Survey Results: Origins and Evolution

reply to post by KingJames1337


It's quite likely that, if I am to believe the Bible is truth, that those are changed myths as you get further and further away from the truth, both geologically and spiritually.

People always point to the Sumerian myths, but thanks to gobekli tepe, they seem to be based off even older ones.

reply to post by Gorman91


I believe there is a core of "truth" in all of the old legends, but that kernel has been built upon to be more, to "tell a better story". For example, the Gilgamesh tale. I think there was a real Gilgamesh, King of Uruk, but over time and retelling the legend became more than the man.

Several Years ago Robert Silverberg came out with a book called "Gilgamesh the King", as his take, his retelling of the Epic of Gilgamesh which demonstrated how the acts ascribed could have had a far more mundane origin, through the art of fictional novelization.

In it, Gilgamesh was a real king of Uruk, the goddess Inanna was the priestess of that goddess rather than the goddess herself, and similarly Humbaba, Enkidu, the Bull of Heaven, all had a more Earthly existence than presented in the Sumero-Babylonian epic.

That is just one example, but you get the idea. I think they all may have a soft core of fact, with layers and layers of legend topped off by a crunchy coating. Another example would be Morgan Llewellyn's treatment of the old Celtic gods in novelizations such as "The Horse Goddess" Dealing with Epona, Cernunnos, and Goibnu.

reply to post by nenothtu


Yes I've seen such modernization of tales. I suppose my interest is to show how the lack of specificity in some of them means that we really shouldn't assume anything beyond what is spoken of. Too often local traditions and tales are added onto what was original truth to become dramatized. Perhaps the best example is the Catholic Church. How much of what thy do is actually in the book they profess as truth? Not a whole lot.

It's like I said a bit of a while ago. Maybe the earth is 6000 years old. Certainly it's possible that the earth was simply spun faster, the waters rose from centripetal force to overcome the whole of the Earth, and the continents split apart as the earth expanded from that spinning force to pull apart, then it slowed down, cooled, and came to be what it is today. Certainly would go a long way into explaining so many of the near impossible constructions we see that seem to demand less gravity.

But there's no proof for that.

As a Christian I do think those tales are true in my book. I just look at things that match up in history and seem interesting. I've been happy with what I've found so far.

Originally posted by mister.old.school

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
I was personally one of the minority that voted for young earth creation, since i believe fully in the biblical accounts of the bible, but i already knew there was a high majority of atheist's here so this poll only confirmed it for me.

I understand and appreciate your faith, however, I have two questions based on your statement.

First, which of the two creation stories told in Genesis do you believe to be the correct account?

Second, how was the human race propagated if Adam and Eve only had two sons?

I've heard several variations from the faithful on these two questions, and I'd appreciate if you could provide yours.

I would love to copy and paste Genesis into this forum; however, I don't know that anyone would read it...

There is only one action of creation in the book of Genesis; however, there are multiple references to the same act. As regarding Cain and Able, they were not the only children born of Adam and Eve. Because the first born in a family was considered especially favored of God in addition to the fact that the first born son received the greatest inheritance from the father, genealogy records in the ancient hebrew gave special attention to the first born as well as clashes among the first born of a family when the first born loses their birth right. If you continue into the genealogies of Genesis you will see plainly that, though not listed, additional children of Adam and Eve are mentioned.

As you read through Genesis, you will find that the text divides itself into books differently that we do today. Gensis Chapter five is the beginning of the book of the generations of Adam (this may be the second creation story you were referring to but it is not a second creation story, it is a different book. Another reference to the same act of creation.)

This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; 2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created . 3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth: 4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters: 5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died . 6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos: 7 And Seth lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters: 8 And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died. 9 And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan: 10 And Enos lived after he begat Cainan eight hundred and fifteen years, and begat sons and daughters: 11 And all the days of Enos were nine hundred and five years: and he died .

You may notice first of that neither Cain nor Able are mentioned in this Genealogy. Why do you think that is? It is possible that Able was slain before he could start a family. Also, consider that Cain was forced to flee to another city:

13 And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment is greater than I can bear . 14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid ; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass , that every one that findeth me shall slay me . 15 And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him. 16 And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.

While Cain was still alive, it seems he was disowned by his family and excluded from the Genealogy. This would be a great place to point out if you have family issues today, take comfort in the fact that Adam walked with God at one point and still he had trouble raising his kids. I hope that answers your questions sufficiently

reply to post by Gorman91

Maybe the earth is 6000 years old

The earth is definetly not 6000 years old. Herp derp creationists, be warned.

reply to post by NeverForget


interesting poll.... I wonder why on some of the forums I frequent, the ppl believing the earth is only 6000 years old outnumber us that believe in evolution 10 to 1 ..... maybe i am visiting the wrong forums, lol...

but I am glad to see that the polls show that I'm not alone in my beliefs.

reply to post by NeverForget


Speculation on my part. Didn't say I thought that.

God, both sides to me are really no different. Any thought opposite of dogma is immediately Galileo'd. I suppose man hates an open mind. :/


Suppose you missed the whole "But I don't believe in that".

reply to post by michaelwpayton


it doesn't say "man" in the original. it says ADAM. ELOHIM made ADAM male and female. this preceeded the modified adam and eve story. please quit parroting what you've been taught and read the thing in its original language. we are not king jamesians or pope whateverians.. we are christians.

