same time:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html
Same with the fresh blood cells- thats old hat as well:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.html

Oh well, if your not going to publish it so I cant be entertained, there splenty of others who will.

UMM, when in fact we know that they formed elsewhere. Also the research that has been done on the asteroid belt suggests that they were never part of a planetoid anyway.

We know...? (Who's we?..you and your sock puppet.)

Trajectories of the asteroids have been plotted and they all have been shown to have a common point of origin.


UMM, when in fact we know[i]Of course, if there had been a civilization out there, on a hypothetical planet, how come all that ever comes to earth are bits of rock? No molten machinery?

"We got ourselves a real winner here D"


You are aware that the demise of the dinosaurs is dated to 65 million years ago, and the start of the current interglacial to about 10,000 years ago? There is no evidence of dinosaurs and humans being around at the same time:

UMM, You are aware....UMM, You are aware...UMM, You are aware......ect, ect, ect, ad infinium....


Oh well, if your not going to publish it so I cant be entertained, there's plenty of others who will.

That's at least funny, but like the rest of your responces.......highly unlikely.

You should read "After the Flood" by William Cooper, hundreds of dragon accounts throughout the last 2000+ years, from all parts of the world, even in official government records.

We know...? (Who's we?..you and your sock puppet.)

Trajectories of the asteroids have been plotted and they all have been shown to have a common point of origin.

Which is where then? And why has this apparently been ignored all these decades?



"We got ourselves a real winner here D"


Of what?

UMM, You are aware....UMM, You are aware...UMM, You are aware......ect, ect, ect, ad infinium....


Your really not showing much awareness yourself. Some advice- get some.



That's at least funny, but like the rest of your responces.......highly unlikely.

Good, at least I can entertain people.

The trajectories go back to the orbit of a now exploded planet which was between the orbits of Jupiter and Mars, and since the so-called Oort Cloud is fiction, the solar system must be much younger than popularly advertised.

there is no history...because there is no more past. In fact we are living in one instant of time and history and current events are being feeded into us through progression of time. yup.



why r some ppl so crazy??

The trajectories go back to the orbit of a now exploded planet which was between the orbits of Jupiter and Mars, and since the so-called Oort Cloud is fiction, the solar system must be much younger than popularly advertised.

MMMM, you'll understand that I dont take your word on any of this, and judge you to be a fantasist of some sort?
By the way, how young do you think the solar system is?

About six thousand years old, about like the Orthodox Jews say, and how old do you think it is?

A woman's body is not 98% water.

Approximately 4.5 billion years. Now, lets hear the evidence for your claim?

Radio isotope dates for rock come in with positive values (the rock shouldn't have formed yet), and all the rocks of the continents should have eroded into the sea within 15 million years, at current erosion rates, so no rock can be older than that, and scientists throw out "good samples" which were dated because they don't match the scientists' preconcieved timeline, so then they magically become "bad samples." And they call that good science, ha.

Not to mention that the geologic column is composed of flood deposits, stacked like pancakes, covering vast areas, obviously laid down rapidly and consecutively, where are fossils being formed like that today? No where.

And the dearth of radial tension cracks in the now folded sedimentary layers in the mountain ranges proves that those ranges uplifted while the sedimentary layers were still wet and soft, and the close of the Deluge, the Deluge water did not cover the mountain ranges because they rose at the close of the Deluge.

And pillow basalts, extruded into water, are all over the continents, the Global Flood Model explains all this, uniformitarin geology explains no of it.

A tiny crystal thought to be the oldest object on Earth has gone on public display for one day only in the US state of Wisconsin.
The 4.4-billion-year-old zircon crystal, barely two human hairs wide, was brought out at the University of Wisconsin-Madison on Saturday.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4429099.stm

Sure it is.

At current erosion rates, that zircon would have eroded into the sea 100 times over.

They can't know the initial ratio of parent to daughter material in the zircon, so to date it is impossible, but go ahead and believe that nonsense, it does help you believe that goo morphed into you, I'm sure.

