|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
Man started wearing clothes 170000 years ago
Adam and Eve were naked 6014 years ago
Anatomically modern humans originated in Africa about 200000 years ago , most people can believe this, then how come most people are Religious?
I guess most people really don't believe this. Religion aside, I'm still not convinced homo erectus or whatever his name was originated in Africa. There's just to much that's undiscovered archeologically.
You do believe like most people, we (man) began on earth 200,000 years ago?
Recent DNA evidence shows clearly that we all originated in Africa.
True, based on the study of the evolution of lice we estimate humans have been wearing clothing for tens of thousands of years. Some believe this most likely coincides with the migration north out of Africa where humans probably began wearing animal pelts to keep warm.
The real question is, when did humans become bashful unlike any other living thing and wear clothes to cover themselves? After all, there are still tribal cultures to this day that don't feel compelled to cover themselves as those in the civilized world do.
Right after Adam and Eve ate the fruit it says 'the eyes of both of them were opened'. Then they were ashamed of their nakedness. This requires a self-awareness that apparently wasn't there before.
Here's something I wonder, and something that feels relevant to this question... if the self-aware human consciousness we know now developed naturally over the course of hundreds or thousands of generations, why is it that our own bodies, that have also formed over many generations, are a complete mystery to us? Our brains physically developed right along with everything else and can make everything in the body function, yet it's all a complete mystery to our conscious mind. We have to study our own selves just as much as we study the outside world, including the very brain where we believe our consciousness resides. Like it's foreign to us.
I've wondered the same thing as you expressed on your last paragraph. How come the human brain is more intelligent than the conciousness that inhabits it?
Humans probably developed the clothing addiction to shield themselves from the cold, what with us being bold and everything.
The idea of "shame" is a concept that we're taught. Children don't care that they're naked on the beach, much to the dismay of many other people who find it shameful behaviour.
It's ridiculous to think that we're born with an innate desire to cover only our genitals up out of some sort of religious historical event, when there is clear evidence that it's not true on the very beaches that we holiday to
And why is it surprising that we aren't born with a full understanding of ourselves? That would be nice though, biologically unfeasible, but nice.
Yeah, clothing in the beginning was functional. Served a purpose. At first it was to keep warm. But when did we become bashful? Where's that dividing line between those of us that feel the need to cover ourselves and those still in existence today that don't? Those in the wave of civilization that spread throughout the world consider it indecent to be nude. Those untouched by civilization aren't nearly as concerned. What's the difference?
How is that biologically unfeasible? The brain subconsciously controls all of the intricacies of the body right from the beginning. It doesn't have to learn first. But our conscious mind does. We don't know anything about our conscious mind, so how could it be deemed biologically unfeasible if we don't yet understand exactly what it is? Wouldn't we at least have to have a grasp on consciousness biologically before we can deem anything related to it feasible or not?
It still is functional. Ask the Inuits if they wear clothing because it's rude not to, or because they would freeze to death otherwise.
The dividing line is society and social values. Nudity in public is socially considered as rude, so is picking your nose, or farting in public. It serves a purpose, some people do not like seeing other people's genitalia.. Especially that of disease ridden or elderly people. It is a natural desire to stay away from such genitalia. It creates disgust. And on the other albeit still negative side of the spectrum, some people would not want to be constantly sexually aroused whilst working around their workplace. It can be distracting.
This social value has clear social bonuses. Most societies contain these factors, and so most will have come to the exact same conclusion that covering up is the best and most efficient way. It's so simple
And I have no idea where you are getting the idea that we know nothing about the human brain from. There is an entire science known as neuroscience.
The brain does not "subconsciously control" all of the intricacies of the body, most of it is just diffusion and reactions.
We do know a lot about the conscious mind. We know that dualism isn't true, and that our mind is an effect of the physical properties of the brain. That's why drugs effect our mind, and that's why being knocked on the brain effects our mind.
And it's unfeasible biologically because there is no function for the brain to grow memories without any stimulus at all. That is, a baby cannot physically know the notes to the Moonlight Sonata before ever hearing it because memories are made from some sort of stimulus.
Evolutionarily speaking, the gradual development of a false, from birth memory evolving through generations into something useful seems also equally unfeasible.
Why is nudity socially rude? In the extreme cases of diseased genitalia I can certainly see your point, but not sure that really sums it up. Just being elderly shouldn't make the entirety of the civilized population universally decide they should cover themselves. And I'm not sure nose picking and farting are so universally considered rude. I do know some cultures consider burping after eating a compliment and to not do so is considered rude. As for your 'constant sexual arousal' scenario, that doesn't seem to hinder any other species on the planet and apparently hasn't become that big of an issue in central African or Australian Aborigine tribal cultures. If anything, that scenario goes farther towards supporting what Genesis says than anything.
I'm familiar with neuroscience. You're right, just like any other part of the body, the brain is a physical mechanism that can be affected by trauma or chemical changes. We can trace where oxygenated blood is routed based on various stimuli and actually study physical changes, but we haven't even begun to grasp the will that drives the brain in any sort of physical form.
And yes, there are numerous functions of the body subconsciously controlled by the brain. Your eyes, for instance. You consciously decide to look at and focus on an object. Signals from the brain are sent to the muscles that control eye movement and make the necessary adjustments to comply. This all works from birth.
And why would memory be necessary in matters involving the body? We use memories in regards to the outside world, including the Moonlight Sonata. That's all totally outside of our evolutionary development. Why must our conscious mind have to learn our own bodies just as it does everything else outside of us?
@Headly Von Noggin, Genitalia connote sexuality and sexual intercourse, which universally leads to sexual stimulation. Either that, or sexual repulsion. Either way, it's universally not good to allow nudity in a society. Most societies figured that out.
I didn't say burping, I sad farting, which has an obvious unpleasant effect. Burping isn't considered civil in some societies only.
"I'm familiar with neuroscience." Then you should have known that humans have a mammalian brain and enjoy sex and wouldn't have said the following:
"that doesn't seem to hinder any other species on the planet and apparently hasn't become that big of an issue in central African or Australian Aborigine tribal cultures."
Which is a null point entirely. Other species do not have to concentrate on mathematical solutions or concentrate on anything daily for their survival. Furthermore, you have completely neglected the fact that other mammals rape each other when they want to reproduce. In humans, that's a hinderance.
I take it you do not need me to explain the social function of disallowing rape?
Clothing remind humans that they are in a civilized society, that they must act according to the law, and respect the rights of others. Children do not want to be exposed to adult genitals at a young age, neither do many other people for the reasons stated before. Again the reverse, many men and women claim to naturally find other same sex genitals revolting and would be displeased to see them on a regular basis.
There are endless social functions that clothing provides, it's a no brainer to wear clothes
"And yes, there are numerous functions " You said all previously. I was merely correcting you because that is way off.
"And why would memory be necessary in matters involving the body?" Sorry, that's also a moot question. In essence you have answered yourself.
By your logic, our brain already knows everything about itself. Our active mind however does not. Remember, our bodies ARE us. If there is no need for "memory" as you have claimed, then it is sufficient for you that the body knows itself, and it does. It knows the inner workings of itself chemically and knows how to react. Much like our macrophages, B cells and T-Killer cells, they know what is a foreign antigen and what is not.
So if you're excluding memory from the question, you should be very content in knowing that we already know everything about our bodies.
However I assumed you were asking why our active minds were not born with an understanding of our own body. An understanding of course, is predicated on remembering from sensory stimulus.
"Furthermore, you have completely neglected the fact that other mammals rape each other when they want to reproduce. In humans, that's a hinderance."
You're right, I did completely neglect that. A hinderance? So, is your mammal rape example based on signed statements from the victims or your eye-witness observation that one of the participants didn't appear 'willing'. You know, there are many other examples of intercourse where one of the participants doesn't appear willing .. it often happens in marriage. Hay-Ohh! Pa-dump
Look, I don't discount the power of the sex drive. I mean, it populated an entire planet. It's a powerful thing. But to reduce us humans down to leashed animals on the verge of unspeakable public sex acts held back only by our willingness to conform to clothing is a bit much.
"I take it you do not need me to explain the social function of disallowing rape?
"By your logic, our brain already knows everything about itself. Our active mind however does not. Remember, our bodies ARE us. If there is no need for "memory" as you have claimed, then it is sufficient for you that the body knows itself, and it does. It knows the inner workings of itself chemically and knows how to react. Much like our macrophages, B cells and T-Killer cells, they know what is a foreign antigen and what is not."
You didn't quite sum up my logic there. I know you don't see or realize it, but you're making my point. If our 'active minds' were just as integrated into our physical bodies as the physical brain is then it stands to reason that there wouldn't be such a divide. Our conscious mind is completely unaware of anything and everything, including our own bodies and minds, until it learns through the senses, establishes memories, and draws associations.
I agree that our physical brains developed through evolution. I get that it can be damaged or drugged. That it shares the same chemical reactions related to sexuality as other mammals. And I get that we can even associate certain things with particular parts of the brain; motor skills, name/word associations, all of that.
But if you really dig around what's known through Neuroscience you'll find that there is still no grasp of where exactly in the physical brain we can find the conscious mind. We do know it's not one particular region. Multiple regions seem to 'light up' (based on tracing oxygenated blood flow) at different times, often working together, based on stimuli and such. But there's no one region that stays 'lit up'. No central piece that seems to drive the rest of the process. In fact, the only tie between the separate regions that appear to work together on a given task is the blood itself. There's no other discernible tie that we can find.
Oddly enough, Genesis says that life is in the blood. Funny how that still seems to hold true with all we know today medically compared to those who first wrote it.
Look, we can obviously argue the particulars of this on and on for days. Kind of like I said in a reply to your comment on your Evolution is right Christians/Muslims/Jews are Wrong Hub, I realize there's nothing I can say that's going to make you immediately reprogram your whole perception and way of thinking and accept what I'm saying.
But I would like to say that your certainty in much of what you wrote about how obvious patterns and lines of progression can be seen in this and that and therefore requires no other consideration beyond it, that comes dangerously close to a close-minded state. Approaching any topic with a 'knowing' posture rather than a 'learning' posture is in essence the death of intellectual progress.
Yeah, there is that innocence of being a child. Okay, look at it this way... all around the world where civilization sprang up humans unanimously decided clothes are necessary independently. Totally unrelated civilizations reach the same conclusion without exception, no matter their religious beliefs. Does that not suggest something more than just learned behavior?
No of course it doesn't :L
From your statement I can deduce that you don't believe that we stemmed from one large group of humans who were already wearing clothing.
Then by your logic, because we all learned to hunt animals separately, we all learned to make tools separately, we all invented similar housing, medicines, separately, there is some sort of divine force driving it?
What about the idea that humans have the instinctive will to survive, and because they can think, will think of basic ideas such as food, warmth and disease. Those that didn't follow these simple ideas would have died, which is why there weren't any humans in cold climates who didn't feel the need to wear clothing.
So it is learned behaviour, we are not born with the desire to wear clothing, but we are with the desire to stop discomfort, e.g. cold. That is why on a warm summer day, children, the best example of our nature, having not yet been affected by society, show that if it is warm, we would naturally not give a damn about anyone else seeing out junk!
No, what I'm saying is that civilized humans throughout the world wear clothing for reasons other than functionality. By your reasoning civilizations in warmer climates wouldn't have necessarily reached the same conclusion. Children like to be naked for good reason, it's comfortable. Things can breathe. But within civilization, no matter the religion, wondering around naked is frowned on, even if it's the more comfortable option.
A half naked women around the work place would take men off their focus from their jobs, that's understandable. What I found out from a thread that Questioned is masturbation a sin? When 98% make do it, it's amazing how many christian find it wrong, like every time they do it anyway, it's forgive me father for I am about to sin.
Yeah, human interpretation muddles things up, that's for sure. From what I can tell, a lot of the more conservative religious people idealize a proper christian lifestyle should resemble 1950's America. Personally I don't think the act itself is a sin, but the stimuli chosen to get the job done could certainly get you into some morally muddy waters.
CastlePaloma pretty much sums this one up and a few more reasons are listed above.
Please take the time to consider the many social functions clothing serves, there are endless and creative ones, and you'll see that it is generally for the best.
Another really obvious one is the idea that genitals should be reserved for your loved ONE and showing them to others is akin to adultery.
This has it's roots in monogamy, another thing that was enforced upon humanity.
Having one partner for a man of course, not being a natural occurrence.
"The real question is, when did humans become bashful unlike any other living thing and wear clothes to cover themselves? After all, there are still tribal cultures to this day that don't feel compelled to cover themselves as those in the civilized world do."
Like countless other cultural developments, the preference for clothing has a utilitarian basis. In colder climates (remember there was no gas or electric heating in those days), the communities that placed greater emphasis on clothing, and shunned nudity, survived longer, had more offspring and could defend themselves against outsiders better than communities that did not.
In warmer climates, clothing is not as important. That is why warm weather cultures tend to not be as uptight, culturally, when it comes to clothing and nudity. They are more relaxed, because they have that luxury.
Over time this cultural uptightness informed religious and moral values, hence the story of Adam and Eve.
It's all evolution, folks
So your answer to the transition from humans wearing clothing for functional/decorative purposes to wearing clothes due to being self-conscious about everything being on display is that over time cultural uptightness informed religious and moral values? That seems sound, don't get me wrong, but I'm not convinced there's no reason remaining to look here to maybe help us understand the origin of human consciousness. Unless you know the answer to that one as well in which case I can just let this go.
I'm not sure I get it. I don't know what clothing per se has to do with the origin of human consciousness. Anymore than, say, bananas do.
If you're trying to say that using clothing made us more conscious over time... I guess in some tangential way we can imagine that dealing with the activities of making, transporting, sizing and putting on clothing exercised parts of the brain that otherwise would not be used. Just like using other tools or implements.
But that seems like a bit of a stretch.
No, nothing like that. What I'm saying is when exactly did humans become self-conscious about being bare? It's one of the many things that sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom. Human consciousness is a unique phenomenon in the natural world. Unless you think it began at conception (in this case meaning earliest forms of Homo genus or hominins) then human consciousness developed at some point along the way. The point in history when humans began wearing clothes beyond a functional-only capacity in my mind would be a very relevant clue.
Or, to maybe put it more simply, when did we transition from wearing clothes because we were cold to wearing clothes because of what others might think? Self-conscious, so to speak.
Well people have always been self-aware. Tribes in Africa where everyone wears next to nothing are of course aware of their bodies.
Even animals have a kind of self-awareness of their physical bodies. If you put a funny hat on a dog, the dog will feel it and move around in an uncomfortable way.
The difference you are referring to, when people wear clothes because of some arbitrary social norm, is just a function of culture. If someone is raised in a culture with a different attitude toward clothing and the human body, then they will have a different attitude. It doesn't mean they are more or less "conscious."
I work with a lot of fashion people. I can tell you some people are FAR more conscious of the message their clothing sends than others. Does that mean they are capable of more complex thought than slobs? I doubt it.
Just look on how they are always comparing clothing in church
"arbitrary social norm"
"function of culture"
The self-awareness that tells a 20 foot snake its hind-end is in some sort of danger is the same self-awareness that tells that dog that a foreign object is on its head or tells you you're cold. Every living thing has this at least to some extent. If they didn't then they probably wouldn't have lived long enough to pass it on.
But the self-awareness that tells you that how your dressed (or not dressed) is inappropriate, that's different. And I'm not just talking about being aware of the "arbitrary social norm". I'm talking about the awareness that had to come first before that social norm was established. I'm talking about awareness of a) yourself, b) others, c) yourself compared to others.
Do you agree we come from the animal kingdom? Is there self-loathing in the animal kingdom? So when exactly did we splinter off with this heightened self-awareness? The 'function of culture' or 'social norm' you refer to is part of it, but is a result of it. Therefore it came first.
Take the fashion people you work with. Fashion is a form of art. Expression. Like a different form of communication. Now look at the tribes in Africa you referred to. What's the difference?
Genesis says that at first Adam and Eve were naked and didn't have a problem with it. Then they ate the forbidden fruit, 'the eyes of both of them were opened', and they were aware of their nakedness. So, before there was no difference between them and the rest of nature. They lived in harmony with nature, just as tribal cultures continue to do today. But after, they were aware of themselves and no longer felt comfortable in their natural skin.
This is quite the profound observation, whether you believe the story is true or not. And this to me says volumes about what sets us apart as a species and I would think offers some valuable insight.
I'm no expert on human evolution, but our heightened self-awareness probably arose tens of thousands of years ago.
First this capacity for self-awareness developed, and then cultures developed, and then their arbitrary customs and traditions, hence why some people in some cultures have one attitude to nudity, and others have a different attitude.
"Take the fashion people you work with... Now look at the tribes in Africa you referred to. What's the difference?"
There is no difference. People are the same everywhere. All human cultures have certain standards about fashion and personal presentation. In the US among fashion-conscious women, there is one standard. In a community where people don't wear very much clothing, there is a different standard.
