Survey Results: Origins and Evolution

reply to post by undo


Answerable assuming they should be asked. Someone could ask any question. The fact they could answer it by translating it a certain way is in no way proof the question is valid, nor the context true.

reply to post by nenothtu


Truth Truth Truth my good sir! I mean, I don't really think many of the details we add onto them are all that legit. They are left ever so ambiguous and undetailed for the purpose to hear them in a new generation.

That's precisely how I view it. No where in the bible does it say on XYZ the world was created, and does it not say to not worry about that information withheld from you generation? God's clearly got a point. We are a family. We must stand together in that faith. We must bring as many as we can onto this lifeboat of faith against the sinking Titanic that is this world. Tis more noble for one to have faith in Christ and live his teachings than to be just a listener of the world whom causes division and hatred in his wake, least we forget RG.

I do enjoy speculation and thoughts, and debunking, and all this ats goodness. So I never claim the things I speculate are truth unless I find good reason to think them so. Merely speculation. Sometimes freakishly alien to what may be truth for the purpose of defeating those with closed minds and seeking to corrupt history for their own beliefs of what may have been. We must focus on the core truth. When we have been revealed the side details, and we know them to be truth, then we will know.

reply to post by nenothtu


oh i just saw your story! i read your first paragraph and didn't finish your post. *smacks self*

now that's verrrrrrrrrrrry interesting. who are your people?

reply to post by KingJames1337


Absolutely correct. I don't know when Zoroastrianism came into existence prior to the 6th century BC. But that is the oldest proof of its organization and existence. Hell, we don't even have an exact date of Zoser's existence. It's anywhere between 3000BC to 600BC.

Without proof, there is no reason to go parading around like it definitively existed in 3000BC. After all, if the date of the flood is correct, that being somewhere around the 1st intermediate period of Egypt, then Zoser may very well have been what religion existed prior to the flood. But then it's members lost, and its truth lost with it.

As such, all we can know for sure is that Zoroastrianism existed in the 6th century BC. Beyond that? Speculation. It could very well be that Zoroastrianism came into existence when people like Holofernes heard of Judaism and compared it to their own local traditions.

What we do know is that Zoroastrianism is NOT original. It has things in its own mythos taken from far older cultures.


If you want to go look up Gobekli Tepe, go ahead. I think you'll find it quite amazing.

seeking to corrupt history for their own beliefs of what may have been.

reply to post by Gorman91


erm what makes one person's version corrupt and the other's not? you like your evidence. i like mine.
this is not rocket science.

reply to post by nenothtu


May I ask what people? This seems really interesting, and could be a tale of running into neanderthals, then the neanderthals chasing them away. Further interesting if the Nephilim did indeed physically leave the earth. I've had dreams where humans and nephilim fought for some ancient alien people, whom were less intelligent than mankind, but saw the ability of mankind and wanted it for their own army. It's not biblical nor anything, it's just dreams. Still, dreams are fun.

reply to post by undo


To be honest, my translations are from a closely kept and carefully maintained long lineage of elders, priests, Jesus Christ, his apostles, Romans, Greeks, Germans, Syrians, Persians, Arabs, Egyptians, Spaniars, etc etc. Whose safe keeping have constantly been divided and rejoined by geography, politics, religion, and many other things, and whose splitting and rejoining have always shown the same writings, no matter how long apart; whom were paranoid of any changes, going all the way back to Moses. You looked up the original texts and I doubt you have much of a masters in cultures and languages. I simply trust my translations better than a random person on the internet.

Not insulting you. Merely comparing your claims to mine.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by undo

 

To be honest, my translations are from a closely kept and carefully maintained long lineage of elders, priests, Jesus Christ, his apostles, Romans, Greeks, Germans, Syrians, Persians, Arabs, Egyptians, Spaniars, etc etc. Whose safe keeping have constantly been divided and rejoined by geography, politics, religion, and many other things, and whose splitting and rejoining have always shown the same writings, no matter how long apart; whom were paranoid of any changes, going all the way back to Moses. You looked up the original texts and I doubt you have much of a masters in cultures and languages. I simply trust my translations better than a random person on the internet.