Radio isotope dates for rock come in with positive values (the rock shouldn't have formed yet), and all the rocks of the continents should have eroded into the sea within 15 million years, at current erosion rates, so no rock can be older than that, and scientists throw out "good samples" which were dated because they don't match the scientists' preconcieved timeline, so then they magically become "bad samples." And they call that good science, ha.
YOu havnt perhaps heard of conglomerates made up of eroded older rocks held together by cements of various kinds? The constituent rocks are pretty old. And in the Lewissian area of NW Scotland, the rocks are something heading towards 1.3 billion years old. THey're so old that when they were young they were Km underground, but stuff above them has been eroded away.
Ahhh, I think your dating equipment is faulty. Or perhaps you have a link to some creationist website arguing your point in more depth? THat would give us soemthing to get our teeth into.
Whats this 15 millions years at current erosion rates? Since when have erosion rates been constant?

Not to mention that the geologic column is composed of flood deposits, stacked like pancakes, covering vast areas, obviously laid down rapidly and consecutively, where are fossils being formed like that today? No where..
They're called river deltas. HAve a look at one.


And the dearth of radial tension cracks in the now folded sedimentary layers in the mountain ranges proves that those ranges uplifted while the sedimentary layers were still wet and soft, and the close of the Deluge, the Deluge water did not cover the mountain ranges because they rose at the close of the Deluge..
No, it doesnt. IT proves that warm soft rock with a bit of water can deform remarkably easily.



And pillow basalts, extruded into water, are all over the continents, the Global Flood Model explains all this, uniformitarin geology explains no of it.
These would be the continents that have been under water at various stages of their careers, hence explaining the lava?

Sure.

Sure it is.

Ur so smart, Jimbo, I wanna be just like you. Where on my skull do I start drilling?

The trajectories go back to the orbit of a now exploded planet which was between the orbits of Jupiter and Mars, and since the so-called Oort Cloud is fiction, the solar system must be much younger than popularly advertised.



Been offline for a few.
Set a table on my cable modem.

On the exploded planet theory...
I'd say it looks that way,trajectories have been traced to a common origin.
Some have told tales of a destruction of a hierarchy....
They tie it to a "stones of fire" passage.

The Earth was knocked out of orbit by ancient nukes....left tilted and leaning away from the sun.
Man did that to himself long ago.
As for the age of Earth, the 6,000 year mark is someones pre-conceived interpretation.
The 6,000 years are just since Adam.
The bible refers to a pre-Adamite civilization.
It hints at a well kept secret....some would like kept that way.
Look at the beginning, the world was under water in Gen 1 to begin with and man was told to "replenish" the Earth.
Thats re-populate.
We weren't told the Earth's entire history.
Just need-to -know.
When you have need to know, then you will.
A lot of pre-conceived interpretations are washed away when the light is turned on.
It's there between the lines.

The church used to kill people for saying the Earth wasn't the center of the universe.
Now we got "Historical Societies" hiding evidence.
And state run universities hawking science only theories to the young and impressionable.
Both sides have their members afraid to break ranks and stand alone.

The song remains the same......only the names have been changed, to protect the guilty.

Replenish meant plenish (stock) at the time of the King James translation.

TheVisitor:

Do you know how many gigatons of explosive power would have to have been unleashed in order to knock Earth out of orbit? And how much energy would be needed to be released in order to permanently shatter a planet beyond its capacity to reform within a century?

Replenish meant punish (stock) at the time of the King James translation.

No, Re- Plenish means Re-Plenish.
Not punish, or plenish or plentish.
I've read Dr. Taylor's explaination.....doesn't mean He's right.
You should hear theologians try to explain the trinity when they haven't got a clue what it is....
He admits in old latin it means fill again.

Re-stock doesn't mean stock, it means restock.
The bible doesn't repeat itself without reason.
There's more to it than just that one quote.
Those that translated it in 1611 probably weren't as clueless as some would lead us to believe.
They were probably the best and brightest of their day.......experts.
Back to the topic.....history.



TheVisitor:
Do you know how many gigatons of explosive power would have to have been unleashed in order to knock Earth out of orbit? And how much energy would be needed to be released in order to permanently shatter a planet beyond its capacity to reform within a century?

What does it mater?
Once you have the knowledge......size is unlimited.

Take the arsenals of the USSR and the USA twenty years ago....
30,000 on each side = 60,000 warheads times 10 megatons average each.
That's 600,000 megatons all set to launch at the same time in event of war.