They might put more emphasis on jewelry, or their hairstyle, instead of clothes. But it's the same process of self-expression at work. The specific standards or norms themselves are arbitrary, based on arbitrary historical, cultural, demographic, economic and even political forces.
Yes, of course our unique self-awareness is one of the things that distinguishes humans from animals. But the story of Adam and Eve is itself a manifestation of those arbitrary cultural forces--in this case, the culture of ancient Israel, and their preoccupation with nudity. In other words, the story of Adam and Eve is not an account of how things actually happened. It is a cultural myth, and that is why it contains the assumptions and mores of the culture that wrote it.
Okay, good, so my main point has been reached. We do not know for certain when we developed our unique heightened self-awareness, but agree it must have developed at some point along the way. And we agree that this heightened self-awareness had to be in place before the cultures and customs and such that ultimately formed our varying clothing history.
My main goal was to introduce a plausible scenario that could explain the apparent contradiction of dates that Castlepaloma originally posted. The question is much broader than simply no clothes verses clothes. If you're not yet familiar with my interpretation, I'm suggesting the humans created in Gen 1 were the homo sapiens who had already populated the planet by the time Adam was created. I place Adam's creation somewhere around the 10000 to 5000 BC range. So, I suggest the research done on lice and the corresponding date when we estimate humans began wearing clothes is most likely attributed to a functional purpose, where the event depicted in Genesis as A/E's fall from grace and immediate onset of bashfulness would mark the turning point where clothing changed from a functional garment to a self-conscious trait.
I appreciate your thoughts.
Hey, I wrote that previous response at about 2:30 this morning. Guess I was feeling a little punchy as re-reading that today came off as a bit snarky to me. That was not my intention and I appreciate the back-and-forth.
You think Mankind began somewhere between 5000 BC OR 10,000 BC
Naked, ready or not
You understand homo sapiens are mankind don't you?
Right. Modern man in every physical sense of the word, but who showed no signs of having an individual will separate from the natural world for the first 90 to 95% of their existence. Humans only started living outside of what the conditions of the natural world dictated about 10,000 years ago.
My daughter and I are artist . we are both study the arts as the greatest persuasive tool since arts and culture began since the dawn of mankind 30,000 to 35,000 years ago. There was already 5 million people living on the earth 10,000 to 12,000 years ago.
The fable of Adam and Eve is just there to teach us (those who are willing to listen that is) that when you look for knowledge you will no longer believe in God. Think of the apple as knowledge and the story takes on it's true meaning.
I get that Jesus often spoke in parables and understand how some can view stories like that of Adam and Eve as a fable as you put it, but what that view doesn't take into account are all the bits that give specific information like their ages and their descendants. Or the fact that the new testament directly links Jesus to Adam by way of his ancestors. It is clear that the story of Adam and Eve and Noah and the flood and others are nothing like the parables found elsewhere. There's way too much detail given to ground these stories in reality. Way too many ties to other non-fable bits of the bible.
Don't take a bite out of the apple of knowledge or you will be kicked out of the garden of Eden. Many Christians don't trust science because of these teachings. They think any knowledge that contradicts the bible is of evil intent. But what they don't understand is that the only intent science has is knowledge. Science is in search for the truth. Science has no agenda, but ID does have an agenda. They want science to fit into the bible.
You're right. Science is an unbiased search for the truth. The scientific method in and of itself protects against the injection of the ID's input because facts must be testable and repeatable. ID has no say.
Facts ascertained through scientific methods do not contradict the bible. To say they do is to say that either the scientific facts are wrong or that the bible is wrong. Non-truth.
Reducing large foundational chunks of the bible to mere fable does a huge disservice as well. You might as well call them lies because they're not presented as fables or parables. They're presented as ancestral history directly linked to Abraham and David and Solomon and Jesus.
St. Augustine, one of the founding fathers of the church and one who's writings partly inspired the Reformation, believed God reveals His nature to us through both the 'Book of Scripture' and the 'Book of Nature'. I agree. He also believed that if at any time the two appear to conflict then it's human interpretation that is flawed. I agree with that too.
"Interpretation of biblical passages must be informed by the current state of demonstrable knowledge" - St. Augustine
Think about it. All science contradicts are traditional interpretations of Genesis conceived centuries ago by people who knew way less about the natural world than we do now. The church has a tendency to proclaim they're interpretations as infallible truths and are slow to change. Believers are reluctant to even question because they equate questioning what doesn't make sense to fledgling faith.
St. Augustine wrote on this topic as well. In his literal interpretation of Genesis he included this bit at the beginning ...
"I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation."
In other words, we should be willing to adapt and re-think things when new information comes to light. We've got a lot of new information. The only things this new information contradicts are things like Adam being the first human ever or the flood being global. However both of those ideas are human interpretations. Genesis itself says no such thing. In fact, Genesis specifically speaks of others in existence during Adam's time and speaks of survivors of the flood outside of Noah and his family.
Human interpretation is the only fallible part.
There many fallible parts. If you believe the bible is flawed then it could not be the direct word of a perfect God because a perfect all knowing God would have made it perfect.
As yourself if the following is the word of God.
Deuteronomy 20:10-14 NIV
When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NIV
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
The bible is the only so called proof of God. With out the bible the idea of God answers no questions as to why or how we are here. One can't explain how the universe started by stating someone that has always been here did it, because then you have a much bigger question "how can someone have always been".
Just as is always the case, context is important. Both of these quotes are from Deuteronomy, which is a sermon given by Moses to the Israelites just before they claimed the land promised to them.
This was a very specific situation. The priority throughout the books of Moses and beyond was to protect the chosen bloodline that would ultimately bring about the savior of all. Before free will God could simply do whatever needed to be done because life followed His will. Once free will was introduced, people did what they wanted. So, sometimes force was necessary to ensure the bloodline was protected. Slave labor was not a strange thing then. Basically, what it actually says is that they would be 'tributaries', or servants to the Israelites. What was strange was anyone commanded by their God to marry the woman they 'violated' and spend the rest of their lives with her.
It may sound barbaric to us nowadays, but it was what was required to realize the ultimate outcome.
As for the question, "how can someone have always been?", we understand today better than ever that time is an illusion. Tethered to time as we are the idea of something having no beginning and no end is beyond our comprehension. We are of a physical/material world where nothing lasts. Everything dies. We die. We cannot even fathom that notion, but that does not make it false just because we can't grasp it.
Okay, I say the universe has always been here and just because you can't understand it doesn't mean it's not so. Ridiculous.
It sound barbaric to us today because it was barbaric. It was barbaric because it was written by men. If a God wrote it for us it wouldn't sound barbaric to say, for a victim of Rape marry the rapist and stay married to the rapist, but only if he got caught in the act.
Not the universe, God. God has always been. The universe hasn't. In fact, up until the 1920's the common scientific view was that the universe had always existed. When a catholic priest/astronomer/physics professor named Georges Lemaître first proposed the theory we know today as the Big Bang theory, he was criticized by some of his peers for trying to inject his theology into the scientific landscape by suggesting the universe had a beginning.
The bible specifically describes God as having no beginning and no end, and specifically describes the universe as having a beginning. He created it and existed before it. Time in and of itself as we understand it didn't even exist before the big bang. For a 3000+ year old document to explain a God that actually makes more sense today than He did then is a little hard to swallow if it's just a figment of the imagination of bronze age humans.
War is barbaric. This is a harsh, physical world. Nobody gets out unscathed. A harsh reality in any war/battle is the fact that there are people left in the aftermath. Once you've killed all the men in battle, what do you do with the women and children. Harsh or not, something must be done. Do you slaughter them? Do you just let them wonder out alone in the desert? Or do you incorporate them into the fray? It's going to be rough any way you go. It's war.
Life is barbaric. Rape happens. Murder happens. He didn't instruct them to do it. But the fact is free will is free will. Somebody's going to do it. So, what then? He had ingrained humanity with a drive to procreate. It's the perpetuation of life. This idea of paring up and marrying one partner for life was a rather new concept. And again, this was specific to the Israelites in that age and in those conditions.
If you were God, what would you have done differently?
Ha ha ah ha. You keep making the assumption that there is a God. Why is it easier for you to believe God always was and created the universe rather than we don't know how the universe started or what happened before the big bang?
The bible is fictitious and explains nothing. The bible is very specific about how much time has passed since Adam and Eve, we know that it's off by a few Billion years. A God doesn't explain the Universe, it just makes it more complex. Take God out and it's easier understand.
You asked could I have done better. Ah yea. How about NO WAR. NO MURDER, NO SLAVERY, NO RAPE. By saying (after you kill all the men do with ever you want with the rest) you are condoning these things. What does it mean. Don't commit murder unless you want some more land. Is that the message?
I do understand that it was a different time, but if you don't want murder you say it.
He did say it. No murder. It's one of the 10 commandments. But we're talking about free will here. It is possible to have no war, no murder, no slavery, no rape. But not if you want to have a will of your own. If you want to only go through the motions of life living on instinct, then you can have your wish. Only it then wouldn't be your wish because you wouldn't have a will of your own.
The whole point is free will. How do you create beings able to have their own individual will? A will wants what it wants. Put a bunch of them together you have conflict. Not everyone can have what they want. Make rules, they get broken.
Actually, only when you buy into the traditional interpretation that says Adam was the first human ever is the time table off by hundreds of thousands of years. But he wasn't. Genesis talks about 'others' that Cain feared would harm him. Genesis 6 talks about Adam's descendants having children with mortal humans who only live 120 years. The world was already populated when he was created. The only difference is, humans before him did not have a free will. They lived in harmony with nature just as the animal kingdom still does today.
You're right, it was a different time then. There is a notable increase in violence in this region as the first civilizations rose in Sumer and Egypt around 3500BC. According to Genesis Adam was created, then by generation two you have the first murder. By Genesis 6 wickedness was so rampant God had to send a (regional) flood. By generation twenty there was a city so corrupt that angels disguised as travelers had to hold up in Lot's house because there was a mob wanting to rape them. The best alternative Lot could come up with was to send his daughters out for the mob to have to spare his guests. I've never had to make those kinds of decisions, and I'd venture to guess you haven't either.
Before the boundaries got set as civilization matured the world was a very dangerous place. Free will running rampant. Scores of humans taking whatever their hearts desired. Now, say you're God. Do you just not create existence at all? Create existence where everything lives in harmony because everything simply lives by your will and not their own? Or would you create existence with beings that have free will? If so, how would you have done it differently?
I'm confused, you seem to be saying God said don't murder but if you do take the live stock and the women. I think our modern day laws are much better. Thanks. They are still not perfect because we have laws against murder, but they only apply if the government hasn't told you to kill. However when the USA took Irac they didn't take the livestock and the women and kids. You are trying to justify the cruelty of the OT. Just admit it's wrong and move on.
The US didn't kill every man in Iraq either. There's a big difference. And even in the case where the US pushed a regime out of power, you've still got a gigantic mess on your hands.
Life is cruel. Nature is cruel. For us to even be here many things had to die. Dinosaurs. Megafauna. Other species of humans. There were five major mass extinction events throughout the evolution of life on this planet. And each made way for the next new dominant species. The oddly selective K-T mass extinction wiped out the dinosaurs yet left mammals, reptiles, and birds virtually unscathed. This made way for mammals to thrive. Another mass extinction of early single-celled organisms came just before the Cambrian explosion when multi-cellular life first erupted onto the scene. Both had to happen for us to be here.
Deuteronomy is a speech or sermon that comes right on the heels of the Israelites 40 years in the desert. After sustaining attacks while out in the open from Amelekites and efforts against them by the Midianites they were to take the land promised to them that they were supposed to take 40 years before so that they could establish their nation.
Whether you like it or not, whether you think it's cruel or not, much death had to happen for you and I to be here. The very nations we and many of our ancestors are/were a part of were established in much the same way. Many things I assume you find troubling make it possible for us to be here as we are today. For the world to have a savior, some things you find cruel were necessary. Once the savior was born, God stopped playing such an active role. Now free will can run rampant. And it has.
God knows what He's doing. We don't. Deuteronomy was a speech leading up to the establishment of their nation in their promised land. It was their right to take by God's covenant. This was necessary. God knew that. We have no idea. That's why the bible so often talks about acknowledging that He is the authority. Kind of like cells in an organism. DNA is the authority forged over countless generations of accumulated experience in how best to sustain a living organism in a cruel, natural environment. If each individual cell were able to freely choose how it was to behave, whether or not to respect and adhere to the authority of the DNA, then at any point any cell could become a cancer that endangers the organism as a whole.
God wants us to have free will. But we have to learn how to wield it. Part of that is acknowledging his authority. Some simply won't. That's life. That's free will.
This isn't one of the ten commandments according to the bible...
Read Exodus chapter 34...Pay close attention to verse 28..
I believe I know what you're referring to. Unless I'm mistaken the end of Exodus 34 is the only place it actually says 'the 10 commandments', yet this comes right after the additional commandments that were given after the whole golden calf incident.
The original commandments are in Exodus 20:1-17. Then Moses breaks them in frustration. Chapter 34 is when he goes back. God told him to carve out two new stones that God will then re-write just as He did the first ones ...
Exodus 34:1 - The Lord said to Moses, “Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke.
This time God actually met with Moses face to face and Moses was overcome. Afterwards, when he went back down the mountain there's a whole story about how his face was glowing and he didn't realize it. Meeting with God face to face Moses immediately began to worship and asked that God come with them. That's when these additional commandments for a new covenant were specified. These were different than the originals and were written down by Moses rather than God.
But the original commandments from Exodus 20 are the same ones re-listed in Deuteronomy 5:4-21 during Moses' sermon/speech before entering the promised land. Amongst these is the commandment to not murder....
Exodus 20:13 - You shall not murder.
Deuteronomy 5:17 - You shall not murder.
Rad Man, just where exactly in the Bible is it very specific about how much time has passed since Adam and Eve?
And how do you calculate that it is off by a few billion years?
Well here is one very serious interpretation that someone has been posting on youtube. It's the best I've seen yet.
Rad Man, you said, "The bible is very specific about how much time has passed since Adam and Eve, we know that it's off by a few Billion years."
I didn't ask for a link to YouTube. I asked YOU: Just where exactly in the Bible is it very specific about how much time has passed since Adam and Eve? And how do you calculate that it is off by a few billion years?
Put up or shut up.
Or is all you can do is copy and paste a few verses from Deuteronomy over and over and again and again on numerous threads and hubs?
During the flood there were dozen of civilization and 25 million people living on the earth, unaffected by the flood, Just the middle east got hit bad. It must be that God was punishing those over religious people again
The estimates are more in the range of 5 million or so, at least around 8000BC where the flood was closer to 4000BC, but you're right. It was a regional flood that left the majority of humanity unharmed. The difference is most of the world's population at that time did not have free will and were therefore incapable of 'wickedness'. Only those 'of Eve' had free will, and they were located in a very specific region, the Mesopotamian valley. A geological equivalent of a storm drain. The perfect location to introduce something as unruly as free will. Genesis 6 explains that descendants of Adam/Eve had children with natural/mortal humans. This was part of the reasoning given for why the flood was necessary. Apparently free will introduced into the bloodline of natural humanity caused some rather rambunctious behavior.
WOW lol lol lol that is one of the fumiest made up biblical story I have ever heard
The moral of the story is...too much free will, wipes you out
You are the safest human beings on earth , if you don't know Yahweh
Authoritativeness kills more people than criminal do. How will Christianity continue to stay in control of the masses without murder?
Rad Man, you keep saying "apple" and I'm wondering where in Genesis you found that word.
So you are saying that tribes who wear almost no clothes are not self aware?
Sounds like a bit of flaw in your hypothesis to me.
Not necessarily. I'm saying Adam and Eve, and everyone born of them, were more acutely self-aware. If the natural world is God's creation, then it exists according to God's will. One single, unified will. The whole point of the Adam/Eve story is that they could behave contrary to God's will. They acted of their own will, contrary to everything else in the natural world. Indigenous tribes all throughout the world have the same inherent feeling of connectedness to the natural world. And they're much less selfish and self-involved. They're tribe minded. They're not materialistic. You don't find class or social stratification, but equality. Including between men and women. And they're much less uptight where it comes to being exposed or about sex in general. To them it feels natural. We're disconnected, having a more pronounced, acute ego that makes the natural world and even our own bodies seem foreign and strange to us. Something to be ashamed of and to cover up.
This is an observable change in human history, as 'matrist' cultures gave way to 'patrist', starting in the same time/place in which the events of early Genesis are set. Starting in southern Mesopotamia we see the first signs of class stratification with the pre-flood Sumerian city-states, having a ruling class that organized the work and a working class that did the labor. This is also when humans became much more materialistic and violent towards one another. Behaviors born of being 'walled off' from the natural world. Evidence of the emergence of the modern human ego. A change that led to dramatic behavioral changes in humanity and that brought about the age of civilization.
But I still don't get what you are saying because are not all humans descended from Adam and Eve? So shouldn't these tribes that wear hardly any clothes and that are not self conscious be as self aware and self conscious as we are? Or are you postulating the idea that there are people who are not descendants of Adam and Eve and therefore have no original sin?
