Survey Results: Origins and Evolution

reply to post by undo


Great, but why keep them in there.

Originally posted by undo
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.

Sorry, I don't have an English version of the Torah (which says the same thing you did). A friend of mine does and it's wonderful. I especially like that in the 7 days creation it says that Elohim spoke to the darkness as a part of creation, not that He simply named an inanimate object. I have the Strongest Strong's Concordance and use it in along with several other tools for the original meaning and language of the scriptures when I do my studies. And though I really do appreciate where your coming from, I don't appreciate your attitude. It's not very fitting for a Christian to be so condescending towards anyone let alone another Christian, nor does it show the world we are any different from the world. I'm right there with in that we shouldn't parrot what we've been taught in church or gleaned from our horrendously translated English versions today. Considering I was answering such unresearched, glamour seeking questions (which he got as you can see by the stars he received in the post), I figured going into the original language was not only excessive for the issue being addressed (His haughty attitude about supposedly knowing more scripture than your passing "christian", not the question's themselves) but would lose the interest of those not caring enough to go that deep. Please continue to address the deeper thing's of scripture on these boards, but let me pulls the ones in who don't care about the deeper things so that you can have a bigger audience. We're on the same side : )

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by undo

 

Great, but why keep them in there.

easier to remove the words from the verse that actually aren't there, when they are in an editable box. so posted whole thing with numbers, then visually copied the words by hand, so that the numbers wouldn't interfer with reading the verse

reply to post by michaelwpayton


yeah, sorry. i'm grumpier today than usual. i was pointing out that if adam was a plural word (and it is) and adam was males and females, that the mystery of where cain's wife came from was answered. there were more adam than the one with eve in particular. since adam is still a plural word there, i'm thinking eve was isolated out as different than the other adam females up to that point, to indicate this was a member of the adam race that had been modified. in effect, they all were but this particular one is being referred to because she's in moses ancestoral line.. perhaps moses wanted to personalize it. anyway, it's their lineage the story is following through out the text, up to the birth of christ.

reply to post by undo


Or you could just use Young's translation...

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by undo

 

Or you could just use Young's translation...

nah i prefer the original language in sticky spots like this, where there is so much controversy.

reply to post by undo


Well that's the thing. That's what Young did. He doesn't even translate words if there is no english word for it.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by undo

 

Well that's the thing. That's what Young did. He doesn't even translate words if there is no english word for it.

it's right here
www.htmlbible.com...

this is what he does to the elohim created adam male and female
verse

And God prepareth the man in His image; in the image of God He prepared him, a male and a female He prepared them.

most of those words aren't even in the original text and he used man instead of adam

reply to post by undo


Good Stuff! : ) I accept your apology my good sir. And just well, I would say you are providing the more correct answer on the issue of Cain and his wife. I'm only 22 and haven't had the time to devote to the original language like you must have by now : ) God Bless you undo and enjoy the deeper thing's of God : )

reply to post by undo


That's because the way you are reading it is but one translatable sequence.

Once again, Hebrew is not as diverse in words as English and relied far more on elders and culture to know the words right.

For example, Gen 1:1 can be

First, created God, heaven, earth.

or

First, choose angels in the sky (and the) wilderness!

mb-soft.com...

You cannot simply pick up the original texts and translate them yourself. You need context, otherwise you are as lost as any sheep.

reply to post by Gorman91


Well, when I wrote that, my meaning wasn't that the tales were "untrue", but rather that they've been "yarned up", fleshed out with unnecessary and probably spurious details to make a good tale. I have to ask myself what's more important - to believe that the Earth was literally created on 10 October, 4004 BC at 9 am, or the underlying message, the distilled basis that it was created period - and thus had a creator. Which of those would be more important for a Christian to understand and act upon? Which of those would make more of a difference in an individual's life?

When one stands before the judgement seat, which would more likely be the better defense - "lord, I believed in you, and led in anyone who wanted to know more" or "cap. it was a hell of a fight, but I upheld that the Earth was built on 10 October, 4004 BC at 9 am, and no body ever got to tell me any different. What's that you just said? Spiritual what? Naw, I didn't teach anyone about you, I was busy defending the age of the planet and pissing folks off. ain't ya proud?"

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by undo

 

That's because the way you are reading it is but one translatable sequence.

Once again, Hebrew is not as diverse in words as English and relied far more on elders and culture to know the words right.

For example, Gen 1:1 can be

First, created God, heaven, earth.

or

First, choose angels in the sky (and the) wilderness!

mb-soft.com...

You cannot simply pick up the original texts and translate them yourself. You need context, otherwise you are as lost as any sheep.

edit on 1-9-2011 by Gorman91 because: le spelling

edit on 1-9-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

why not? i'm using their words, minus the ones english/latin translators put in, and now all kinds of questions are being answered.

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by Gorman91

 

Well, when I wrote that, my meaning wasn't that the tales were "untrue", but rather that they've been "yarned up", fleshed out with unnecessary and probably spurious details to make a good tale. I have to ask myself what's more important - to believe that the Earth was literally created on 10 October, 4004 BC at 9 am, or the underlying message, the distilled basis that it was created period - and thus had a creator. Which of those would be more important for a Christian to understand and act upon? Which of those would make more of a difference in an individual's life?

When one stands before the judgement seat, which would more likely be the better defense - "lord, I believed in you, and led in anyone who wanted to know more" or "cap. it was a hell of a fight, but I upheld that the Earth was built on 10 October, 4004 BC at 9 am, and no body ever got to tell me any different. What's that you just said? Spiritual what? Naw, I didn't teach anyone about you, I was busy defending the age of the planet and pissing folks off. ain't ya proud?"

agreed. i think the reason why people start defending the text is because the oddness of it or rather, the oddness of what we have been taught it means for such a long time, gives plenty of room to doubt it to people who read it and aren't sure what to make of it in the first place.