Not insulting you. Merely comparing your claims to mine.

interesting that you should mention that, is that is exactly what the mormons told me when they came to my house to try to convert me. they said, "we have the authority, as passed down from jesus christ via the priesthood, and thru the words of his prophet Joseph smith and from the words of the book of mormon as recounted to joseph smith from the angel moroni" etc etc. of course, the catholics said the same thing "we have the authority because we were given it via christ's promise to peter." and the jehovah's witnesses told me the same thing "we have the only legitimate biblical teaching" and the atheists told me the same thing albeit somewhat differently hehe, and so did the baptists, calvinists, methodists, and the seventh day adventists, and the new agers and etc. and they all made salient points. got to the point i was so confused, thought i was gonna lose my marbles

i just decided one day ENOUGH! i'll go learn what i think it means and pray alot while doing so. and if someone agrees, fine, if not i find out why so i can either verify my mistake or solidify my position.

reply to post by Gorman91


Until the late 17th century, Zoroaster was generally dated to about the 6th century BCE, which coincided with both the "Traditional date"

The "Traditional date" originates in the period immediately following Alexander the Great's conquest of the Achaemenid Empire in 330 BCE. The Seleucid kings who gained power following Alexander's death instituted an "Age of Alexander" as the new calendrical epoch. This did not appeal to the Zoroastrian priesthood who then attempted to establish an "Age of Zoroaster." To do so, they needed to establish when Zoroaster had lived, which they accomplished by counting back the length of successive generations[9] until they concluded that Zoroaster must have lived "258 years before Alexander." This estimate then re-appeared in the 9th- to 12th-century texts of Zoroastrian tradition,[c] which in turn gave the date doctrinal legitimacy. In the early part of the 20th century, this remained the accepted date


By the late 19th century, scholars such as Bartholomea and Christensen noted problems with the "Traditional date," namely in the linguistic difficulties that it presented. The Old Avestan language of the Gathas (which are attributed to the prophet himself) is still very close to the Sanskrit of the Rigveda. Therefore, it seemed implausible that the Gathas and Rigveda could be more than a few centuries apart, suggesting a date for the oldest surviving portions of the Avesta of roughly the 2nd millennium 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. Supported by this historical evidence, the "Traditional date" can be conclusively ruled out, and the discreditation can to some extent be supported by the texts themselves: The Gathas describe a society of bipartite (priests and herdsmen/farmers) nomadic pastoralists with tribal structures organized at most as small kingdoms. This contrasts sharply with the view of Zoroaster having lived in an empire, at which time society is attested to have had a tripartite structure (nobility/soldiers, priests, and farmers).

I mean an estimated date is fine but I'd rather take the theory supported by more evidence. Of course there could have been an exception, such as he lived on an island but I would take it that Zoaroaster was alive prior to king Cyrus.

What myths are you referring to?

reply to post by undo


Well you see, here's where some good 'ol objectivity comes in.

Yes, the Mormons do have such authority. Yes, the Catholics do have such authority. Yes, the new agers, and yes, even the atheists have such authority.

So how to decide?

Luckily the bible has a simple answer to it's inheritance. Judge them by their fruit.

Were you see fruit, their authority is granted. Where you do not, their authority has been withheld.

That can go a long way into discovering the truth, as I discovered in my long and ongoing walk of faith.

Just to cut it short, clearly new agers and atheists have fruit in humanism and other such things. You can feel it. But they have no fruit in reward. After all, you die. Or some as-yet-decided-by-the-shaman thing. There they have no fruit, and sometimes it's downright awful or rotten.


Judge them by their fruit, and you shall know.

reply to post by KingJames1337


You take a bit of a jump there. Firstly there's the assumption of how long before Alexander which is theoretical, and not so acceptable. I'll let it pass for theory, but not for fact. Then you judge it based of writing. Well, writing changes a lot, but it's not a guaranteed dating system for obscure things. If you use writing systems to date a whole empire that had regional power like Egypt, well ok then. If you use it to date tiny fringe groups that later gain power, well no, that's not good. After all, practically the only latin-writing groups in the 11th century AD was a few monk groups on mountains and some places in Italy. If suddenly the huns or someone came over, destroyed everything. and a thousand years later the catholic church was in the same position as the Zosers, then you would date them, oh, about 1500 years off from when they really were.

Not insulting you with thing, but you got to learn to think of things in context to where they are.

As to myths, a bit more specificity in the question would help. Like I said, gobekli tepe seems to tell a story similar to either Noah or Eden. Depends on what you think about. It's from about the 12th to 9th millennium BC. Freaking ancient.

reply to post by Gorman91


Exactly, I'am not going to accept the traditional date which is 6th century b.c because it was all priests speculation that he was alive in 6th century BC, what end of days myths were there prior to Zoaroaster.

reply to post by KingJames1337


Even animals know to run from disaster. I'm pretty sure people have had end of the world ideas for as long as they have known about death. It's not that far of a jump to think of the end of self, and the end of where you are. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if someone told me elephants have been proven to think about the end of the world.

Specifically, Ragnarök seems pretty ancient.

Originally posted by KingJames1337

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?

I don't know of any tablets addressing good and evil right off the top of my head. Of course, there's always the possibility that I missed it because their conceptions of good and evil may have differed from mine.