Is it not more likely that culture has more to do with it than anything? The Jews were self conscious about nudity, but some of the other tribes around were not.
There are many people today that have no issue with nudity.
As for when these events happened, most of the Genesis stories are direct rip offs from Sumerian and other legends, adapted to the one god hypothesis.
Noah in the Sumerian story did not have a world food, he had a regional flood, but all other details are close enough to say it is the original. The Babylonian version in Gilgamesh is the second, and the Jewish and most outlandish of all is the third version., The tower is another Sumerian reference. They built towers for the gods to come down to earth in and to then have access to the underworld. Even the snake in the tree of knowledge is Sumerian. Sumerian gods were often trees and plants with specific powers like ever lasting life and knowledge etc.
Moses may not even have existed, or may have been one character from one wave of exit from Egypt. Scholars no longer believe that the exodus happened in one go. There were at least 4 waves of people who left.
Even the Jewish scholars are beginning to doubt that Moses was more than a pawn in King David's attempt to unify the tribes by giving them a common history, seeing as Deuteronomy was mysteriously found in the temple circa 900 BCE. Till then no one wrote about Moses. After that a whole history of Moses comes to us, and a whole lot of legends about him even the Jews don't regard as cannon.
And I think you are mistaken in thinking that Genesis/Adam and Eve do not fit the idea of parable. It sounds like the natives stories about how the snake lost it's legs. I've also, like you, always thought it was meant to be the story of how humans became conscious. It is a cautionary tale but it includes the idea that knowledge is a double edged sword. Being aware gives the disadvantage of thinking of your own demise, something other animals are probably not aware of.
The story asks the question: "Why are we more aware than other animals? Why do woman have a hard time in child birth? Why is life hard?
and it comes up with a model based on those facts.
That's what all models are. They are explanations for already known facts.But in this case the facts are right concerning the human condition, but the model is wrong. How could the explanation be right coming from primitive uneducated superstitious people?
To top it all off these stories had different versions depending on the tribe that retold them. The only reason we have the stories in their current form are because they were written down staring from 600 BCE by the two remaining tribes after the conquest and deportation of the ten by the Assyrians, we really only have one tribe's stories when it comes down to it.
I can't see it as anything but a fantasy based on the facts of the human condition. But fantasy non the less.
Yes, I am saying the world was already fully populated by homo sapiens by the time Adam was created. That the creation of humans in Gen1 and the creation of Adam in Gen2 are two separate events. That's why I think Cain expressed concerned about being harmed by others when he was banished in Gen4, and I think that is what the bit at the beginning of Gen6 is talking about in its explanation for why the flood was necessary...
"When human beings began to increase in number on the earth [in the land] and daughters were born to them, 2 the 'sons of God' saw that the 'daughters of humans' were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”"
Though Gen5 says Adam and all his descendants lived for centuries, this bit says humans are 'mortal' and only live 120 years. Right before this, before Gen5 was edited in to explain who this Noah character was, Gen4 says Cain built a city, and begins to tell the story of his descendants. Then, in Gen6 it says that when human beings began to increase in number, the 'sons of God' found the 'daughters of humans' beautiful and began having children by them. Cain's city would explain humans increasing in number in the region.
The flood according to Genesis wasn't global either. That, like Adam being the first human ever, is an assumption. But it's clear in the fact that Moses and the tribes of Israel encountered descendants of the Nephilim in Num13, that there were survivors, as Gen6 says the Nephilim were there before the flood. Plus, that whole bit at the end of Gen4 regarding Cain's descendants 'fathering' all those who played stringed instruments/herded animals and lived in tents would be pointless to mention if everyone they 'fathered' died in the flood. Besides, whether it be in the traditional context of Adam and his ten generations of family being the only humans, or whether it be in this context where Adam's descendants introduced free will/ego/knowledge of good and evil into humanity by intermingling with them, thus resulting in rampant wickedness, a global flood would not be necessary. A regional flood of the Mesopotamian valley would still be their whole world and everyone in it.
It's also assumed that the biblical stories must be taken from the Sumerian stories because the Sumerian stories seem to be so much older. The fact is, nobody knows how old the books of Moses are or who originally wrote them. Especially those first 11 chapters of Genesis. All we know from a scholarly standpoint is that it appears they were edited together from multiple much older sources. Two of which told such a similar story that they could be edited together into one. In actuality, given the region and timeframe given in Genesis, if Adam was indeed created in an already populated world, the humans who eventually became the Sumerians would be the humans in the background of those stories.
The thing about the Sumerians is that they really did change humanity forever through their inventions. They built the first city-states, the first urbanization, leading to the first full blown civilization, they invented the first government, the first laws, as well as a whole slew of inventions from the wheel to kilns to sail boats to astrology/astronomy, mathematics, and writing. However, once writing became advanced enough for the Sumerians to begin writing down the oral stories of their ancient past, they did not give credit to their ancestors for all these inventions. They say they were taught by immortal gods, who were human in form, male and female, who lived among them on the Earth, inhabiting the temples at the center of each Sumerian city, and that they were moody and unpredictable. And they go into great detail about how these gods 'gifted' them with the 'mes', the decrees of the gods foundational to those social institutions, religious practices, technologies, behaviors, mores, and human conditions that make civilization.
If Adam really were created as described in Genesis, and if he and all his descendants really did live for centuries, then to a 'mortal' Sumerian, they'd seem god-like. Like you said, the facts are right concerning the human condition. I argue that the model is right too. In this light, the Ubaid culture would be the setting of both the pre-flood Sumerian stories as well as pre-flood Genesis. It lasted roughly the same length of time as Genesis specifies between when Cain was banished (within 130 years of Adam's creation) and the flood. We know there really were city-states built by that culture, including Eridu, the first Sumerian pre-flood city-state, as well as the location of the world's oldest known ziggeraut, or tower. And the Ubaid culture really did come to a very abrupt end that was at least partially due, at least in the case of the region of Ur, to a flood.
The Uruk culture picked up right where the Ubaid culture ended, and though they're counted as two different cultures archaeologically, were very similar. The first major city-state of that culture was Uruk. Both the Sumerian King's List and Genesis say Uruk was established not long after the flood, and both describe the ruler who established Uruk as being a 'mighty hunter'. And both Genesis and the Sumerian King's List also say lifespans were incredibly long before the flood, then got gradually shorter after. Which would make sense if beings who lived centuries were breeding with humans who lived much shorter lives. And there really were large human migrations, much like what's described in the Babel story, triggered by dramatic climate change in that region due to what's known as the 5.9 kiloyear event. This transformed the Sahara into an arid desert for the last time and sent scores of people towards lands near river banks. In each case, with Sumer, Egypt to the west, and the Indus Valley culture to the east, the foundations that led to the dawning of civilizations first started with the arrival of nomadic people from a growing desert. People who brought their own languages and who's patriarchal ways of life quickly overtook the inhabitants of the regions they came into contact with.
It's from there that the first civilizations spawned and spread. Multiple civilizations in Sumer, Egypt, the Indus Valley, Akkad in northern Mesopotamia, all began independently of one another, each with their own unique language, in a very short amount of time during the 4th millennium BC. The rest of human history just continues the story, with 'civilized' cultures dominating the landscape and overtaking the indigenous cultures of the world. As if the modern human ego were first introduced into a populated world, then spread like seeds throughout the world, spurred on by climate change. And every civilization that came from those lands surrounding the Mediterranean believed there were immortal beings who existed in their ancient past. The Sumerans/Akkadians/Bablylonians, the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans. What if that's not all entirely myth?
This all lines right up with the timeline in Genesis. Abraham is said to have been born roughly 1800 years after Adam's creation. By that time Sumer was already in existence because it says Abraham's father was from Ur, and Egypt was already in existence because Abraham interacted with them. In the traditional context, that's not much time, considering Abraham was born just a couple of centuries after the flood, for full blown civilizations to come into being, but in an already populated world scenario with the flood only being local, it all lines up quite nicely.
Facts are of no consequence to the brainwashed.
Thanks for what I believe is a great question. I know know nothing about Home Sapiens , well at least nothing nothing that anyone else may not know. All I know about Adam and Eve is what I have always heard and what the Bible says.
Why I got attracted to this question is because I believe it ends with what one believes.
Because I believe the Bible and I believe in the Most High God, and yes I love to term him this way, because whatever he will turn out to be and he will , because what I have seen so far in simply breathtaking for my imagination.
Looking at how fragile and feeble we are as humans , we die so easily.
"Life is, and it was, and it forever will be."
Now that our minds have developed to reached a stage of being actually limitless.
One would barely be using any, if one decide to stop at who was really first. So I applaud you for the great question, but I don't believe anyone truly knows.
What I believe about myself , is that somehow I always was, in some unimaginable form, and at this moment in time I materialized in this form and eventually the the Most High , who created all forms, will continue on with his plans. We can only hope it's all great for us, by doing the very best we can at all times . We will know what our best is. For we have had many examples.
Where you get it from?
Why did they start wearing clothes?
Were they Atheists/Non-Theists?
Some tribes in Africa still live naked, I think.
Because not everyone believes in the magic fairy stardust sprinkled down from space that coincidentally created life through abiogenisis.
I know of some beaches where people are naked, not in the middle east, they will beat you to death for that.
Sure, in America, there are nudist camps all over the place. There is no modesty but some people still wear shoes to protect their feet! Black's Beach south of La Jolla, CA is/was a great nude beach (haven't been there since the 70s). South America has topless beaches. It's legal for women to be topless in the city of New York. Most people don't actually do it, but it's legal. What about breast feeding in public? Another form of nudity.
I was in an international sand sculpture contest in Netherlands which was on a partly nude beach. I asks this fellow Chinese sand sculptor contestant, will all these naked women going throw you off your focus in this contest. He just smiled from ear to ear, then I told him I had competed in China a few times and found in China they had very strict nudity laws, I ask ,what was the punishment for seeing an naked woman ?. He said we have to spend one week in a mental hospital being reprogrammed by a doctor for each naked woman we see. Then, I said after a week here, you we are spending years in a Chinese hospital
It's definitely a debatable subject. Especially when coming up with a specific age to a fossilized bone. Carbon dating is really only accurate for a few thousand years back. At Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Scientists dated dinosaur bones using the Carbon dating method. The age they came back with was only a few thousand years old. That date did not fit the preconceived notion that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. So guess what they did? They tossed the results out. And kept the theory that this dinosaur lived millions of years ago. It's a common practice in the scientific arena.
So then they use potassium argon, or other methods, and date the fossils again.
They do it over and over, using different dating methods each time. The results can have as much as a 150 million year difference.
They then pick the date that they like best, based upon their preconceived idea of how old their theory states the fossil should be.
So they start with the assumption that the dinosaur lived millions of years ago, and then manipulate the results until they agree with their conclusion. And you thought scientists come to conclusions after the evidence is pieced together. Not when they have an agenda.
Someone once told me that the first thirteen chapters of Genesis--all the way up to the first mention of Abraham, who is the first historically verified biblical figure--may be nothing more than folk tales, important for their message rather than any implication of historical accuracy.
That someone was a priest.
So, no skin off my nose when mankind originated. Maybe Adam and Eve were real people, maybe they were an allegory for man's sinful nature. Doesn't change my faith one bit.
And hey, even if you go the fundamentalist route there's evidence in the biblical text that Adam and Eve weren't the first humans, or at least not the only first humans. Their children found spouses. Those spouses aren't named as other offspring of Adam and Eve. Therefore there were other people around.
Do not most Christian even give a dam about Science or natural history or about the other million species, spices and earthling that share earth?
Did the Adam's Family have dinosaurs as pets, 1500 years later did Alien teach humans how to read and write, are not Christian at all curios enough about these question?
It is a fact that not every human beings is interested in the peer-reviewed science; with big mathematical equations or crypt computer languages or complicated lengthy terminology; they want to live simple life.
Why not? It is their right.
Are Christian more interested in football and beer. Why don't they take a trip down to the world's largest Creative Museum is a Museum in the Kentucky which presents origins of the Universe, Life, Mankind and man’s early history according to the book of Genesis. Earth and all of its life form were created 6014 years ago an over six-day period.
Now museum like this make about half of Americans believes the World is less than 10,000 years old. Yet most of the world believe mankind began 200,000 years ago .
Scientist believes the jellyfish have thrive in the worlds oceans and have been successful for over 650 millions years. The jelly fish has no brain and no backbone and the bible is jealous of the jellyfish, they call him Manowar. In 2005, a particularly bad year, the Sea of Japan brimmed with as many as 20 billion of the bobbing bags of blubber, bludgeoning fisheries weighting up to 400 pounds. They won't see any of these things on Fox News as they are being banned in some Countries
Christians just believe, even though facts prove the Earth is so much older than the Bible. I think it's obvious that Adam and Eve are myths, and there had to be other people around, unless she was sleeping with her sons to populate the Earth. Several years ago I engaged in a Bible reading. My childhood friend was dying, and her Uncle was a Jehovah's Witness, so we were all nursing her. I was friendly with one woman, my age, intelligent, great sense of humor, met her husband at the height of women's lib. But although I never would have read the Bible without her, I can't understand how a smart woman like her could believe it, literally, as JW's do. She was an engineer, until her hubby, under the "headship" rule where the man rules the family, told her to stop. I tried to reason as far as maybe a divine being caused the Big Bang? I mean, cultures of Matriarchal societies in Crete were around over 10,000 yrs. ago. I just couldn't change her mind. I know alot about scripture for a non Christian too, and sincerely believe that many people completely miss the point with Jesus. He said, "The kingdom is within you" Hello, the chakras. He was always meditating. And where was he from when he was 10 teaching at the temple to the end of his life? Studying in so called "mystery schools" in India. He tells his disciples they will do as he does, and things much greater. It amazes me how people twist it all or even can believe. And if they are all Christians, what's up with all the "My church branch is better than yours?"
Yoga is another Religion, now why would he do that. unless Jesus did not really care that much for Religion
I don't think he ever intended for a religion to follow in his name. He was part of the whole and was prepared to die to prove it. If anyone wishes to cut my head off, I'll prove it that way, but I much prefer the scientific and philosophical method.
If the Bible is to be believed, A/Es kids married their own siblings. It's the only way. If you don't accept the premise of A/E then the rest falls apart. Can't have it both ways.
he Pope dose not mind those facts, he will protect the Adam's family ways , some incests and clergymen young lover are OK, Three hell marry and off you go again and Oh! Atheists were Nazis
I uphold that they were creepy and kooky, mysterious and spooky. However, I have a little trouble buying that they were altogether ooky. Just not enough evidence to support it. Does that really make me a fence-sitter?
Great! I love Castlepaloma's inadvertant use of the words "hell" Mary, may she rest in peace.
@Castle - in the days of A/E, it was not considered incest and their were no biological repercussions. Somehow over time, it became degenerative both physically and psychologically. Maybe it was because our life spans went from 1800 years to 89 years. In 1800 years, it could work to marry your own cousin. I don't know.
Adam and Eve were not of homo sapien lineage. They were created separate from naturally evolving humans. We are the descendants of homo sapiens. For us, there are genetic consequences to breeding with close family. Adam and Eve were created specifically to be able to populate the earth while staying totally within their bloodline. But free will allowed for some of their descendants to stray and blend with homo sapiens, which resulted in the flood, which resulted in a fresh start with humans of both bloodlines. Lifespans lessened, but free will remained.
Awesome story. Are you saying there were homo sapiens around when A/E were in the garden (or after the fall?) Because that would certainly explain a lot, like why God created Adam.
Yes, I believe Adam was the introduction of free will into an already populated planet just a few thousand years BC. I think this is the catalyst that kick-started civilization. At the very least, whether you believe all of that or not, Genesis says directly there were other humans. We just never read it that way. If you do, you're right, it makes a lot more sense.
So what were all those other humans like before God introduced free will according to this heretical theory? (I'm just saying.) They were not dumb and they certainly did what they wanted as witnessed by ancient civilizations as far back as 25,000 years at least.
Don't worry, this isn't the first time I've been called a heretic. 400 years ago Galileo confirmed for the first time in human history through the telescope he invented that Venus has phases just as the moon does, which confirmed that the sun was the center of our planetary system, and not the Earth as it was still believed at the time. The church not only based their interpretations of the bible on this same assumption, they condemned any idea other than an earth-centric universe as heresy.
Galileo was a devout catholic. When he attempted to interpret scripture independent of the church based on this new information, the Roman Inquisition found him 'vehemently suspect of heresy' and sentenced him to serve out the rest of his natural life under house arrest. Because of this it took quite a while longer for the idea to really catch on.
I imagine homo sapiens before free will were just like the Aborigines of Australia or the tribal people of central Africa today who have never bred outside of their ancestral roots. They're not dumb. They're just content living a simple life. They're not driven to invent and study and build cities and such.
I was looking for something this morning and came across a picture of Fernand Cormon's 1880 painting "Flight of Cain" in the usee d'Orsay, Paris. It clearly depicts Cain as a very old man with family in tow including several adults and children. I thought that confirmed your thought.