We produced that arsenal in ten years time.
That's just one current day unclassified example.
Who knows what these evil geniuses are experimenting with now?

Exotic mater, singularities, anti-mater......
Let alone the untapped power of the human mind.
The worlds were framed and set in place by the power in spoken words.
There is no limit.

600,000 megatons wouldn't even budge the Earth a fraction of an inch, TheVisitor. You do not seem to realize how massive the Earth really is.

"Singularities" Wouldn't do that - it can take thousands of years for a mini-black hole to even devour a single proton. In fact, much longer than that in many circumstances.

Anti-matter is only a pure matter-energy conversion. This produces 20 megatons from 1kg of explosive.

You do not seem to realize that everything on Earth would be dead and likely the crust blown off in any attempt to move the Earth through atomic weapons.Also, the radiation would litterally radiate everything to a degree that it would have sterilized Earth bone dry forever. The seas would boil off.

600,000 megatons wouldn't even budge the Earth a fraction of an inch, TheVisitor. You do not seem to realize how massive the Earth really is.

How much do you weigh in space?......nothing.

How much does the Earth weigh in space?......nothing.

The forces used to set the Earth in it's orbit might be a mater of mass, polarity, gyroscopics, kinetics, centrifugal force, molecuar attraction, gravity, electro-magnetics, all interacting with the nuclear fusion processes of the sun, ect....and other things like that all combined in a delicate balance.

So upsetting that balance might require less "force" than you would imagine.

Remember who was depicted with the "weight" of the whole Earth upon his shoulders.?

Atlas...right?

And a war between Rama, which was ancient India and what "other guys" in the Hindu writtings are quoted as using "terrible weapons" with the destructive power of the sun...?

It was enough to make Oppenheimer quote from it at the 1945 first testing of Trinity.
As Los Alamos director J. Robert Oppenheimer watched the demonstration, he later said that a line from the Hindu scripture the Bhagavad Gita came to mind:

"I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."

He was referring to nuclear weapons in the days of old, other side of the flood.
When asked if this was the first test of an atomic weapon.......He replied; "well yes, in modern times."

If you can't see it.... that's fine.
Sorry to have bothered you.
Go on about your business.
Be at rest.

Ice Age is a Dartmouth graduate with a degree in Geology, so he must know what he's talking about, right?

I wonder what his take is on the erosional rate of the Grand Canyon, and how long it took to lay down the sedimentary layers that are now exposed.

The Germans are declining in number, their land is filling up with Turks and sundry other untermensch, and they have been sold the idea that they are citizens of a (post-German) European entity now. Bavarians have taken refuge in considering themselves simply Bavarians and hardly German at all.

The British are currently coming round to the idea that the enormous outpouring of discovery, naval heroics, adventure and invention that led them to conquer a quarter of the world, and to establish English as the world-language, was actually something they should apologise for! God help them! No wonder the country is going down the drain, and that large parts of it have passed into the occupation of aliens.



Completely agree with you there. The lands where modern medicine, engineering, culture developed is really going down the drain with Middle Eastern, Asian and North African you-know-whos devouring the place with religious fervor. A Turk recently said about their entry into the EU that the EU needed Turkey more than the Turks need the EU because the facts stated that the Turks like all you-know-whos have got many young people while Europe has very few. Those diminishing few are most likely to die out and gradually exterminate their own superior genetic pool. Talk about the Talibanisation of Europe. Get ready to say goodbye to science (and to jeans) in the next 50 years! Visit east London and Birmingham and even if you are a British-hater, you couldn't return without feeling sorry for them. Perhaps we are at a moment in time when the trend of evolution seems to be reversing ! Perhaps the latter half of the 20th century was the best period ever in history, for most of the free world at least.

The forces used to set the Earth in it's orbit might be a mater of mass, polarity, gyroscopics, kinetics, centrifugal force, molecuar attraction, gravity, electro-magnetics, all interacting with the nuclear fusion processes of the sun, ect....and other things like that all combined in a delicate balance.
The key point here is "Might". Meaning in your head.
I mean what are you on about? What are you suggesting? DO you not know anything about gravity?

Ice Age is a Dartmouth graduate with a degree in Geology, so he must know what he's talking about, right?