I think at least one answer was presented right there in your question, the key being the word "tempted". You don't need a literal snake to understand the allegory of "temptation", and how caving in to it may be bad for you. As a matter of fact, some of the times I've encountered the MOST "adversity" have been those when I succumbed to "temptation"...

No actual snakes were harmed during the production of that adversity... I should have listened to the book, instead of making the movie...

reply to post by Gorman91


Yes but why Zoaroasterianism matching Christianity's story and that of Islam.

reply to post by Gorman91

12For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

1 Cor 13:12

Everything else is speculation.

1 Corinthians chapter 13 is the only section of the Bible that I've ever preached a sermon on in a church, and that was years ago to some folks who needed it. The whole book could be of value to folks who think they can beat "unbelievers" over their heads with their bibles until they come around to their way of thinking.

When I was done preaching, they tried to get me to take it as a regular gig, but my job was done there. I'm not a preacher. As people go, I'm not even a good person, much less a preacher.

reply to post by KingJames1337


Like I said. It's a primordial soup of ancient tales. Tales that have existed since before the religion did. After all, Moses founded Judaism, but all those tales are older than he is.

If you want my honest truthful thought, when I look at the History of Egypt, sometimes I replace "gods" with "god" and see what I get. It sometimes is interesting. Because Egypt is renown for rewriting their own history. I imagine it could be that Moses was brought up under the tales, found some more tales when he was in exile, and then they consumed those tales as they marched through the desert and into Canaan. Those were oral at first, and in time written down. Bare in mind the Old Testament was written down during the Exile. Those tales come directly from when the Jews were quite literally bathing in that primordial soup. I see no reason to view Zoser's religion as anything more than the retelling of some imported myths from Arabia, as is the tendencies of all such things in that region.



Simply put, it could be very likely Zoser's stuff is so similar to Christianity's stuff because Zoser may have been a Jew lost in Persia.

reply to post by nenothtu


Sometimes the best preachers are the ones that have lived half their lives as Satan.

Still nice to see and hear such things.

I gave up a long time ago thinking I was going to convince anyone of anything they were hell bent on not at least looking at the available evidence that life evolves, and always will, or its over. I have had to try to teach first year college students some of the most basic concepts of the scientific method, and for some our pathological need to have all the answers now is at least one appeal of religion (to some not to me). As we learn more, develop better experimental tools and via communications improvements share ideas to a greater extent, we constantly modify and adapt our views. Science is a process, not a destination. We will never know “all” the answers, but hopefully we will continue to be open to new evidence and ideas and how to interpret them. Darwin was right to a point, but he had no idea a radical change could occur in one generation (called punctuated equilibrium). I worry a great deal about the anti-scientific attitudes some people have, (think certain Republican candidates). Why? Because regardless if you like it or not we compete with the world, and we better use our (God given if you want to look at it that way) brain.

When I taught a course in history and technology, I had to include the impact of religion over the course of thousands of years or you ignore a major historical component. It’s just the way it is. Organized religion has enslaved many, but only if you let it. I have no problem with believing in the possible potential greater then what the human race is. To think our sorry ass of a species is the end and be all of the universe is itself unscientific. In the end if you reject evolution, thats up to you. What scars me a lot is the rejection of science as a tool, a way of solving problems. The use of science as a tool has proven incredibly useful in solving real problems. What we end up using that ability for in the end is a moral question and a choice, not an intellectual one. Or worse, the idea we should not ask questions. I guess some people have to hide under their beds, given the big scary world out there. I find it creepy and very sad some people need to be led by the nose to the “divine truth”. But the universe is really an amazing thing to experience, and we either take charge of that “experience”, or someone will do it for us. Of course, in a society that values the individual, perhaps the most important western contribution to civilization, were all free to believe what we want. But don’t deny yourself or anyone else what is the birthright of every person on Earth, the right to think for your self. That starts with the first question one asks, and never ends.

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by nenothtu

 

oh i just saw your story! i read your first paragraph and didn't finish your post. *smacks self*

now that's verrrrrrrrrrrry interesting. who are your people?

Shawnee.

Dropped to Earth north of the Great Lakes, and the elders think it was probably the Mississippi River where the battle with the others took place. There's also a legend of a big battle in Kentucky for turf where the entirety of the opposition (a race of red-haired giants, some say), man woman and child, were erased from the planet as physical beings. That battle was the origin of the name "Dark and Bloody Ground" for that state. After the battle, NO Indian of any tribe was allowed to settle permanently there, because the spirits of the dead forbade it. They would only allow hunting there to support families in the starving times - no permanent settlement. One was tried in the early 1700's at Eskippakithiki, but it only lasted about 20 years.