P.S. I meant some might consider the comment heretical.
That's supposed to be 'Musee d'Orsay, Paris.
It does list seven generations of Cain in Genesis 4. Which, coincidentally, is the same number of generations that Methuselah was from Seth in chapter 5 since Methuselah's life ended the same year as the flood. Probably in the flood. Those last 3 descendants of Cain are said there to be the 'fathers of all those who...' played string instruments, lived in tents and herded animals, and made metal tools.
Of course none of this would amount to a hill of beans if they all died in a global flood. Coincidentally, the Sumerians are credited as the inventors of all of these.
I appreciate you referring me to that painting. I had never seen that before. And I appreciate the clarification.
Could God have Created Adam with a mixed of 85% Neanderthal and Homo sapien genes which all had Adam's family Values. The other 15% of Adam's son's went undeveloped with a missing link illness called Neanderthal mix with homosexual genes. The ones with too much of the Neanderthal gene went extinct 30,000 years ago from miscarriages, homosexuality or eaten by dinosaurs. The 10% Homo sapien that had the homosexual genes in them still exist and thrive today in happy marriages in a churches by Gay Priest.
I'm trying to put myself in the shoes of Bible thinking people, please help me Christians, I don't know what I am saying or what I do?
Let it all go and start at the beginning.
1) We cannot observe the unobservable. If there was an Adam and Eve, they are probably dust by now.
2) Even the universe has unobserable qualities. We are the illusion of what we observe. I am neither here nor there, just as a table or lamp.
3) we are not solid or wave. We see solid objects, but we know now that they are more like a build up of many smaller things and they also are neither here nor there.
4) Time is multi-dimensional. What has occurred is gone, even myself. I am being created and destroyed every moment. Therefor, we are Adam and Eve every moment of the day, we are created, destroyed and tempted.
5) Everything in this universe happens every moment and the moments are eternal, for they have no true numeric value.
Yes, let go to the beginning
The arts are the greatest persuasive tool since arts and culture began since the dawn of mankind 30,000 years ago. Go back In the history of mankind's in the first dynasty of Babylon all within 5000 years ago. The first system of law, the first educational system, the first love song, . The first tax cut stone with inscribed details of land grants that were grants of tax exemption on land all mixed with military and more.
The total number of humans that have ever lived has been estimated at 110 billion. Approximately 6% of all those people are alive today.
Date 10,000 bc
Africa plus Madagascar Asia plus USSR /Mideast Europe North America
Canada US Mexico Carrib. South America plus Central America Oceania
plus Australia New Zealand Philippines Total population
5,000 year 986 years before Adam and Eve
Five Million people lived here on earth mean wail dinosaurs roamed the earth.
Man did not eat even one dinosaurs because they were like holy cows FREAKING Huge, I made up that last sentence.
misch - you've contradicted yourself.
A/E cannot be dust if the universe happens every minute and is eternal.
Nothing can be created or destroyed.
We do not become the illusion of temptation because we observe it.
I am the illusion of myself. I am what my brain tells me I am, but honestly I'm not. Not to me anyway... I had a dream. I saw a star, a fly, an ellephant and a sun, then it dawned on me. That's what I am, a working of the universe. I am being created and destroyed every second and that is what the universe is doing. I function as a part of the greater whole, though my brain goes on about it's self too much. I Shut my brain up for a minute and I saw everything as I see my self.
So you mean destroyed in the sense of reconfigured. Ok.
Short answer, the book of nature and the book of scripture.
Longer answer ...
Genetic anthropology has confirmed every human alive today shares a common ancestor dating back tens of thousands of years in Africa.
Genesis 6: 1 - 3
When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. Then the LORD said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”
The only other two explanations I've been given for who the 'sons of God' and 'daughters of humans' are..
1. sons of God are rebellious angels, daughters of humans are Adam's family
2. sons of God are descendants of Seth (righteous line), daughters of humans are descendants of Cain (unrighteous line)
Neither make any sense for numerous reasons I won't go into here. The only explanation that does make sense is that the 'sons of God' are Adam and his family and the 'daughters of humans' are exactly that. It even says humans are mortal and only live 120 years, one chapter after specifying the lengthy lifespans of Adam's kin. The above verses lead right into God's reason for the flood. Humanity had become wicked and this intermingling is directly related. It then says that God regretted putting humans on the earth.
So, the original intention was not for this intermingling to happen. Just as the forbidden fruit enticed Eve, these beautiful humans enticed Adam's descendants. The result had to be swept away in one of the many floods along the Tigris and Euphrates. Free will was running amuck, which is probably why God placed this destructive element in such an easily flood-able plain.
The humans who 'increased in number' in that region at the time before the flood were the Sumerians and their budding first cities to ever exist. Two chapters before, in chapter 4, it first says Cain is cursed an unable to grow food and says he'll be a restless wonder on the earth. But then it says he 'settled' immediately after. Then it says he built a city.
Centuries after the fact the Sumerians wrote about how civilization began in great detail by explaining that immortal human-like gods taught their ancestors. In fact, they believed these gods created them to serve them because that's exactly what they did. In exchange for this wisdom, including year-round agriculture among others, the Sumerians provided the fruits of their labor to these gods who physically inhabited physical temples we know actually existed. Cain, having the knowledge of farming but cursed and unable to grow food himself, built a city, settled, and had roughly seven generations of family before the flood.
We've yet to be able to comprehensively explain this acceleration of human advancement exhibited by the ancient Sumerians. Scientifically, we attribute it to the development of agriculture and the close-knit interactions of a community.
The rest of the books of Moses chronicle God's protection of the chosen bloodline, the tribes of Israel. Literally hundreds of rules are given that strictly forbid breeding outside of the bloodline and protect against incest-related issues, among other things. Once the new testament says Jesus came from this bloodline, that hands-on approach stopped.
Unfortunately, there's no 'source' I can point to as I'm kind of on an island with this one so far. That's why I'm writing about it. It just plain makes sense. It makes the rest of the bible make sense. Just read those first few chapters again with this in mind and tell me it doesn't make way more sense in this context.
If I'm totally delusional, perhaps I'll find someone who can correct me and prove this utterly ridiculous. All I can seem to find in my research is more evidence that supports it.
All I can say is that trying to explain who the sons of God and the daughters of humans were is like trying to explain the difference between The Son of God and The Son of Man (Jesus).
And I'm going to use this in the 'Chivalry' forum. It goes to the point of how women became 2nd class citizens and has to do with the fact that religiosity bestowed favor upon men and cast women in the role of tempter.
Ancient civilized societies, such as Athens, did not differentiate between the sexes but only as a matter of class not gender.
So you're saying you know who the 'sons of God' and 'daughters of humans' were, but the answer is too convoluted to try to explain? Could you maybe still try? Are you implying they're one in the same? Are you maybe suggesting they're the righteous and unrighteous descendants of Adam?
I guess I'm confused. I'm quoting Genesis directly. Who is at fault here in your eyes for reducing women's roles in the story? Me or Genesis? Or 'religiosity'? If you're saying I'm the culprit I can only assume you're referring to how I interpret those lines. If so I'll be happy to explain.
If you're referring to either Genesis or 'religiosity' then I can only assume you're saying how it's written is not how it was originally and that somewhere along the way someone changed it to make women look bad. Am I totally off?
Because if that's the case then you're basically assuming the text as written is not accurate, that you know for a fact how things actually were then, and are interpreting scripture based on that. How is that different than what I suggested when you said I was a heretic?
Oh, I meant your comment might be taken by some to be heretical, not that I was accusing you of same.
No, I don't know who the sons and daughters refers to but I plan to find some reference to it if I can. I'd like to know who the offspring of the angel/human alliance were.
IMO, religion placed women in a low role because she was allegedly responsible for the fall.
Thank you. I certainly didn't want what I was saying to be misconstrued as demeaning to women. That was not my intent. Heretic I can take, I'll wear that badge proudly, but woman-basher is not my style.
Women do certainly seem to get a bad wrap. They're not often depicted in a very positive light.
First, even though I am a devout Christian, I do not believe that the story of Adam and Eve is supposed to be taken literally.
In my opinion, the story is an analogy. It is a lesson about how screwed up things get when people get high on dope.
Furthermore, it is made clear in Gensis that there were other humans on earth when Adam and Even were here.
The most telling incident is that when their son, Cain, killed his brother, Abel, Cain was cast out of the Garden of Eden. And, following that, he traveled to the Land of Nod where he found a wife.
Was Cain or Abel before Adam,? where did all these 10 million people come from before Adam?
We need to hear more from you on the subject since you are studied in it.
Ussher was actually a brilliant scholar. If he were alive today, he'd likely admit that something was amiss with his 4004 BC date.
Many of the dates we now use in our history books were researched by Ussher, or have been modified only slightly from research since Ussher's day.
His problem was taking the timeline as literal. It wasn't mean to be taken that way.
Especially since there is no true timeline, just bad judgement and shotty math. You can't explain away a fairy tail, just as I can't give you my enlightenment. I can explain it, but then it would just be a wordy mess you would not understand.
Religion has existed for thousands, of years, but the origins of man is still a new understanding. So the religious are unlikely to decide to drop their long-held beliefs, because of new knowledge. And it is mostly the evangelical fundamentalist religious who insist in the 6,000 year age of the universe. The majority manage to accept the findings of science. Recent discoveries have placed civilisation much further back in time than was previously accepted, such as the unearthing of 12,000 year old buildings in Turkey.
One thing I never understood. There is no time frame in Genesis regarding the beginning of man so how do they know it was only 6000 years?
Bishop James Ussher dated the creation of the Earth at 23rd October 4004 BC.
This was based on lifespans and lineages specified in Genesis, Numbers (I think), and elsewhere, combined with the assumption that creation was six literal days.
Pure speculation. Usher was just another primate, playing with the tools of the mind. To take it litteraly, is like stabbing the brain with a toothpick, it's nonsensical all around. Though Usher could have been completely sane, it was insanity to believe he was absolutely right.
Okay. Not that I have any special feelings toward Ussher one way or the other, but I have to say reducing Ussher to primate status seems a bit harsh. Keep in mind he was from the 16th century during Galileo's time. People in that time still thought the Earth was at the center of the universe and were still a long way away from discovering evolution or defining the geological formation of the planet. Again, I know very little about him, so maybe there's some atrocities lying at his feet that I'm unaware of that would warrant such a strong reaction, but in regards to his attempt to pinpoint a date for creation, I'm not sure his intent was of the mind game variety.
The fact is that science and its discoveries are a joint effort of Theists and the Non-Theists; six thousand years ago either the atheist did not exist or they believed the same things, more or less.
Man came first. Created by God, he had dominion,but naming wasn't a strong point. Adam "created" by LORD God, was relegated to a specific area in the dominion of Man (the garden). Created male and female, THEY were a tribe, with a name. He called THEIR name Adam. And due to recent archaelogical finds, the date for the emergence of man has been pushed back another 200,000 years.
Right, humans have been around a long time. And the humans created in Genesis 6 match up exactly with this chain of events. Then it says Adam came. Reducing those early stories to nothing more than symbolism dilutes the whole thing considerably.
Just look at creation. It actually describes the formation of everything relevant to humans in the correct chronological order and manages to describe it from a surface of the planet perspective, even though those events happened millions and billions of years ago....
13.7 bya Heavens
4.54 bya Earth
4.2 bya Oceans (we only recently figured out the oceans came first)
3.8 bya Light*
* before the surface cooled enough, all of the water that makes up the oceans was trapped in the atmosphere. as the surface cooled the oceans formed. as that global cloud of water vapor thinned the sun's light began to reach the surface and has shined on it ever since
3.5 bya Firmament (oxygenated atmosphere, which coincidentally required both oceans and light as it was a photosynthetic process)
2.5 bya Continents
542 mya Cambrian Explosion
488 – 433 mya Plant Life on land
Sun, Moon, Stars set in firmament to track seasons/days/years...
550 mya (Continents deep in southern hemisphere)
275 mya (Continents well across equator)
* before the Cambrian explosion the majority of continental land mass was positioned beneath the planet where days last 6 months. between the appearance of plants on land and the emergence of life from the seas the continents drifted back up to where they were positioned around the equator and have remained there since. this literally moved the sun, moon, and stars into position so they could be used for the exact reasons stated
488 – 443 mya Vertebrates appear in ocean (not on land)
443 – 416 mya First fish with jaws, first sharks (not on land)
359 – 318 mya Vertebrates appear on land (Continents already across equator)
150 mya First birds
65 – 55 mya placental mammals
55 – 34 mya modern mammals
.16 mya Humans
Basically, I think there's a lot more to Genesis we should consider before ruling it out as nothing more than mythology or symbolic tales.
Assuming that is an actual human femur... no. Early mammals were no larger than rodents during the age of dinosaurs and no variation of the Homo genus showed up for tens of millions of years after.
Some land mammals during the Miocene Epoch were far larger than elephants!
True, the Miocene Epoch is right before long-legged grazing animals first appeared during the Pliocene. After that comes the Pleistocene Epoch, which is where megafauna existed; sabre-toothed cats, mammoths, dire wolves. This was all 40 million years after the KT mass extinction that wiped out the dinosaurs. So neither large mammals or humans existed when dinosaurs did.
True. KT was a distant and ancient memory.
But, if a new biblical timeline is right, then humans may have existed during the latter half of the Miocene -- big mammals and all -- some 3x the size of elephants!
There's no evidence to support that. Dinosaurs came way back between life from the sea (vertebrates- amphibians then reptiles) and birds. Genesis specifies both in the same day, day 5. Humans were day 6.
^ Disregard the bit about dinosaurs. I misread. The Miocene Epoch is when the first upright walking hominins appear, but they at that time showed very little resemblance to humans. To my knowledge there were no species of the homo genus until homo habilis during the Pleistocene millions of years later.
Castle, I've seen pix like this before. It could easily have been doctored (normal femur superimposed). Some people are pretty good at Adobe Photoshop.
I like to see the carbon-14 dating test on this, if the article isn't fake.
It would be a pretty exciting find, if it's real.
And it could be, @HeadlyvonNoggin, that Days 1-6 were only timeless images in God's mind (the "Word" or blueprint of creation).
Maybe we're living in God's day of rest -- all 13.7 billion years of it.
"Resting" (or what the Buddhists call "allowing") is the "perfecting" element needed for an idea to become manifest in physical reality.
I think the creation account of the bible is just one of many different stories each with some similarities. The only reason the Church believes in A and E is because that happens to be the account inherited from Israel. Each civilisation has its own folklore and with regards the bible the folklore probably developed with different elements from the original in order to teach certain lessons and principles.
In Edgar Cayce on Jesus, he says that Adam was really Jesus in one of his earlier incarnations. That Jesus incarnated 30 times before he became the supposed Son of God. I was going to write a hub about it, but was afraid I would get banned from Godpages.
We were not there; therefore, we do not know, and never will know. It is useless asking questions like this. Some people will claim they know the "facts", but in reality they are only deceiving themselves. Everybody has the right to express their opinions, but in the grand scheme of things, history simply does not care about mine or anybody else's opinions. Never post in your comments, numbers, to try to date historical events without the words "perhaps", "maybe", or "possibly". Contrary to popular belief, no dating method is full proof. Even if they were accurate how would you know? That is circular reasoning. Each number is just as potentially corrupt as the next. The only true answer to the question is "I DON'T KNOW".
If we compute literally, then Adam and Eve would be 6014 or so years old. But in the Bible, particularly in 2 Peter 3:8 "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." So if it's a thousand years to a day for the Lord, at 365 days a year, 6014 years would be 2,195,110 days and multiply this by a thousand and we'll get more than a billion years of human existence.
A billion years of human existence, what did those giants eat,?
Granite rock and drank it down with molten lava
Sorry, it's a billion days of human existence...or millions of years of human existence.... which more or less confirms scientific claims on man's length of existence here on earth.
its like who came first mickey mouse or tom cruise?...obviously one is fiction and other is real....adam ,eve is fictious story...homo sapiens is real species...
Ussher was a Brilliant Scholar
@Castlepaloma, good question, but Ussher's timeline was based on the best evidence he had at the time. We still use many of his dates in our history books (like the deaths of Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great). On many dates he was pretty close.
He took Genesis literally, but he shouldn't have. Today, he'd likely reject his own hypothesis as faulty. He seemed to be that kind of a serious scholar. Even Isaac Newton came out with his own biblical timeline, decades later, similar to that of Ussher. Even he didn't know better.
Bible Not Meant to be Taken Literally
The Bible was written to elicit humility from us -- humility or rejection. I don't envy the ones who reject it. Any really good scientist uses humility in the search for answers. It's a mandatory ingredient in research. If you think you already know all the answers, you're going to trip yourself up (that's hubris). A lot of so-called Christians may miss the salvation "boat" because of similar arrogance. I hope they wake up before it's too late. I hope I do, too, and I'm still learning.
Because of the desire to elicit humility, you can bet that there is a great deal of wisdom hidden in the Bible.