I wonder what his take is on the erosional rate of the Grand Canyon, and how long it took to lay down the sedimentary layers that are now exposed.

I think Ice means well, but the problem is the way the orthodox church and it's leaders have operated for years.
They teach their outdated suppositions and partial truths mis-interpreted from the bible as fact to their laity and not only make themselves look like fools to the scientific community, but discredit the accuracy of the bible in doing so.

This quagmire of religious hypocrisy has came about because of the way God has chosen to reveal truth to His elect few and keep it hidden from the masses, including the big worldly church organizations.

God uses His Spirit to reveal light to individuals, not groups of men leading by the consensus of a majority.
He raises up genuine holy men though few and far between, whose lives so reflect Christ they are usually mistaken for the second coming.
Every time one of these men were identified, a following has resulted, and a doctrine was drawn up by men stating what he believed creating a big spiritually dead organization in the wake of his life.
Luther, Wesley, so forth ect.... were such men.
Thats how theses churches came into being.

This organized clergy, this boycott of God's Spirit...was prophesied to come, and start small as a nicolaitane spirit.
That word is from "Nico", and "laitane"
Which means "to concour"..... "the laity".

God has moved on with other gifted spiritual men, as He always did calling a few here and there, but the churches don't receive them or their message.

So if you see Christians doggedly holding to obviously incorrect ideas about science and history such as the Earth being only six thousand years old.
They have been deceived by their own leaders.
They don't know any better.
If they are willing to listen, God is making a call to come out of that thing. Rev. 18:1-4
It's a stagnant broken cistern, not a well of living water.

The "churches" have misled the whole world and are in bed with the kings of the Earth.
You think God lets this go on forever unchecked?........No.
He has said He will kill her children with "spiritual death", and burn her with fire.
He has used "heathen" nations before to execute His wrath on those nations who have turned away from Him...to set them as an example before the rest of the world.
Remember Babylons' destruction of Israel?
It kinda leaves a mark.

He has allowed this to go on, and allowed places like Hollywood to broadcast filth and immorality, murder and perversion,and every godless vise of man through the medium of cable, satellite, and the Internet.
This all before the innocent, wide open wondering eyes of our children........so that when the destruction comes like a stroke from the almighty, the survivors left will have no doubt why it happened and who it was that did it.
That is well within His recorded style of doing things, and "He's the same yesterday, today, and forever"

So my thinking is these Muslim nations who are taking over the former Soviet States as fast as they can and their nuclear inventories if possible, along with Pakistan and Iran building their own are going to cause some real trouble soon.
And their big brother Russia has a treaty with some of them like Iran, so it's fixin' as they say...."to hit the fan".

Now.
That out of the way as background....lets talk about what truth is.

These men of God I spoke about, are prophets in the biblical sense, with prophetic insight.
I won't be able to give you "proof" of what they said they saw in their visions.
That's not the way it works, or should it be.
Faith or spiritual revelation is what separates the wheat from the chaff.
You have to pass that acid test for yourself.
But if you see other evidence that supports their claims as I have attempted to reveal, it can paint a fairly accurate picture....that others could see if they have an open mind.
Sorry, but the glimpse of the whole picture is mine.

I'll give people a piece of it once in a while if I can, but to see the whole picture, words won't do it.
I really probably shouldn't be doing this much for them.
There's still a little bit of grey area on that subject, so I'll keep posting till I "hear" differently.
But I'm almost sure what that answers going to be......
"Go to them that sell, and buy of it for yourselves."
That's the way I got it.
It's Gods provided way, take it or leave it.
While theres still time.

There is something God sells...without money or price.
There is a gold of God.
I Peter 1:7 "That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth."
The gold of God is a Christ-like character produced in the fiery furnace of affliction. That is the right kind of gold.

So what do you eventually get from all this?
A knowledge of the truth the world can't understand.
Don't think Im just blowing my own horn here, please.
It's not my wisdom, it's not my truth, it's not my glory, it's all His.....
He gave this to me undeservedly.

Corinthians 2:6-16
"Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to naught; but we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory"

See thats the way He does it for His own pleasure, to confound the "wisdom" of the world.
He raises up some dummy, some idiot like me and shows him things he can't even put into words...and even if I could few would believe it anyway.