I don't believe in the duality of creation or evolution. I believe in the polarity of them - the middle path. Some life came about through creation, some through evolution, and some from other planets.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by KingJames1337

 

It's quite likely that, if I am to believe the Bible is truth, that those are changed myths as you get further and further away from the truth, both geologically and spiritually.

People always point to the Sumerian myths, but thanks to gobekli tepe, they seem to be based off even older ones.

Main question still comes why is there a tree of life, perhaps the 'gods' were just their way of explaining the process of life and the blocking of the tree just meant you can't live forever the main purpose of the Epic of Gilgamesh live now, but explain the serpent. And how about Zoaroastarianism, the original end of days theory prior to John the Baptist that came from a flying strange god that was where the concept of fighting good and evil came In.

elohim bara' adam tselem tselem elohim bara' zakar nĕqebah bara'

that's it, the whole verse. there's no "so", no "he him", no "he them", no "in his own"

just elohim created adam image image elohim created male female created

sorry about being snappy. i think i need to quit reading ats for awhile lol

Originally posted by KingJames1337

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by KingJames1337

 

It's quite likely that, if I am to believe the Bible is truth, that those are changed myths as you get further and further away from the truth, both geologically and spiritually.

People always point to the Sumerian myths, but thanks to gobekli tepe, they seem to be based off even older ones.

Main question still comes why is there a tree of life, perhaps the 'gods' were just their way of explaining the process of life and the blocking of the tree just meant you can't live forever the main purpose of the Epic of Gilgamesh live now, but explain the serpent. And how about Zoaroastarianism, the original end of days theory prior to John the Baptist that came from a flying strange god that was where the concept of fighting good and evil came In.

i think the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, are both about DNA, the tree being a reference to the genetic tree, specifically those parts that control longevity and "knowledge", which at the time, was about knowing each other sexually, so it was about longevity and reproduction via sexual intercourse.

reply to post by KingJames1337


I think it's quite literal. There was a tree, it gave life. There was another tree, it gave knowledge. Who knows how this affected us. I imagine it's similar to if I was a gamer placing a window into my world for the ai in the computer.

The serpent? I imagine angels and demons can alter their appearance. It seems like they are made out of light, and as such can appear as they please. I imagine that may be how Islam started, though that's just a theory I am not yet sure on.

Zoroastrianism may have been influenced by early Hebrew exiles. After all, where their religion was founded, today still lives small communities of Hebrews.

reply to post by undo


You cannot control longevity fore ever by dna. Dna will break down by over time irregardless. You can slow it down to near nonexistence, but one day it will break down. The very molecules themselves will.

reply to post by Gorman91


Zoaroastarianism was in place prior to the babylonian exile some dates as far back as 3000 bc.a large majority of persians and other middle eastern peoples believe in it too, the concept of the devil wasn't in place in Jewish religion wasn't in place until after the Persians freed the Jews from the Babylonian captivity.

reply to post by Gorman91


Scholarly mainstream opinion mostly places him near the 11th or 10th century BCE. This 11th/10th century BCE date is now widely accepted among Iranists, who in recent decades found that the social customs described in the Gathas roughly coincide with what is known of other pre-historical peoples of that period.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by undo

 

You cannot control longevity fore ever by dna. Dna will break down by over time irregardless. You can slow it down to near nonexistence, but one day it will break down. The very molecules themselves will.

just makes the most sense to me. the response to the knowledge of good evil tree, is what convinced me.

LORD God said, Behold , man 120 one 259 to know 3045 good 2896 evil 7451: put forth 7971 hand 3027, take 3947 tree 6086 of life 2416, eat 398, live 2425 for ever 5769:

Yehovah Elohim said behold adam one to know good evil put forth hand take tree of life eat live forever

why freak out about the ability to live forever something they hadn't been barred from before that? because they were now reproducing of their own accord. instead of reproducing via elohim creation (which i think is cloning) real big clue is the sudden appearance of pain in childbirth.

reply to post by KingJames1337


Well actually, Zoroastrianism is a 6th century BC formation or so. Prior to that it was merged in a collection of ancient beliefs going waaaay back, that were pretty much scattered all over the region. It's almost safe to say that pretty much Islam, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, and a few other religions of that area all come from the same primordial soup of beliefs, which in turn appear to be some of the oldest beliefs in the world, as prescribed by the aforementioned Gobekli Tepe complex.

After all, Abraham was already believing in God before his calling. And didn't Moses find himself a wife from a wilderness-bound tribe that believed in God?



In fact most of the world's religions, aside from local traditions, can pretty much be sorted into 3 catagories. Indo-European, abrahamic, and atheistic responses to both. Oddly enough, these catagory does include Native American traditions, which appear to be linked to India through unknown means. Slayer69 is working on a thread about that last I heard. And I've found 1750 documents by early colonists claiming to have found what may or may not have been Hebrew inscriptions on ancient ruins dug up in Pennsylvania. Mind you, of course, that's long before Mormons came along. I'll link you to it if you are interested.

Anyway, it would appear that Religions like stoicism and Buddhism were atheistic, or semi-atheistic responses to the Indo-European tradition. Which in turn, the Abrahamic primordial soup of beliefs appear to be older than those indo-European pantheons. If the Bible is to be true, it appears that the Indo-European pantheon were kings and queens, or the men of renown mentioned in Genesis.

reply to post by undo


You added in numbers that were unneeded, and also claims that are unfounded. Once again, you're not thinking objectively.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by undo

 

You added in numbers that were unneeded, and also claims that are unfounded. Once again, you're not thinking objectively.

those numbers are the strongs numbers for the words
www.blueletterbible.org...