There are certain factors in Genesis which, when multiplied by the already outrageous ages of the early patriarchs, reveal a timeline compatible with those in science. There is a lot more symbolism and metaphor going on there than most people realize.
The 200,000 year figure is only the latest date from anthropological science. One reference in my library pegs earliest Homo sapiens at 50,000 years ago. What a difference thirty years makes. Will the date of earliest human be pushed even further back?
The actual date in Genesis for earliest man is something like 10,434,130 BC! That places Homo sapiens in the latter half of the Miocene Epoch. And there were some very scary mammals roaming around then. Some far bigger than elephants and as scary as dinosaurs.
There's more on this at http://www.GenesisCode.net
How did you arrive at the Earth being 10 million years old?
Although I am not a Christian, I do believe there are "clues" in the Bible, good advice about living in many cases, and a lot to learn, especially from Jesus. I just think people miss the point, especially the more literal Christians. I don't have the answers, I'm just a seeker.
This is a very odd question. We are assuming way to many facts based on possible theories on very little evidence. I think a lot of possibilities have not been entertained. For example what did the World look like prior to the great flood? was it advanced? If it was, what technology tree were they following? We assume a past world would have done the same thing we are doing today. The World may be ancient and it definitely seems older then what many Biblical scholars accept even. Still the evidence of when man arrived pending a World wide disaster offers little proof in answering how and when. Genesis offers very little data in many areas but has a beginning and end with absolute proof but gives us no definitive starting point for the record it was recording. Just as inconclusive is the story of variance and the science behind what it was and what it is today. A dog has always been a dog but look at all the different dogs we have today and the enormous changes this one specie was capable of making. Even if something has made enormous changes does not prove that its DNA was changed in terms of its variance and its possibilities. We are a long ways from taking physical appearance and determining the evolution of anything outside the context of what it has always been. Even if God had handed us a library explaining everything we would assume that we would know everything and could understand it. We are so bold to think that we can find the answer to everything but if the answer does not exist within our dimensions of human understanding. We create an answer to satisfy ourselves to allow us to satisfy our own agendas on Earth.
I considered that same question. In Job God appears and tells him you and your friends do not know anything but fell for the devils tricks. He goes on to ask Job all the questions we ask today but never presents the answers but tells him you do not understand.
The Giants a so called hybrid between Angels and humans another example that makes us wonder what the past was like.
Imagination is often used to fill in the blanks when the context isn't clear. Reading early Genesis in the 'Adam was the first human' context leads to all kinds of crazy misconceptions... like half-angel/half-man halfbreeds, for instance.
Please open your Bible to Genesis 1:6...."Male and Female created he Them, he Blessed Them and told Them to be Fruitful and Multiply and Replenish the Earth."
Hence the create of people.
Some time later, a Man was taken from the 'dust of the earth' If one reads their Scripture one will know that the term is often used describe abundance, dust of the earth, stars of the sky, sand of the sea...etc. It means 'multitude'.
In Genesis 2: 29 we read how 'man became a living soul..' and how Eve is taken from Adam.
Those who don't know Scripture point out 'mistake!' as if a paragraph was accidentally repeated in a text book.
Those who know Scripture understand the physical and Spiritual creation; the fact that there were people bobbling around; homo sapiens, until this particular incident of 'Soul'.
Adam & Eve were the first humans according to the Bible but today we find from fossils an evidence that it wasn't like that at all. In fact there was an "evolution" that happened. I agree with your question Castlepaloma, why people are still so religious. If you meet preachers from different places, they will also tell you different interpretations of what's written aon the bible. Peace everyone.
To the OP kindly delete my comment above, I misspelled aon instead of on. I will like to re post only the first part of this comment where the last or two sentences is not included. Thanks.
Yeah, no fossils ever connected Man and Dinosaurs together. You would think that Adam and Eve and their Adam's family would be riding Dinosaurs around like the Flintstones did.
Homo Sapiens is Latin. Is the question who came first, Adam and Eve or Latin?
Ever tried to ride something that views you as dinner?
"You think maybe God had another creation over in the next county?"
Clarence Darrow to William Jennings Bryan during The Scopes Money Trials
I have this theory that both evolution and creationism occurred.
Thus, I believe that Adam and Eve and their offspring were human beings, quite similar to what humans are today (but far superior), and "over in the next county," there were beings who had evolved from apes and who were akin to Neanderthals and Cro magnons -- and Cain took one of those as his wife.
Therefore, the reason why "mankind" is so "impure" today is it is comprised by a species that descended from beings that were a mixture of human beings and "cave men."
And I'm thinking about writing a novel based on my theory. ;-)
let me get this straight
Adam and Eve were the most superior human beings ever lived on earth, smarter than Einstein
But not so smart because these super human were out smarted by talking serpent with an apple
Their children must have been very smart because they could lived to an old age 600 to a 1000
But not so smart because each generation of children got less and less intelligent and kept devolving to the fight club, as it is today
These super Human beings were a mix of 16 foot giants, angel, and Sons of God in Yahweh image
Still they partied too hard and had sinful beastly ape sex with an Neanderthal and Cro magnons.
Mankind thought they were smarter than God, So Yahweh killed 99.9999% of people, Hitler score 2%
But God was not so smart because most of the Worlds population today do not know who Yahweh is.
Yahweh plan in 2012 is to kill 99% of us, to prove he loves us and he is smarter than a cave man.
Did I get it right?
You're on the right track, Feenix. I've been discussing a very similar theory with people for a couple of years now and while they're often reluctant at first, the more you think about it the more it makes sense. Usually the trend seems to be that believers will reject the idea at first, but then start to come around as they re-read the bible after hearing the theory. Once you've heard it, it's hard not to see it.
The difference is natural humans were much further along by the time Adam and Eve showed up. Both Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon man had been gone for tens of thousands of years. Homo sapien humans were no different than us physically. They just didn't aspire to be anything more than they were. They were content living in harmony with nature the way many tribal cultures isolated from civilized humanity still do today.
Like you pointed out, Genesis 4 is a big clue. Not only did Cain take a wife in the land of Nod, he feared being harmed by 'others' and he built a city. But the most glaring clue is Genesis 6 ....
Genesis 6:1-3 - When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”
This comes just one chapter after showing that Adam and his descendants lived for centuries. Every ancient civilization in that region of the world speaks of immortal gods, human in form, who existed in their ancient past and had children with mortal humans. The Sumerians/Akkadians/Babylonians, the Greeks, the Romans.
What if those ancient mythological gods aren't entirely fictional? What if there really were beings in existence at one time that these stories were inspired by? Beings who existed for a short time about 5000BC, lived on the earth for roughly 1600 years, then got wiped out by a flood?
Did they live a short time, or did they live to be 1600?
I don't think I have to tell you, Mark, that 1600 years is a short time frame when you're looking at the entirety of human history.
LAWL It sure is a long time in the last 7,000 years.
7000 years since then, but human history goes well beyond that.
How far back does human history go then?
Well there are differing views on when exactly our ancestors officially became 'human'. If you want to include the first bipedal hominins then it goes back roughly 6 million years. The appearance of Ardipithecus, an early hominin genus, about 4.4 million years ago. Homo habilis 2.4 mya, homo erectus about 1.7 mya. If we're just talking about homo sapiens, then that's about 370,000 years if you go all the way back to when homo sapiens and Neanderthal first diverged genetically.
Wow! That is awesome!
1,600 year old majikal demi-gods who were around 7,000 years ago makes much more sense now.
And why wouldn't it? All throughout human history we see a progression of more and more advanced humans. Why would this be any different? We've got copius amounts of stories written by the direct ancestors of those that lived in that age that all speak of immortal beings who were human in form and intermingling with humans. Both human history and ancient mythology point to this as a possibility. And Genesis describes it specifically, even giving a time frame that matches up with known history. So tell me exactly how this is totally out of the question?
100% total lack of evidence?
Sorry you don't understand that mythology is a tool to attempt to understand the human psyche and think it is real majik.
Human history points to no such thing.
Please stop speaking to me as though I am a moron. This is why your religion causes so many fights.
I don't think you're a moron and I'm not speaking to you as such. Seeing mythology as the human mind's attempt to understand is an assumption because we had no better explanation. Now we do.
There is a distinct change in human history right in this very same region and era. It's kind of hard to miss. It's when humans first started using wide-scale, year-round agriculture to settle and live in one location. It's when we first started building cities and creating governments and laws and when we first started writing.
For many hundreds of thousands of years humans changed very little. The first stone tools were made 2 million years ago. It took 1.6 million years to go from that to wooden spears and stone cutting tools. Yet in the course of just a handful of centuries humans developed agriculture, the first monarchy, writing, astronomy/astrology, the wheel, and on and on and on. Just 7000 years later you've got manned missions to the moon, computers, cars, etc.
We have no explanation for this other than assuming this all came from humans living in close proximity to one another. Now there's a better explanation.
Homo Sapiens is not many hundreds of thousands of years old. Modern Humans have developed technology quickly - agreed. How this means there were 1,600 year old demi gods involved is beyond me.
I'm sorry, Mark, but homo sapiens do go back that far. We know that for certain. Mitochondrial Eve was a homo sapien. Every human alive today is a direct descendant of hers according to genetic evidence. She dates back between 160 to 200 thousand years ago, and she wasn't the first. She's just the earliest known direct ancestor...
It often seems like that at first because these ideas are foreign to most at first. It seems disjointed. But the more it sinks in the more I think you'll realize I've been consistent from the beginning.
I'll give you that. You have been consistent. I have to say that I am fascinated. Not so much as to what you are proposing (which is not new, My step father has talked about this many times. He also thinks one should never hug their children because he read that in the bible as well), but what is going on in your head. You are now trying to insert Greek mythology into Christianity, and you seem very serious about it. You also seem to claim to be not part of homo sapiens. Perhaps that explains your image. All very fascinating to me.
I just said every human on earth shares a common homo sapien ancestor. I know I can sometimes come off as overly serious or maybe even cocky. I don't mean to be. It's just that I've had this conversation more times than I can count and have grown more confident each and every time. Numerous people very knowledgeable and very intelligent, have tried to pick this apart from every angle imaginable. Each and every time it continues to stand. Most times others will bring up something I never considered before, only to find out that looking into it further provides even more support. Others trying to pick this apart have actually helped me better define it. I call it a 'theory' or an 'idea', but it's becoming more and more clear to me that I must be on the right track.
Well perhaps you are just convincing yourself. You talk like it stands up to everyone's attacks. But only in own head. You looked for a way to marry science and the bible and your convincing yourself this is it. It's entertaining, just like Greek Mythology.
Well I'm glad you're entertained. But the evidence is there. It stands up to 'attacks' because I've yet to run across anyone who can offer evidence that debunks it. And when we're talking about all of human history and the entire geological formation of the earth and every field of study it's kind of hard to see how I could come up with just one consistent idea that applies across the board without contradicting a single known fact. If it's just a delusional justification on my part then it's a gigantic coincidence that it continues to work no matter how you approach it or what field of study you choose to debunk it.
I do think everyone and everything is connected in the Universe and everything has a reason
How your Yahweh World connects to most people on earth is beyond my understanding and most people on earth's understanding.
That's what I'm trying to point out. The whole reason it all seems like separate pieces is because we've misread Genesis all these years. If Adam was the first human then it doesn't fit with what we now know and doesn't fit with the origin stories of all the various civilizations around the world. But if Adam wasn't first, then all of the sudden it all lines up. Everything. It's all the same story. There's only one ultimate truth. The closer you get to that one ultimate truth the more that one answer can address anything and everything you throw at it.
Or - there was no Adam.
Wow - that makes it so much more simple. Everything lines up with no majik.
Not exactly. You still have the unexplained rapid advancement in Sumer and Egypt and the Indus valley by cultures who spoke completely different languages, including all 3 developing writing at roughly the same time. Not to mention the convoluted explanations you get into trying to explain how the conscious human mind developed naturally.
How is this unexplained?
They developed at the same rate. You could as well say "unexplained development of stone tools in several areas of Europe."
I have evidence that the Flying Spaghetti Monster came down and explained the use of stone tools in multiple locations.
Prove me wrong.
When you have something of substance, just let me know.
Odd you choose not to disprove my evidence and instead attack me.
Typical of the skeptic.
How else do you explain the unexplained development of noodles in several places within a similar time frame? The FSM is the only thing that makes sense.
Now prove me wrong.
Okay, point me to the ancient document that defines this spaghetti monster and simultaneously shows itself to be credible by accurately describing events that happened millions and billions of years before humans existed and I'll be happy to read it over and give you my thoughts.
LOL So - the bible proves itself? Millions and Billions? Accurately? LOL
Pretty sure your majik book doesn't accurately define your Invisible Super Being.
Come on - we have found documents previously hidden by Christians that prove it was the FSM.
No other god's before me is a reference to always eating pasta as the first course. Everyone knows this innately.
Prove me wrong.
It's in one of my hubs that you said you read.
What I was specifically speaking of here is how Genesis 1 accurately describes the formation of the earth as if witnessed from the surface of the planet. I illustrate it in detail. It lists 13 specific details (14 if you count farming) and 6 major era in the correct order and from a human viewpoint. Plenty of detail in that hub.
No - it is your opinion twisting wot it sez in attempt to reconcile your irrational beliefs with scientific facts. Totla nonsense I'm afraid.
Now prove it was not the FSM like I showed you the evidence for.
Sure. I twisted it around to say God created the heavens, the earth, the oceans, the atmosphere, the land, reptiles, birds, mammals, humans in that order. I took just 31 verses and twisted them around like magic to make it sound like it accurately described the formation of the earth from a on-the-surface perspective. You're giving me way too much credit, Mark.
Yes - LOL that fowl includes dinosaurs.
Please stop speaking to me as though I am a moron. That is why your religion causes so many fights.
I'm not, and still don't think you're a moron. Dinosaurs are direct descendants of birds. Without dinosaurs, there'd be no birds. In verse 21 it says ....
Gen 1:21 - And God created great whales and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind; and God saw that it was good.
The two Hebrew words translated as 'great whales' by modern translators are ‘the monsters’ (e-thninm) and ‘the great ones’ (e-gdlim). This comes right between life emerging from the sea and birds in Genesis, which is right where dinosaurs show up in history.
SO it was majik then?
I think the word you seek is antecedents, and you seem to be forgetting "the miniature ones."
How strange that your majik book thinks all dinosaurs were "great." which I guess you take to mean, "big.'?
After all - we are the "great" ones are we not?
Now prove is was not the Flying Spaghetti Monster that made us in her image for the enjoyment of noodles.
We were speaking specifically about dinosaurs. I kind of made the jump to large creatures. That was my fault. Humans are fallible. Me included. Fortunately, Genesis covers what I failed to when it says '... and every living creature that moveth...'. My mistake.
You still haven't given me the chance to review the source that claims the existence of a spaghetti monster for me to peruse.
Every living creature that moveth? That is some pretty precise terminology right there. Proof indeed.
Not quite as old as your ancient text, but in the great scheme of things 2,000 years is nothing but a nanosecond.
It's not the terminology that's the proof. Genesis wasn't written for the sole purpose of proving itself accurate. The proof is in the specific details listed in order way before anyone could have possibly known.
BUT THE ORDER WAS WRONG. You are just rearranging them for you own agenda.
How was the order wrong? You understand Genesis didn't call them 'mammals' right? We're talking about something written 3000 years ago, or longer, and we're applying modern understanding and modern terms to it. There is a natural progression from reptiles to dinosaurs to birds. The same can't be said for mammals. They're their own category for good reason.
If you want to get technical, we're talking about one specific detail where both creatures we're discussing showed up during the same period, the Jurassic period. The only reason we even call them mammals is because of skeletal traits that relate to the mammals that came later. We only assume they had hair because we equate them to modern mammals. All we have are bones. DNA evidence doesn't even last that long. We're talking about miniscule changes in the skull and jaw. There were no placental mammals yet. Not even what are deemed 'primitive mammals'. All of that came after K-T.
You don't KNOW any of that. We don't even know birds came from dinosaurs. But you use it because it fits your agenda. All of genesis is wrong right from the beginning. God made the earth before light and made light before the two great lights. Only the moon is not a light at all.
20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning —the fifth day.
24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
So according to this, god made fish and birds first and then liveststock at the same time as wild animals. I think livestock came much later? Can you imagine cows and T-rex roaming the earth. Poor cows. Would last a day.
"The fossil record indicates that birds emerged within theropod dinosaurs during the Jurassic period, around 160 million years (Ma) ago. Paleontologists regard birds as the only clade of dinosaurs to have survived the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event 65.5 Ma ago."
God created the 'heavens' in the beginning. The heavens to every age of humans as always consisted of the sun, the moon, and the stars. Verse 3 does not say he 'created' light. He said 'let there be light'. This coincides with the formation of the oceans when light first penetrated the atmosphere. For ages the surface of the earth was completely obscured by a dense atmosphere that among other things consisted of a majority of earth's water.