So, whether anyone here believes me, or doesn't believe me......thats fine.
I'm just about as happy as a tornado in a trailer park.
Leave me alone....I'm probably just some crazy ol' codger anyway.

Your take on the churches of the world today is quite similar to mine. And it is downright scary to think that some of those might end up possessing nuclear weapons that literally would fall into their hands.

However, I do believe some of the churches are moving away from their 'anti-science' stand. The catholic church supposedly has its own telescope and astronomical observatory, and now no longer asserts that mankind arose a mere 6,000 years ago (as do some of the other 'churches', such as the one Ice Age likely adheres to). Other 'protestant' churches likewise embrace science, or at least aspects of it.

Ultimately, as they say, true science and true religion are one and the same, and essentially it is all a search for the truth.

Unlike many in science, I find the Bible fascinating with respect to its history of the people of Israel. Not only are the stories rich in detail and full of meaning, many appear quite plausible and I'm certain are likely correct in much detail. It appears quite probable that Joshua and his army actually did fight giant men, and that 1,000 years later, his descendants including David fought remnants of those people, including Goliath. It certainly does suggest that archaeologists should search to find any remnants of giant men (as you've indicated once existed), which would go a long ways to substantiating the stories of the Bible and your claims.

Unfortunately, the Bible only relates to one group of people, and as we know, there were many other groups all over the globe at that time period, so we get a very incomplete picture of things.

Hey Walter, you say the Bible's good history back at least 1500 B.C., so how far back do you think it's good history?

Starting with when they started writing it down as they went, instead of passing it down word-of-mouth from generation to generation. Even then, I did not say it is accurate or good history - just likely close in some areas, particularly the journey of the Exodus seems quite plausible.

In the first generations following the deluge, the whole world was of one language and belief, under the protection and care of Jove.
Not the Roman god Jove, but the Hebrew God Jehovah.
What happened next in history, explains how so many different gods and cultures arose so quickly all with their own "flood stories" and different Noah's.

How many cultures have had a "Mother and Child" as the objects of adoration.?
Do you know?
In Egypt there was a mother and son called Isis and Osiris.
In India it was Isi and Iswara. (Note the similarity of names even.)
In Asia it was Cybele and Deoius.
In Rome and in Greece it followed suit.....China as well.

Well, imagine the surprise of some Roman Catholic missionaries as they entered China and found there a Madonna and Child with rays of light emanating from the head of the babe.
The image could well have been exchanged for one in the Vatican except for the difference of certain facial features.

If you attempt to trace back to the original mother and child, it was from the goddess-mother of Babylon.

She was Semiramis who was called Rhea in the eastern countries.
In her arms she held a son, who though a babe, was described as tall, strong, handsome and especially captivating to the women.

In Ezekiel 8:14 he was called Tammuz.
Amongst classical writers he was called Bacchus.
To the Babylonians he was Ninus.
What accounts for the fact that he is represented as a babe in arms and yet described as a great and mighty man is that he is known as the "Husband-Son".

One of his titles was "Husband of the Mother", and in India where the two are known as Iswara and Isi, he (the husband) is represented as the babe at the breast of his own wife.

That this Ninus is the Nimrod of the Bible we can affirm by comparing history with the Genesis account.
Pompeius said, "Ninus, king of Assyria, changed the ancient moderate ways of life by the desire for conquest.
HE WAS THE FIRST WHO CARRIED WAR AGAINST HIS NEIGHBORS.
He conquered all nations from Assyria to Lybia as these men knew not the arts of war."
Diodorus says, "Ninus was the most ancient of Assyrian kings mentioned in history.
Being of warlike disposition he trained many young men rigorously in the arts of war.
He brought Babylonia under him while yet there was no city of Babylon." Thus we see this Ninus started to become great in Babylon, built Babel and took over Assyria, becoming its king, and then proceeded to devour other vast territories where the people were unskilled in war and lived in a moderate way.

In Genesis 10, speaking of the kingdom of Nimrod it says, "And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh in the land of Shinar.
Out of that land went forth Asshur and builded Nineveh, and Calah etc."
But the translators made a mistake in translating Asshur as a noun for it is a verb, and in the Chaldee means 'to make strong.'