Originally posted by KingJames1337

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.

Perhaps the serpent represents adversity, a sort of "personification" of it. I'll let you decide for yourself just what sort of adversity that might be, but note that the serpent figures into the Epic of Gilgamesh, too. It sneaked in and effortlessly ate the herb of immortality that Gilgamesh managed to lay hold of at great effort, condemning him to mortality.

Another snake stealing someone's chance to live forever... damn snakes! In honesty, though, who really wants to live forever anyhow? Wouldn't that eventually get pretty boring, and be accompanied by all manner of disappointment at the abject stupidity of the human race?

and we have variants on "you're an idiot" every time we mention we think the biblical text might be a valid history, because, the first thing they remember is that some people think the planet is 6000 years old, and that cain had a wife poof outta nowhere, and etc.

Originally posted by undo

agreed. i think the reason why people start defending the text is because the oddness of it or rather, the oddness of what we have been taught it means for such a long time, gives plenty of room to doubt it to people who read it and aren't sure what to make of it in the first place.

The thing is, folks who are doing that are missing the beauty of the forest, because they're examining the bark of the individual textual trees. Put another way, they're killing a single borer bug and letting the forest burn down.

Here's something else to figure in to your theories. My own tribe has ancient traditions that say we didn't come from earth at all. We were created elsewhere, and lowered down from the sky in a basket - 12 original individuals created. It also says we weren't the first people - there were already others here we got into a fight with searching out a home land.

We're the "Real People", of course, but not the "only" people, and others were already here. How those aren't "real people", or where they are supposed to have come from, I never quite got sussed out.

Originally posted by Gorman91
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?



.

edit on 1-9-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

How you know Zoaroastarianism was a 6th century BC formation were you there? Was I there? No, we don't know. I'am sorry if that seems like a dick response I'am not trying to be a dick but we don't know how that came about. I haven't looked up Gobekli Tepe I will have to look it up. Actually Islam was the newest of the beliefs their Adam and Eve story consisting of a rebellious jinn who would not bow down to Adam when god commanded him to do so. The jinn was not like the other angels who couldn't say no to god and because of this he was exiled. You are correct as this corresponds directly with the Jewish beliefs of Jehovah. When in exile they were told you have to believe in Jehovah and must reject all other gods and when they came out of exile rejected all other gods besides Jehovah. It was believed Jehovah wanted fairness and it was not his fault if man suffered because he wanted fairness rather it was man's fault.(book of job).

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by undo

agreed. i think the reason why people start defending the text is because the oddness of it or rather, the oddness of what we have been taught it means for such a long time, gives plenty of room to doubt it to people who read it and aren't sure what to make of it in the first place.

The thing is, folks who are doing that are missing the beauty of the forest, because they're examining the bark of the individual textual trees. Put another way, they're killing a single borer bug and letting the forest burn down.

Here's something else to figure in to your theories. My own tribe has ancient traditions that say we didn't come from earth at all. We were created elsewhere, and lowered down from the sky in a basket - 12 original individuals created. It also says we weren't the first people - there were already others here we got into a fight with searching out a home land.

We're the "Real People", of course, but not the "only" people, and others were already here. How those aren't "real people", or where they are supposed to have come from, I never quite got sussed out.

well just let me put it to you from another perspective. i am, first and foremost a faulty human being. i try not to be a huge pain in the keister, bossy britches or condescending snob,, however, when i see something i think is right and someone tells me it isn't, i need to find out why they think it isn't. if they convince me that it isn't, then i change my view. if they don't convince me that it isn't, then when i hear someone else say the same thing they did, i offer my viewpoint. this is because my viewpoint must be of equal value to yours or i'm not a human any more but a sub species. i don't really want to accept that i'm a sub species if i say something someone else doesn't think is right, because 1) i don't think other people are lesser people because they have a different view, i see them as mountains of knowledge i am going to climb and plant the correct flag on top, and 2) i know i'll learn things too, along the way.

or, i could just sit in the corner, like a good little sub species and let other people tell me what to think. and if you believe that will happen....

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by KingJames1337

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.

Perhaps the serpent represents adversity, a sort of "personification" of it. I'll let you decide for yourself just what sort of adversity that might be, but note that the serpent figures into the Epic of Gilgamesh, too. It sneaked in and effortlessly ate the herb of immortality that Gilgamesh managed to lay hold of at great effort, condemning him to mortality.

Another snake stealing someone's chance to live forever... damn snakes! In honesty, though, who really wants to live forever anyhow? Wouldn't that eventually get pretty boring, and be accompanied by all manner of disappointment at the abject stupidity of the human race?

I'll take what you say about the snake representing adversity, perhaps as in an accident can kill you in a second? Perhaps the snake was their version of the critically acclaimed 1000 ways to die show if you've seen that but it still leaves the question why did the serpent tempt people to eat from the tree of good and evil any tablet mentioning good and evil?

reply to post by KingJames1337


good and evil, i do believe, was predicated on them not procreating. when they accepted the modification so they could procreate, they not only disobeyed, but they forced the situation into a critical mode from the perspective of the other elohim. of course if you read the sumerian-akkadian version, a bit more/or different detail is discussed, such as enlil wasn't fond of enki's creation in the first place, and when enki modified them to procreate, enlil, who appears to have been a hard core environmentalist, was like OH HECK NO. not his exact words, of course.