Day 4 is when these are mentioned specifically. Notice what came just before; plants on land. Plantlife in the seas had been creating our oxygenated atmosphere for over a billion years by this point, but plant life on land really sped things up. The atmosphere in this age changed from translucent to transparent. Before all you would see is light as the translucent sky would be lit up like a big dome, but you would not be able to make out the sun, the moon, and definitely not the stars.
It also says they were positioned in the sky to serve a purpose; to track days and years and seasons and such. In that same age between plant life on land and the first life on land the continents actually moved all the way from deep in the southern hemisphere up to the side of the planet where they are today. As you know I'm sure, deep in the southern hemisphere days last 6 months and the night sky just pivots. That's one heck of a coincidence that the entirety of earth's land mass moved thousands of miles to be positioned so that the sun, moon, and stars would be positioned for the same purpose specifically stated in the same chronological order Genesis says it happened in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tecto … lobal2.gif
It didn't say fish. Again, this is from a surface perspective. He said, "let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life." The clue here is the call for birds. We know birds didn't remain in the sea, so we know it's talking about calling life from the sea.
The creatures during day 5 and the livestock during day 6 were not at the same time. The word translated as 'day' here is also translated as 'age', or 'era', etc.
I cover all of this and more in my hub and my blog has even more detail. I provide links to back up everything I say. If you really want to get into this then please check it out there, check out the links I provide, and I'll be happy to address anything you feel I have in error.
Sorry, you are reinventing the story to suite your agenda. Reminds me of my narcissistic father in law. Always changing events and conversations to make himself look good and right. I don't buy any of it, but I do believe you've bought into it yourself.
I have no agenda beyond testing what I see to determine with as much certainty as can be attained whether or not there is any truth to this. I'm happy to be wrong. Being wrong means I've learned something I didn't previously know. I'm just going to need a little more than your word for it. I've done, and continuously do, the legwork. I've verified to the best of my ability what I'm detailing. I have not and will not be intentionally misleading or dishonest.
I am not here to advance a christian agenda. I'm not trying to convert unbelievers. I am simply sharing a worldview pieced together throughout a lifetime of being utterly fascinated with life and trying to figure it out. Once my view appeared to provide more consistent, more reasonable explanations to countless questions than what others were saying I felt that maybe I should try discussing this with others. If there's something to this then maybe we can learn something and if I'm delusional then I would really like to know it. My faith is not hinged on this idea. My faith is sound for numerous totally unverifiable reasons that are pointless to detail here.
I simply acknowledge a few truths ....
- Scientifically determined facts are the best, most accurate picture of history that we have and is untarnished by human interpretation
- Nobody knows for certain exactly how old the books of Moses are or who wrote them. We only know they originate in the cradle of civilization.
- Traditional interpretations of the books of Moses are human interpretations conceived by people centuries ago who knew much less about the natural world than we know now reading the exact same material.
Natural science doesn't answer every question in my eyes. It's jurisdiction is limited to the physical world. The conscious human mind is the single most dynamic, most inventive, most destructive, most fascinating thing in known existence yet cannot be measured or detected or observed in any sort of quantifiable, verifiable, objective way. That's all I need to know to realize natural science alone is ill-equipped to answer every existential question.
Traditional religious views alone are inadequate in my eyes as well. Everything you or I have ever heard from parents or church-goers or friends about God and the bible are fallible interpretations.
I more subscribe to the St. Augustine view. He believed God reveals His nature to us through the book of nature and the book of scripture. If at any time the two appear to conflict it's human interpretation that is flawed. That view has led to this. It makes a lot of sense and connects a lot of dots.
I would hate to completely overlook potential answers about who we are and where we came from, provided for us in an ancient text that's been right there all along, simply because they're obscured from view by a bunch of pre-conceived ideas based on flawed human interpretations we were afraid to let go of, or based on personal biases harbored because of human activities carried out in the name of that misunderstood ancient text.
When someone has a belief that they feel is absolute they stop thinking and start defending. You are defending. You want to believe and therefore you do. You have an agenda, make me (you) right. You simply want to marry the bible with science and your ego depends on it.
What you call truths are not truths at all.
The conscious mind is not what you think it is. As I've said conscious only means self aware. We are not along on that regard. We are not even along at using tools. We are not even the most successful creature on the planet. The single thing humans can do that other animals cannot is run for long distances in hot weather and not overheat because we sweat. That's it. We are not special at all. We may not even be the smartest or the most self aware.
You are also very wrong about our understanding of the conscious mind. Psychologists know exactly where the part of the brain that controls our consciousness is. They can turn it on or off and sometimes it's damaged. It's not magical or spiritual, but simply a product of the brian.
I'm sure you will dismiss this as it doesn't fit your agenda and you are defending and not thinking. I recommend Gray Psychology for some reading. I think you find it online somewhere for free download.
"The conscious mind is not what you think it is. As I've said conscious only means self aware. We are not along on that regard. We are not even along at using tools. We are not even the most successful creature on the planet. The single thing humans can do that other animals cannot is run for long distances in hot weather and not overheat because we sweat. That's it. We are not special at all. We may not even be the smartest or the most self aware."
I'm sorry, but you're kidding yourself. You're leaving out the fact that you and I are sitting here arguing many miles from each other using technology developed by humans across cables buried by humans arranged through a series of business contracts to achieve mutual benefit while sitting in homes/apartments/whatever built by skilled labor and contractors in mutually agreed upon conditions and on and on and on. Not to mention we've been to space. There's no other species that's put satellites in orbit to my knowledge. I hope you get the point. This is all the product of the conscious human mind. Your thinking appears to be limited only to the physical body.
"You are also very wrong about our understanding of the conscious mind. Psychologists know exactly where the part of the brain that controls our consciousness is. They can turn it on or off and sometimes it's damaged. It's not magical or spiritual, but simply a product of the brian."
The only reason psychologists have any sort of understanding of the human mind at all is because they themselves have a conscious human mind they experience as well to use to relate. We have enough shared experiences in life, enough in common, to be able to make educated assessments of behavior and thought patterns and that sort of thing. But many of the problems in the modern world would be way more manageable if psychologists had the firm grip on the conscious mind that you seem to think they do.
I understand and accept that you do not accept what I'm saying. I hope you can understand that from my perspective your view is lacking as well.
Weird. Your thinking appears to be limited to technological inventions, and we are way second in that race. The Dolphins have been space faring for way longer than we have.
Prove me wrong.
I think you're thinking of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
Yes - the ancient text that proves me right. Now disprove it.
I get the point you're driving into the ground, but you apparently don't get mine that this is irrelevant to this discussion. Unless, of course, you can simultaneously tie everything we've discussed here to either your space dolphin or flying spaghetti monster beliefs using the ancient texts you've referred me to that doesn't contradict science while remaining consistent throughout. Then you'll maybe have something.
I know you'll just continue to supply me with sarcastic, sparsely witty commentary if you deem the effort worth it, but I'm sure it would be worth reading for the entertainment value alone.
These ancient texts do not contradict science. Where do you see the contradictions exactly?
Please supply proof of the so-called contradictions. How else can you explain teh development of pasta?
Seafood pasta? I rest my case.
I'm not familiar enough with the material to even claim to know of any. But there's plenty here already discussed that I've supplied reasoning for that stays consistent with my view, stays consistent with the bible, and manages to offer explanations without contradicting science.
Surely your view can do the same using the just some of the same things we've discussed here already. So, please, enlighten me. Let's start there and then maybe I'll let you know if I have any questions. Please, teach away.
The source of all things and reason for our existence is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You can find her ancient texts and proofs here:
Along with multiple proofs and evidences that she created us to enjoy pasta.
The other ancient text that references the dolphins' superior level of consciousness is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hitchh … the_Galaxy
The fascist unbelievers at wikipedia (Burn in Hell forever!) lie and call this ancient text a "science fiction comedy" - they will pay when the day comes, and as prophesied in this ancient text - they will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.
These are all perfectly consistent with science and I offer up these proofs for you to disprove at your leisure.
If you just use your reasoning skills, you will see that mucking about in water all day long instead of building digital watches is a far superior level of consciousness.
I feel like I'm having a conversation with Public Enemy. There's one guy, the Chuck D of the group, who has relevant points to add to the discussion. Then you have this other guy, the Flava Flav character, that just interjects useless nonsense that can be entertaining, but ultimately does nothing to further convey the message.
On that note I think I'll call it a night. Thanks for the discussion.
I cite my ancient text as proof. Please disprove it.
I think you must have brought the wrong notes with you or something. You're attempting to use the stock answer that applies to 'does God exist and if so how do we know it's the God of the bible' debate. We're well beyond that here. I can illustrate how Genesis 1 matches up with earth's history from the formation of the oceans all the way through to the discovery of farming. Then I can line up events in Genesis 2-11 with events we know to have happened ...
- Adam created
- Cain banished, builds a city (130+ years after banishment)
- Sumerian city-state, Eridu, established in Mesopotamia (5400-5300BC)
- Flood (1650 years after Adam/ 1500 years after Cain's banishment)
- Ubaid culture in Ur brought to abrupt end by flooding (4000BC)...
"Archaeologists have discovered evidence of an early occupation at Ur during the Ubaid period. These early levels were sealed off with a sterile deposit that was interpreted by excavators of the 1920s as evidence for the Great Flood of the book of Genesis and Epic of Gilgamesh."
- people dispersed at Babel (100-300 years after flood)
- populations in northern africa and mesopotamia dispersed by dramatic climate shift (3900BC)
"Thus, it also triggered worldwide migration to river valleys, such as from central North Africa to the Nile valley, which eventually led to the emergence of the first complex, highly organised, state-level societies in the 4th millennium BCE. It is associated with the last round of the Sahara pump theory."
Right after you have civilizations cropping up in every direction out from southern mesopotamia. To the west...
Ancient Egypt – 3400 – 30 BC
http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingLists … ncient.htm – “From around 3500 to 3000 BC there were great and very sudden advances in craftsmanship and technology, which culminated in the working of copper, stone mace heads and ceramics.”
To the west....
Indus Valley Culture – 3300 – 1700 BC
http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingLists … ulture.htm – “As the first great civilizations took shape in Sumer and Egypt, a people of unknown origin who were centered in the Indus Valley in modern Pakistan and India began constructing their own series of cities. These were as remarkable as any the world had yet seen, and at the same time trade flourished, and a system of writing evolved.”
Of course, to the north, you have the Akkadians who already had their own distinct language by the time they merged with the Sumerians. 4 different civilizations in close proximity, same era, yet speaking 4 totally different languages.
We're well beyond the whole Flying Spaghetti Monster argument.
Speaking of dinosaurs, why were they not mentioned after land and before reptiles? Why no fish? Why mammals and then humans. Humans are mammals. Birds should be after mammals. Mammals first appeared alongside dinosaurs, birds did not
Excellent question, Rad Man. Fish were below the sea. If you'll notice Genesis speaks of nothing below the sea out of man's view. Only what pertains to where man resides. The land. The air.
As we've seen scientifically, evolution is a process set in motion. The species that ultimately became birds were set in motion. There's a direct lineage and a direct line in the fossil record that can be drawn from one to the other. This is why reptiles and birds are still in the same category today, sauropsids.
Mammals, or synapsids, were a kind of left turn evolution wise. Proto-mammals first began to emerge somewhere around 200 mya, along side dinosaurs, as you said. The first bird 150 mya. But mammals throughout this era were no larger than rodents as dinosaurs were the dominant species. The era in which mammals became mammals as we know them today came after birds and before humans once the K-T mass extinction got all those pesky dinosaurs out of the way.
Wow that must have taken some work.
As for the fish. Your rationalization as to why fish were not mentioned is a problem for me because humans have been swimming for a few hundred thousand years. Swimming may have helped us in our evolution. But I don't know a single person to ever fly without mechanical help. So man resides in the sea and the land, not the sky where birds do.
To your second point, you again rationalized that birds can earlier because the animals that evolved into birds came earlier. Well we all came from fish and fist was still not mentioned.
To you last justification, Di you really just say came later because mammals became mammals as we know them today? The first mammals were rodent like creatures and that is precisely as we see mammals today.
Nice try to though, you may fool the stupid with that.
'Reside' was the wrong word to use. You're right. Humans have swam, and fished for that matter, for a long time. But it's the creatures on the land that we co-habitate with. And that includes birds who don't 'live' in the air. Their land creatures too. I mentioned air because the atmosphere is a big part of the Genesis creation account. And that pertains directly to humans.
Just read about proto-mammals and the changes that happened there. Then read about the differences between sauropsids and synapsids. These are clearly two different lines here. True they do all ultimately come from the same source, but there's a reason they're categorized differently. Genesis makes this distinction.
Just look at how the ages are categorized scientifically. The majority of mammal development came during the Cenozoic era, root meaning 'new life', and is often referred to as the 'age of mammals'. This era begins with the K-T mass extinction 65 mya. Post-dinosaurs.
Why are you not debunk Marks Flying Spaghetti Monster? It make just as much sense as Greek mythology and your story.
To be conscious is to be self aware. What makes you think only humans are self aware?
The mirror test is a great way to determine if animals or which animals besides us are self aware. A mark is placed on the animals body where it can't been seen except from through a mirror. The animal looks at the mirror and then looks for the spot on him/herself.
Animals that have passed the mirror test include:
All great apes:
Humans. Humans tend to fail the mirror test until they are about 18 months old, or what psychoanalysts call the "mirror stage".
Gorillas. Initially, it was thought that gorillas did not pass the test, but there are now several well-documented reports of gorillas (such as Koko passing the test.
I think it's pretty clear human consciousness goes well beyond simply being self-aware.
That's all consciousness means my friend. Being self aware. See below.
1 the patient was conscious: aware, awake, alert, responsive, sentient, compos mentis.
2 he became conscious of people talking: aware, mindful, sensible; formal cognizant; rare regardful. ANTONYMS unaware.
3 a conscious effort: deliberate, intentional, intended, purposeful, purposive, knowing, considered, calculated, willful, premeditated, planned, volitional.
Then maybe it will help to substitute the word 'consciousness' with the word 'mind'. What I'm referring to is that which sets us apart from the rest of the natural world. That which differentiates us from the animal kingdom. The part that makes us live in direct opposition to the natural world at times. The part that's more interested in the self and convenience and freedom than it is with the cost of having what it wants.
Every living thing has a will to live. A will to survive. Everything will either try to fight or flee to survive. Every living thing is driven to procreate. Our physical bodies are the same way. You can't just make yourself die because you really, really want to without taking action to kill the body. You can't hold your breath until you die because your body will force you to breathe. That drive to procreate is obviously there as well.
There is no scientific explanation behind this will, yet it is arguably the most propulsive aspect of evolution. Like gravity's roll in the formation of the universe, a will to live and procreate was/is just as vital to the evolution of life. Genesis specifically details God commanding life to be. Existence, animate or inanimate, reacted in accordance to His will. Life grew lungs and legs and teeth and claws and skin just to comply with God's will to 'come forth from the waters'. Homo sapiens accomplished every single thing the humans at the end of Genesis 1 were told to do by 10000BC; be fruitful and multiply, fill and subdue the earth, and establish dominance in the animal kingdom. Only a meta-will beyond the individual could accomplish a task like this that took countless generations to realize. Then, after all of that, does it say He looked at all created and deemed it 'good'.
But Adam and Eve were different. God only told them one thing not to do and they did it anyway. Humans had to convert from the more naturalistic/instinctual behavior of the animal kingdom we evolved from to a logically thinking/reasoning creature at some point along the way. Who's to say it had to happen gradually? The first thing Adam and Eve realized after 'the eyes of both of them were opened' was that they were naked. This goes beyond simple self-awareness. This is more an awareness of self and conscious of one's self through the eyes of another. Humanity had to become bashful unlike any other creature in the natural world at some point along the way. Some humans still in existence today, mainly those tribal cultures cut off from the civilized world, still aren't so concerned with covering themselves. Their clothing and garments are more for functional or decorative reasons.
You can think but you don't make connections. If some human tribes still aren't bashful today and they are just as human as us then being bashful has nothing to do with God and everything to do with culture. Children aren't bashful at least mine weren't when they were young. Cover them up for 5 or 10 years and they become bashful. This is why I'm intrigued by some of the things you say. It's because you make misleading connections to feed your agenda. You may not know it but you do.
It is sort of fascinating to watch this level of cognitive dissonance play itself out.
On the one hand, you have majik and goddunnit, and on the other hand, you have rational, logical scientific explanations that basically contradict everything the majik book says.
I suppose this approach is more healthy than simply going to war and wiping out the cursed infidels, which is what used to happen.
I still think the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the most reasonable explanation for our self awareness - how else would we understand pasta? And the Ancient texts that prove it were only discovered a few hundred years after the Bible was written to hide the real truth.
I am waiting for Mr Noggin to prove me wrong. So far - nothing.
That again is an assumption. A reasonable assumption, but still an assumption. My point about those geographically isolated humans still in existence today is that they have not intermingled with those that come from civilized society. Everyone 'of Eve' has it. Genesis tells a specific story that illustrates God literally planting the seed of free will into an already established natural world.