Thus it is Nimrod, who having been made strong (he established his kingdom by building the world's first army which he trained by drilling and through the rigors of hunting) went beyond Shinar with his strong army and subdued nations and built such cities as Nineveh, which was named after him, for even today a chief part of the ruins of that city is called Nimroud!

Since we have discovered who Ninus was, it is now necessary to discover who his father was. According to history it was Bel, the founder of Babylon. (Now it is to be noted here that Bel founded it in the sense that he started this whole move, but it was the son, Ninus, that established it and was the first king etc.) But according to the Scripture, the father of Nimrod was Cush: "And Cush begat Nimrod." Not only is this so but we find that Ham begat Cush. Now, in the Egyptian culture Bel was called Hermes, and Hermes means, "THE SON OF HAM". According to history Hermes was the great prophet of idolatry. He was the interpreter of the gods. Another name by which he was called was Mercury. (Read Acts 14:11-12)

So from this record we can see how polytheism in different cultures developed out of the belief in one God and was split up to create different religions that could be used to send men to war against one another.
This sets forth historical proof that the world suffered a total annihilation and a deluge that only one family survived and, all nations, religions and cultures on Earth today can be traced to them.

I left out ancestor worship, worship of the sun, all the "host" of heaven, serpent worship and chaos worship didn't I?

Don't get too excited just yet....they tie into this too.
Just ran out of room.
................
Remember we know Cush is the son of Ham who is a son (the rebellious one) of Noah.
Cush, then, was the father of the polytheistic system and when men were deified by men, he of course, became the father of the gods.
Now Cush was called Bel. And Bel in Roman mythology was Janus.

He is pictured as having two faces and he carried a club by which he confounded and "scattered" the people.
Ovid writes that Janus said concerning himself, "the ancients called me Chaos".
Thus we find that the Cush of the Bible, the original rebel against monotheism was called Bel, Belus, Hermes, Janus, etc. amongst the ancient peoples.
There's the origin of "chaos worship"

He purported to bring revelations and interpretations from the gods to the people.
In so doing he caused the wrath of God to scatter the people, bringing division and confusion.
Now up to this point we have seen whence polytheism or the worship of many gods came.
But did you notice that we also found a mention of a man named Cush who was given a title of "the father of the gods."?
Did you notice here the old theme of ancient mythologies, that gods identify themselves with men?
That is where ancestor worship comes from.

So we might just examine history to find out about ancestor worship.
Well, it was brought out that Cush introduced a three god worship of father, son and spirit.
Three gods who were all equal. But he knew about the seed of the woman coming, so there would have to be a woman and her seed come into the picture.
This was brought to pass when Nimrod died.
His wife, Semiramis deified him, and thus made herself the mother of the son and also the mother of the gods. (Just exactly as the Roman church has deified Mary. They claim she was without sin and was the Mother of God.)
She (Semiramis) called Nimrod "Zeroashta" which means, "the woman's promised seed".

It wasn't too long until the woman began to attract more attention than the son, and soon she was the one who was depicted as trampling underfoot the serpent.

They called her "the queen of the heaven" and made her divine.
How like today wherein Mary, the mother of Jesus, has been elevated by the church to immortality calling her..."Mary the Mediatrix," "Mary the Mother of All Believers," or "Mother of the Church."

If there was ever Babylonish ancestor worship in a religion, it is the religion of the Church of Rome.
Not only was ancestor worship originated in Babylon but so also was the worship of nature.
It was in Babylon the gods were identified with the sun and moon, etc.

The chief object in nature was the sun which has light giving and heat giving properties and appears to man as a ball of fire in the heavens.
Thus the chief god would be the sun god whom they called Baal.
Often the sun was depicted as a circle of flame and soon around that flame there appeared a serpent.

It wasn't long until the serpent became a symbol of the sun and consequently worshiped.
Thus the desire of Satan's heart became full-fledged.
He was worshiped as God. His throne was established.
His slaves bowed to him.

In ancient Pergamos in the form of a living serpent he was worshiped.
The tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, now symbolized in the form of a living serpent had not only seduced Eve but the majority of mankind.

Serpent worship, Sun god worship, Ancestor worship, Chaos worship........
All from the same source.