Human history reflects this. Civilization spawned throughout Eurasia and northern Africa. But the tribal African cultures south of Sahara, the aborigines of Australia, island-bound tribes were geographically cut off from them. From about 12000 BC on when sea levels rose enough to submerge the Berring Land Bridge cutting off the humans in North and South America from civilization as well. And while there were cultures like the Incas and the Mayans, full-blown civilization didn't bloom until the Eurasian civilizations crossed the seas and reached them thousands of years later.
That date where the western world was cut off from the rest is a dividing line that's telling. It could be culture as you say, but it seems odd that it only happened when and where it did. Populations in close proximity and social needs are not isolated conditions.
It could also coincide with population density or these population may have been enjoying there own free will without a government. You are still trying to marry science with the bible. Stop and ask yourself honestly if this could be the case.
"It could also coincide with population density or these population may have been enjoying there own free will without a government. You are still trying to marry science with the bible. Stop and ask yourself honestly if this could be the case."
It could. But we're talking about two things here...
1. The transition humans had to make somewhere along the way from strictly instinctual creatures like those in the animal kingdom that we evolved from to beings capable of logic and reason and imagination and invention.
2. The transition humans had to make somewhere along the way from wearing no clothing like those in the animal kingdom that we evolved from to wearing clothes for functional reasons to wearing clothing to not be exposed.
So you don't find it strange at all that the typical assumptions about how these developments came about were in no way isolated conditions limited to a single region, yet these developments did only happen in a single region initially? And only happened over the course of many centuries in those regions of the world still geographically accessible? But didn't happen for many, many centuries, and still hasn't, in some parts of the world? Even though those same conditions (population, society, limited food/water supply, drought conditions, etc) do exist to varying degrees in numerous regions around the world?
In both cases the safe assumption is that this was a gradual thing that evolved along with humanity. Yet evidence as we've discussed here suggests otherwise. There's good reason to at least consider this change came rather abruptly in a specific region.
I don't think anyone doubts the incredible burst of creativity and inventiveness that came about along the way as the fist civilizations arose in that region. Yet we're content with just assuming it must have been due to conditions like a dense population though those same conditions can literally be found in numerous other populated locations throughout history that never once had that kind of result? Are we really just going to dismiss any other possibility as impossible with such certainty?
Your assumption that all civilization out side Europe and the surrounding areas lacked creativity and intelligence is simply false. It is know believed that the first people to arrive in the Americas were European and then came the Asians and the joined forces. Creativity has been seen all over North America. Especially the Native people on the West Coast of British Columbia. This Creativity that you speak of is what makes humans survive whereas the Neanderthals seems to lack this creativity and maintained the same tools for thousands of years. On a side note all humans outside of Africa have Neanderthal DNA and it is thought that that DNA has helped our immune systems.
All human population show creativity. Sometimes this creativity displays itself in different ways. I think if you dig into it you will find that city population forced creativity, but what you are calling "civilized" may not be seen the same way in all cultures. Europeans forced the Aboriginals into a way of life that they still struggle with.
Understand that I'm not suggesting naturally evolved humans are slouches in their ability to adapt. That's what they were built for. To do as they were told, populate/subdue the earth and establish dominance in the animal kingdom (Gen 1:28), they would need the ability to adapt. I'm just saying they didn't have a will of their own to propel them to do more than what was commanded of them.
The humans in the cradle of civilization were a bit different. In the span of just about 2000 years or so the Sumerians invented....
"Early Inventions: The ancient Sumerians were very smart. They invented, amongst other things, the wheel, the sailboat, and the first written language, frying pans, razors, cosmetic sets, shepherd’s pipes, harps, kilns to cook bricks and pottery, bronze hand tools like hammers and axes, the plow, the plow seeder, and the first superhero, Gilgamesh.
They invented a system of mathematics based on the number 60. Today, we divide an hour into 60 minutes, and a minute into 60 seconds. That comes from the ancient Mesopotamians.
Some Mesopotamian words are still in use today. Words like crocus, which is a flower, and saffron, which is a spice, are words borrowed from the ancient Mesopotamians.
Government: The ancient Mesopotamians created a government that was a combination of monarchy and democracy. Kings ruled the people. Elected officials who served in the Assembly also ruled the people. Even kings had to ask the Assembly for permission to do certain things.
Law and Order: Law held a special place in their civilization. Sumerian laws were not written down, but people knew what they were and they knew what could happen to you if you broke the law. The Sumerian laws clearly said how you had to behave and what your punishment would be if you did not behave correctly. The laws that were later written down by the ancient Babylonians were, for the most part, laws first created by the ancient Sumerians.
You can see why we say that these were extremely clever people. We owe them a lot!
Cities: Ancient Sumer was a bustling place of three or four hundred people. (Just kidding.) The ancient Sumerians built many cities along the Tigris and the Euphrates Rivers. Archaeologists believe that their largest city, the city of Ur, had a population of around 24,000 residents."
See the difference?
The only reasonable explanation is population density. Humans creatively adapting to an environment.
Think about that, though. Here we're dealing with a kind of chicken/egg conundrum because it was that inventive nature the Sumerians are noted for that allowed for that population density in the first place. So which came first? The inventions that allowed for a large population had to first be inspired by the necessities created through conditions that are not isolated to this one location.
Yes, already the earth is 50% over populated and it can only get worst.
No for me, I am prepared for the worst
And what if Greek mythology wasn't entirely fictional? Sounds like the same story. We should all pray to Zeus and Hercules.
They all sound a lot like the same story because they all are the same story. Just different descendants of Noah after they were dispersed at Babel. The lifespans of these descendants continued to last for centuries for generations. By generation 20 Abraham only lived to 175. Moses died at 120. Before that there were literally dozens, hundreds, maybe more, who lived a very long time and would have been quite god-like compared to mortal/natural humans.
well, nonsense usually doesn't match up so well with all the evidence. Maybe you can tell me what it is exactly that you know that allows you to deem this nonsense with such certainty. Because many people have initially approached what I'm saying with that same kind of certainty, ready to pick it apart, only to leave not nearly as certain.
Evidence, you have evidence. Please share any evidence you have that is NOT in the bible.
Well, rad man, we're discussing existence here, so you kind of have to look at everything. The bible, human history, science. Everything. I have hubs that go into more detail. I have a blog that goes even further. If you have any questions I'll be happy to address them.
You base all your assumptions on the book of nonsense.
Nope. This is a combination of known human history, the history of the earth and evolution of life according to science, and the bible. I line everything up with known facts and evidence. The bible is just the guide. In this modern age we now know enough to be able to actually see how it all played out. We just have a bunch of pre-conceived ideas getting in the way.
Shhh, I've got some swamp land I'm going to sell him. If I can only somehow connect it to the bible he'll buy it.
Wait a minute jomine
It makes perfect sense if God is sadistic megalomaniac bully who pushes most people around who are not even aware of Yahweh. You promote Yahweh by threatening all lives on earth, if that does not work the threaten to be torture them for eternity. That's because Yahweh God loves you very very deeply greater than you can imagine or think. The Yahweh fight club is simply jomine, what is so hard to understand, you burn in hell forever or join the World Champions killing team like a the totally true fairy tales in the bible. Just give it up jomine Adam is the smartest man who ever lived, we can only get dumber as time goes on and live shorter lives as Christian bring us One World Religion, it's cool it will all be over in 2012 anyways.
Just three question for feenix
1. I wonder, was Adam smarter than Jesus?
2. Since after the flood man has not manager to live over the average age of 40 until mid 1800 when smarty pants Darwin made us think about Evolution, Is God going to kill most of us because we became smarter again?
3. If everyone on earth become whole heartily faithful to Yahweh and everyone follow him to the end of earth. Would Yahweh give us back the incentive plan of living to the age of a 1000 years ? If so, I Personally would Join in a HEART BEAT!!!!
Your words "Homo sapien humans were no different than us physically."
This gives me pause. You do realize WE are homo sapiens?
Yes, I do. But so are aborigines. Physically, we're no different. But starting with the Sumerians in Mesopotamia there have been those humans who continued to live in harmony with the natural world, content to live a simple tribal lifestyle, while others became very inventive and imaginative, inventing tools, studying the natural world and the heavens, endlessly pondering life's questions, writing literature and making music and art and civilizations and armies and weapons and governments. Meanwhile, aborigines and tribal African cultures continue to live as humans had for tens of thousands of years.
I have often seen a person make an attempt to discredit some one else by taking a schoolyard-type jab at him or her.
I've gotten used to it. I've had these discussions many times. The more someone tries to dig into my theory to pick it apart the more the conversation begins to turn. It becomes harder and harder to deny the more you get into it, but to accept what I'm saying for many would be a rather jarring realization.
So it can sometimes make otherwise very rational people get a little irate. You see a similar reaction in believers who try to defend a young-earth view. After a while some begin to attack me or God or the bible or whatever. I can understand that. So I just plant the seed, sit back, and let this idea sink in and marinate for a while. It just takes time.
You wouldn't believe the number of discussions I've had that have been totally deleted from hubs. I'll go back to see if they've responded and find any mention of me or my theory totally gone.
You don't have a theory. This is the typical refrain of the Christianist.
"Woe is me. They attacked me as speaking nonsense."
You speak nonsense. There is no jarring realization to be had. What you suggest is ridiculous because it has no basis in fact.
It has plenty of basis in fact. Literally too much to mention. I wouldn't know where to start. So how about this. You tell me what you know for a fact that proves me wrong. We can start there. I've had this discussion with dozens of very knowledgeable individuals hell-bent on showing me and everyone else I'm full of it. Whole hubs have been written to do so, only to be edited later to remove my involvement. But I won't say I can't be wrong. Anyone can be wrong. Maybe you'll be the one to finally prove it. This is my world view we're talking about so if you could show me that I definitely have something wrong here then you'd be doing me a favor. I don't set out to be wrong. I set out to find answers. I want the truth. It's important to me.
No - it has no basis in fact. It has basis in a book of myths.
And we go back to you spouting nonsense and demanding others prove it wrong.
Sadly - This is why your religion causes so many fights.
You can think that if you like. I've got plenty of information available if you ever want to really look into it before dismissing it.
No - you have your baseless opinion, not information, and certainly no facts.
"No - you have your baseless opinion, not information, and certainly no facts."
No Mark, that statement is a baseless opinion. You haven't read my hubs, haven't read my blog, yet make a statement like that as if you know. Just like I don't expect you to take my word for it, I'm not just going to take yours either. You'll have to prove your statement. My theory includes 5.54 billion years of earth's history and hundreds of thousands of years of human history. If I'm totally off base then this should be child's play for you to pick apart.
I have read your hubs and blog. (Some of it) - I could only take so much. No offense.
Your theory is not a theory. Please stop speaking to me as though I am an idiot. All I have seen in what I have read of your is baseless opinion.
LOL Once again - you speak nonsense and ask me to prove it wrong. Sadly - This is why your religion causes so many fights.
Personally, I always try to use Mohammed Ali's "Rope-a-Dope technique."
My comment was not a school yard jab. If the stories are the same and you only believe the stories of the bible. Why would you find greek mythology not real? Why not start praying to Zeus?
I get the point you were making, and didn't personally see your comment as a jab, but I can also see how feenix might read it that way.
During my many years on this earth, I have heard a very large number of nonsensical questions.
I'm sorry you could not make sense of my question. Perhaps if you read it slowly.
I could not make sense of the question?
I believe that you intended to say, "I am sorry you could not UNDERSTAND my question?
Anyway, I will end this comment by saying, Quite often, I read questions in these forums that are very silly, and that are nothing more than one's pathetic attempt to be witty and/or clever.
I was just using your own language. How about you try to ignore the grammatical errors of a dyslexic and look at the reasoning and thought behind the words. If you can do that then I'll ignore your obvious tendency to be rude.
I can understand feenix grammar , Rad don't you need a higher degree of truth to be rude or to feel a decent insult?
I have an understanding with people for about 95% of the time.
With Feenix he finds people here quite often pathetic and with very large number of nonsensical questions
Result- a very large number of nonsensical answers, in put= output
Over the years, I have learned that the world of writing can be very unforgiving.
In fact, many a writer has gone down the tubes because he/she could not, or did not take the time to, effectively express, in writing, his/her thoughts, ideas, opinions, views or points.
And if I am not mistaken, when one implies that another is so dense that he should read something slowly in order to gain an understanding of what was written, that is the epitomy of being rude.
Yes, my response was rude, about as rude as each of your responses.
Your words "During my many years on this earth, I have heard a very large number of nonsensical questions."
1 her nonsensical way of talking: meaningless, senseless, illogical. ANTONYMS logical, rational.
2 a nonsensical generalization: foolish, insane, stupid, idiotic, illogical, irrational, senseless, absurd, silly, inane, harebrained, ridiculous, ludicrous, preposterous; informal crazy, crackpot, nutty; daft. ANTONYMS sane, sensible.
Yup, rude. If you don't like it don't dish it out.
Others being rude towards me does not upset me in the least.
And one of the primary reasons why that is the case is I can give as much as I take.
Also, nearly all of my responses are indirect in nature. I always try to keep it off the "you."
As an example, when I wrote, During my many years on this earth, I have heard a very large number of nonsensical questions -- I did not apply that statement to anyone. I kept it general.
Now, if someone chooses to take that statement personally, there is nothing I can do about that.
A few points if YOU don't mind,
YOU started with a rude indirect comment. Perhaps your one of those that thinks he is so smart his insults won't be understood.
I noticed all your responses are indirect. Doesn't matter. Rude is rude.
You are correct in that is someone want to take your statement personally, there is nothing you can do about that. Well you are not correct, because you don't have to write them as such.
I am not offended by your rudeness. I know your type. You are just trying to entertain yourself at others' expense. Oh no was my grammar wrong? Please fix it for me oh smart one.
Pictures come to us before words do, yet every word in the Bible is true,
Sorry can't picture every word or history tale is true from just one book out of millions.
I thought being rude was not being able to follow Yahweh rules, I guess we have all failed with that too. words can't harm me, negative Behavior can.
During my many years on this earth, I have heard a very large number of nonsensical questions.
it's time to change up who you hangout with
Hello, Headly von Noggin,
I really did enjoy reading your response to what I wrote.
You provided me a with a lot of food for thought and I am printing out what you wrote so I can have it for future reference -- like when I start writing a novel about "The Theory."
I have 3 hubs on the topic under the title 'God created Evolution' as well as a blog where I wrote more extensive pieces before I became a Hubber. This goes well beyond just realizing Adam wasn't the first human. If you continue to follow that train of thought you'll eventually find that it seamlessly fits in with known history and helps explain the dawn of civilization from the Sumerians to the Egyptians and beyond. Eventually you'll find that all of these seemingly unrelated puzzle pieces start to snap together every direction you look. Human history, science, mythology, as well as the rest of the bible.
What museum in the world, would support your theory
If you Step into the prehistoric and biblical time of the world's largest Creation Museum in Kentucky USA. The creation/evolution controversy only began when the word dinosaur was invented in the 1800s. Most people internationally today, believe that man began 180,000 years ago. Many Americans believe and the the bible says the earth began over 6000 years ago.
The Creative Museum is a Museum that presents origins of the Universe, Life, Mankind and man’s early history according to the book of Genesis. Earth and all of its life form were created 6000 years ago an over six-day period. It shows dinosaurs and human coexisted, and the dinosaurs were in the Noah’s Ark along with T REX
Do you support this Museum, if not , what Biblical Museum do you support because the Flintstones documentary is not enough
Interesting that the dinosaurs were able to fit in a boat 500 feet long when many dinosaurs were over 200 feet long. Two of them end to end would be about all you could fit.
They all piggy backed together and all shared the same vegetables buckets (hold the meat please). extremely co operative animals without becoming water logged, weather proof and rust proof too
Anything is possible in the Holly lands under one God= Yahweh, all other Gods and people are fakes and liars, which we know how Yahweh shows his love to them
dinosaurs went extinct about 65 million years ago. flood happened about 6000 years ago.
From what version of bible study did you find this information. Where there were dinosaurs or these kinds of dragons like creature 65 millions years old.
From no plan or idea where you are coming from, then how do you know where you are going?
I thought the current creationist theory was that the dinosaurs allied with Satan and didn't get on the boat, thus dying in the flood. Hence all of the dinosaur extinctions at the K-T boundary. Apparently Noah's flood was rich in iridium.
Of course, this doesn't explain why plesiosaurs and mosasaurs and other marine creatures also died out at the flood-caused K-T boundary, but I'm sure creationists can make something up.
That can be explained by the lock ness monster. Well he can't explain it now because he's under water. You see what I did there...
You have to admit Mr Noggin is entertaining.
Persistent and - I have to admit - consistent to a large degree.
I do not support this museum because it promotes bad human interpretation over scientific knowledge.
So no other Biblical Museum exist to support Christian science and natural history?
I don't know. I would hope there is. You have to understand that a lot of the knowledge needed to actually be able to see how well Genesis lines up with history has only been learned in the past decade or two. What was known before that wasn't very widely known. Between the combination of an abundance of available/accessible information and the exponentially larger knowledge base regarding the history of the world, only now are we able to really get a clear enough picture to realize the context that Genesis is actually set in. And now it makes a lot more sense.
Hello, Castle Paloma,
My mama taught me that it is not nice to be condescending.
Tell that to the other 10,000 Gods, how can I be condescending if everyone has been getting dumber by every generation since Adam
I promote everyone as God as we are all created equal, I.m not promoting my group as the superior super human beings with a one sided God called Yahweh. How in the World or Universe am I being condescending when you are claiming just one stop shop and be all way to GOD???
Debating 101: Put words into the mouth of the one you oppose, then go about the business of shooting down what you contend that he/she said.
Not into debates or argument and trying to get a closer understanding from anyone or group
Your God demands one only his side and over obedience or else the punishment is far greater than the crime. it would be nice according to you to join this kind of social club, Yet I known it would be unkind for my soul to promote any kind of spiritual political fighting or any kind of concept of hell in it
Why would one who is "not into debates or arguments" participate in the forums of HubPages?
Also, opening a remark by saying, "Your God demands ... " is argumentative. Only a person who is looking for a fight would preface a statement in that manner.
I do not encourage angry discussion, that is your gift to the Forum, and I give you back your gift to me for it belongs to it's rightful owner, you.
Yahweh has 10 commandment that nobody can achieve here on Earth
My 2 commandment can be achieve by most people and I am living proof they are achieved
1. Be Honesty
2 Do not Harm
What can be as simply, productive and peaceful as this?
Sentience came first. When the universe was "made" there was a GAP between its Origin, and homo sapiens. Adam and Eve were an idea, and taken out of context, may be looked at as mere firsts of a kind. Ideally, at least conceptually, Adam and Eve were words (as were all things created of GOD, semiotically speaking[In the beginning was the WORD/LOGOS]). The Logos, or, logic, speaks of a "type-set," textually, Male and Female. Different, but one of a kind (which is a type) -- human. "Ish," Hebrew for Man (Adam) and "Isha," Hebrew for Woman (Eve). Ish means firm, and it is imbedded in Isha, denoting the feminine article "a" (Like YHWH, or SHEKINAH - connotes a feminine presence). ISH - means firm, and ISHA means gentle and firm. What came first was an IDEAL set, at least biblically, which teaches what man and woman are to and for one another. Both are to reciprocate the (tsela - Hebrew for side - where the proverbial "rib" came from) other side of one another. Male mirrors the "feminine side" and female mirrors the "masculine side." Male and female, then, as mirrors of their own egos, independent of singularity. "It is not good for man to be alone." Therefore, I should say that offspring would be both impossible alone, and if man were indeed given BONE OF HIS BONES AND FLESH OF HIS FLESH. What he was given, was a place to disseminate (Eve as earth) his genetic matter. What came first, was the WORD, which, too, became flesh, and dwelt amongst us. Translated from LOGOS, the Word, Christ, did the same - in that he disseminated his sentience, even amongst a type "IN (prepositional status of man) his image. IN, an infinite THING IN ITSELF. Not that we resemble what GOD "looks like," but that we have the capacity to reciprocate GOD's hypostases: Male, Female and either son or daughter. We are IN GOD, conceptually, since anything that is infinite cannot cease to be either here, or there. Again, first of all things is LOGOS, LOGIC - and it spoke, and it made man to act, live, think, fuck (if you will) and reproduce like ITS SELF. Consider that in time, God made these things, from eternity... so time as a tenet of the quantum mechanics of the universe is altogether, somewhat of a philosophical anomaly. It is difficult to deduce one way or another whether ADAM AND EVE were homo sapiens, though it is certain that they were IDEAL from a truly Religious perspective...where Religare is revered as the etymological origin of the word, "religion." Religare means "to bind together," and I think science (Latin: knowledge) should do just that - Ideally speaking. Yes, Sentience "came" first.
haha this is awesome did you ask in the religious forums? I want to follow this one awesome point made here thumbs up to ya
No - I just feel through where I feel I need to either conjecture, or offer what little I know. Maybe we all know more than we think we do... the subconscious is always active whether we are conscious of what it is picking up or not. Who are you, Starme?
I really like that, Brandon. I point out that when God, in first Genesis, creates man, "In the image of God made he him, male and female made he them." I see that as stating clearly that the feminine aspect is one with the image of God, just as the male aspect. Answering the age old question: Is God male, or female. The answer is 'YES'
Both Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I have an interpretation of Blaspheming the Holy Spirit as being the same idea as Solomon had about a scorned woman - "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned." Ultimately, according to Christ, one cannot be forgiven for Blaspheming the Holy Spirit (YHWH's Shekinah Glory), but "all other blasphemes against either the Father or the Son," Christ followed that these could be forgiven. In it all, I think that the bride of Christ, the CHURCH, is a fourth to the Hypostases of the Godhead. A father with his bride, and a son for who there is a plan to create a holy bride for him. It is romantic, really, that Christ wants a bride that believes his word, and waits with joy for his return. There are probably 1000s of instances where the Feminine in the Trinity is proven very easily, even in the English translation. Yes - I LOVE IT TOO - It gives me hope to know that God has a maternal nature. This may be why the Kabbalist idea of the Matrana (sp.?) so on and so forth...
@Castlepaloma, I just noticed this forum. You started another fun one. Thanks!
The dates you mention in the OP are of course estimates and interpretations. It can cause problems if we treat them as absolutes or "truth."
The anthropological dates are minimums. That Homo sapiens has been around for at least 200,000 years only means that they may have been around that long or LONGER. Forty years ago, one encyclopedic source showed that Homo sapiens had been around for 50,000 years. See what I mean. In forty years, the age of humanity has grown (from new discoveries) from 50,000 to 200,000 years. Since we haven't discovered everything, there remains the possibility that Homo sapiens could be considerably older.
The Adam and Eve date looks like the Archbishop Ussher date for Genesis and a biblical timeline, but this is based on his interpretation. Even Sir Isaac Newton tried his hand at a biblical timeline, arriving at one close to that of Ussher. And Ussher's was published when Newton was only 7 years old.
But Ussher was taking Genesis literally. There are many dates that Ussher's brilliant scholarship found that we still use in conventional, secular history (like the deaths of Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great). He was that good. But there were many things Ussher didn't know, in 1650 AD, about history.
Ussher's date for the Flood was 2348 BC, but he didn't know that Egypt's Sixth Dynasty started 3 years after that date and that Sargon the Great conquered Sumer 13 years after that date. Too much was going on for the Flood to have occurred then, if it happened at all.
There is precedent in the Bible for using a factor to greatly lengthen the numbers given and the clues lead to a Flood date of 27,970 BC, and a start for humanity (Adam and Eve) of 10,434,130 BC.
The fact that we should not take Genesis literally is suggested in numerous places. For instance, the fact that Adam and Eve would die on the day they ate the forbidden fruit, but did not literally, physically die on that day, means that we need to take the statement interpretively. In other words, we must interpret the meaning from context. Adam and Eve died spiritually, not physically.
Genesis 5:2 is another example that Genesis must be taken with interpretation and wisdom, rather than literally. It says that Adam was both male and female and "they" and "them," not "him." Adam was all of early humanity. In fact, the Hebrew word used means exactly this -- not the individual man, but the who group of all men -- humanity.
I cover this new timeline in one of my hub series on Genesis.
From your hubs I don't get what you are saying,
Adam or no other human being ever had sex with Homo Sapien but did have sex with Neanderthal women, who were some what attractive, I guess with enough wine any woman can seem attractive to a med evil male
Then God did not grant Neanderthals life upon the flood because it was too shameful to allow these kinds of relationships with superhuman to be continue. Maybe God was so embarrassed or for some reason God took Neanderthal out of the human gene pool. In spite of this proof, today professional scientist keep finding the Neanderthal gene in human except humans genes from Africa where Adam and Eve were created. Thank God Adam was too smart to have ape sex with an Neanderthal woman and obeyed God long list of sinner laws, or what would our world come to?
Is the the right track?
You are right regarding homo sapiens. According to genetic evidence, both homo sapien and homo neanderthalensis are descendants of homo heidelbergensis. Genetic testing estimates these two lineages began to diverge genetically about 400,000 years ago and were fully separate populations by around 370,000 years ago.
The issue with chronological determinations based on the bible is that there's an unknown gap of time between the books of Moses and the rest. The books of Moses were already ancient history and were very much a mystery even in the eras that most of the rest of the bible was written. In the centuries leading up to the birth of Jesus there were those in the Jewish community who were dedicated to deciphering the unknowns in the books of Moses.
But to not take the story of Adam and Eve literally is a disservice to those stories and ignores the copious amount of specific information given about how old each person was, who begat who, and all of the references throughout the rest of the bible that treat these as real events. Genesis is telling a literal story about real people.
I've read a bit about the idea you're suggesting to greatly increase the lengths of time given, but that just seems to be a way to try and reconcile two opposing views that conflict with one another. Plus it seems it would not be worth the effort it would take to tell a story using such a purposefully misleading or purposefully ambiguous method. It just doesn't make sense to me. Maybe it would make more sense to me if you could tell me what the purpose would be conveying a story in this manner.
If you believe this, you are completely delusional.
Thanks for the assessment. Maybe you could help a brother out beyond the initial assessment by telling me what exactly makes you so certain of that?
Besides the fact that you're claiming a work of allegorical fiction to be literal fact? Do I need another reason?
Maybe some of the begatters and begatted were the names of real people. I'll give you that one. Did they live to be 900 years old? No. To believe that as literal fact is just ridiculous.
And what makes that ridiculous exactly? There was a time that the idea that the universe as we know it was once condensed into a singularity that expanded outward was considered utterly ridiculous. Just the idea that the universe even had a beginning was scoffed at. There was a time when the idea that our bodies actually being colonies of billions of individual cells working in unison would have been dismissed as ridiculous.
So, what exactly tells you that beings living that long is absolutely ridiculous now? Every civilization from that region of the world claimed beings in their ancient past lived immortal lifetimes. We assume nowadays it's all myth and assume that's just the human brain trying to make sense of things it didn't understand. But who says? That's just our best guess given what we know. That's our human brains trying to make sense out of something we don't understand.
In fact, if you look at the history of this planet and all the crazy things that had to happen just for us to be here having this conversation, you might think twice at deeming anything ridiculous if you really thought about it.
And then it was demonstrated by empirical observation and data, turning the Big Bang Hypothesis into the Big Bang Theory. So if you can provide empirical evidence that people lived to be 900 years old in the days before medicine, hygiene, and sanitation, I'll accept it as a possibility. If not, I will continue to assert that it is a ridiculous belief.
That's my whole point. The idea first came about as a possibility. The guy that first came up with it did not prove it. Others who believed it possible as well proved it. Now we're all better and more knowledgeable for it. And all along the way were the scoffers who sounded much like you do now. Those that declared with absolute certainty that that's just ridiculous.
Prove that humans once lived to be 900 years old and I'll quit scoffing. Until then, I'll continue to declare with 99.99999% certainty that it is a ridiculous notion.
The turtle is well known for it's longevity and performs only one major exercise - stretching its neck. Humans greatest pass time is stretching the truth, 900 year old men is not bio physically possible.
Another stretched story was Christopher Columbus, history book claimed he was the first man to discover to discover America. Total disregard all the hundreds of tribes that live here, or the Viking or even the Chinese
Columbus wasn't even the first to bring slavery, piracy and goal rush. I will give Columbus credit for being the first Christian. Now imagine stretching the truth from the Bible stories back 1000s of years that make little sense
As I'm sure everyone is familiar, Genesis says Adam and Eve were formed by God and He breathed the breath of life into them, making them living beings (Gen 2). They were created outside of what we know bio-physically (Gen 1). Genesis specifically describes humans as mortal and limited to up to 120 years (Gen 6:1-3), one chapter after listing the lifespans of Adam and his descendants spanning centuries (Gen 5). The whole reason for the flood was the result of these two lines intermingling, creating a 'wicked' element in the Mesopotamian valley. That's why lifespans of the descendants of Noah decreased gradually from one generation to the next. As it says, 'God's spirit would not contend with humans forever'.
The Sumerians of Mesopotamia also describe the lifespans of their kings, according the Sumerian Kings List, as being incredibly long before the flood, and gradually decreasing afterwards. They were the first human civilization and they resided in the same region that serves as the setting of pre-flood Genesis during the same time frame it's set in. They also say there were immortal gods who were human in form, that walked the earth, that actually inhabited the temples built in the middle of each Sumerian city-state, that taught them civilization, and that had children with mortal humans creating a race of demigods, most notably Gilgamesh.
The Greeks told a very similar version of their ancient history. As did the Romans. We know very well what all of these civilizations accomplished. And all of this was accomplished in the span of just a few thousand years after little to no change in how humans lived for the hundreds of thousands of years prior. It all started right there. In that region. The 'cradle of civilization'. We still have no explanation that adequately explains this revolutionary change in humanity in such a short amount of time.
We know those civilizations actually did make revolutionary advances in technology and craftsmanship and agricultural practices that forever changed how humanity exists on this planet in a very short amount of time. The Sumerians claim they were taught by immortal beings. According to Genesis, Adam and his descendants would have lived the equivalent of 7 to 10 mortal human lifetimes. It also says Cain went out into the 'land of Nod' and built a city. The Sumerian city of Eridu in southern Mesopotamia is the oldest known city in the world. And it was the home of a Sumerian God called Enki. The Sumerians believed they were created by these gods to serve them because they used what they were taught to provide for the god of the temple.
If we maybe found the 'needle' of remains of one of these beings in the 'haystack' that is the Mesopotamian landscape then maybe we could have the physical evidence we need assuming skeletal remains could confirm it. However, that region is a bit of a political hotbed that makes for little in the way of opportunity to explore there. For example, the majority of excavations done that provide us with the flood history of this plain were done way back in the 1920's. Maybe someday we'll have more access.
Sumerian city-state, that taught them civilization, and that had children with mortal humans creating a race of demigods, most notably Gilgamesh.
Hollywood has a lot access stories about demiGods and I'm sure Cavemen during the stone had many stories to entertainment themselves too.
Where is the fossil of these Gods, angels and Giants
Just the fact that we know about these stories and can read them ourselves should inform you of their importance in that time. This is because documents of importance were fired in kilns to be permanent. It could be that these were just stories for entertainment, but I think that view overlooks the clues that inform us these people held these writings in high regard.
I would like to think evidence can be found, but there are issues. Issue one, a majority of these beings were said to have been swept away in a flood. Considering the region in question is right on the shore there's good chance they were swept out to sea.
But surely not all of them. The only problem there is the fact that the region we're talking about is modern day Iraq. I don't think I need to tell you how complicated that is.
Also, just to be clear, I never mentioned angels. Giants maybe. Sumerian depictions of their gods showed them to be roughly 1/3 larger than the Sumerian people. The bible supports this as well noting the Nephilim in Genesis 6 as living both before and after the flood, then noting them again in Numbers 13 as being large in stature. So much so that they were immediately recognized as descendants of the Nephilim by the Israelites.
That makes perfect sense!!! all evidence was destroyed in the flood, do you think you can convince most professional scientist about your find
Yes the first ice age lasted 500 million years and the second Ice for a million, how dose work out in biblical years?
Maybe Jesus is just Frozen in Ice, still, his second coming won't get him elected in America
Whoever believes in Adam and Eve also is a firm supporter of incest which is disgusting!
The Adam and Eve at the dawn of time 77 million years ago were from two different galaxies, Anna and Du which is what we call them were living amoungst the stars the suns and the comets. Both were not originals on the planet Earth it's where we get white people from ........they were fair and highly intelligent with supernatiral abilities and help from their Gods.
Or another galaxy. Adam, returned to guide us all?
I wonder how they managed to deal with all the many species of carnivorous dinosaurs roaming the planet and managed to live through the catastrophic event that led to their extinction?
by Alexander A. Villarasa4 years ago
EXCEPTIONAL--- a word that humanists, of all colors and stripes, unreservedly applies to Homo Sapiens. However, in the atheist's world, Homo Sapiens is neither exceptional, nor for that...
by Alexander A. Villarasa7 years ago
The common thread that weaves through Atheism,Objectivism and Reductionism is the belief that reality can and must only be rationalized purely on the basis of its material or physical form.Atheism posits that anything...
by Martin5 years ago
What do you think is the reason we are on this planetDo you ever sit and wonder why we are here. Plus do you wonder what is it we are suppose to do on this planet. Because if you think about we are only down here for a...
by A Troubled Man5 years ago
Why would God create such a hostile environment for humans such as the Earth? There are all kinds of natural disasters; earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis, etc, that in the last decade alone have accounted for hundreds...
by Akita Daniel Omosivwe5 years ago
What would have happened to man if Eve did not commit that sin in the Bible?One thing that I have been thinking about is Gen. 2:25 and Gen. 3:5, concerning Adam & Eve. These first people created were not ashamed...
by Cindy Vine15 months ago
If Adam and Eve were the only two people on Earth, who did their children marry?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.