Theory about Humans

[Sasquatch]

What the hell is this?

Originally Posted by fragdemon

Wrong, actually.

They actually define the word "day" in the Bible itself, giving it some meaning for the context:

To quote Genesis 4-5:

The day in Genesis terms measured by 1 period of light followed by 1 period of darkness.

No. As I've already said, the literal translation of the word for "day" used in Genesis is the same translation for "day" we use today. Their "day" was from evening to evening, instead of from midnight to midnight (and I think it still is like that in Jewish culture), but it wasn't any longer than it is today. Unless you think that the earth, land, seas, and plants could survive for billions of years without the sun.

Who's to say that the Earth isn't an abstract description of the entire friggin universe.

The Bible?

You can't say that an abstract interpretation of one line wouldn't work because the literal interpretation of another does. That's just genuinely dumb.

I'll tell you what's "genuinely dumb". Trying to manipulate the Bible to suit your own beliefs. The earth mentioned in the Bible is the earth. The rest of the universe was created the fourth day. If don't want to believe the Bible, don't believe it -- if you do, do -- but don't try to manipulate it to your personal beliefs, when it has nothing to do with them. By the way, if you were anywhere correct in your "abstract/literal" thoughts, it would mean that the entire universe, not just earth, was created before light (or the "Big Bang", in this line), which wouldn't make sense either.

Now that I've said that, I should point something out:
Within the bible, it doesn't say that Adam/Eve's children married each other. It implies that they married other people. Especially Cain, who just ran the **** away but was still promised heirs and whatnot.

It doesn't really say. We don't know if God made wives for Cain and the rest of the bunch, but since it doesn't say He did, it's generally assumed that if any other woman was made, it was one for Cain, and that's it. Otherwise, the wording and context in Genesis point to inbreeding.

The main interpretation of this is that, although Adam/Eve were the first humans created, it doesn't mean they were the only humans created. The supposition is, after the banishment from Eden, God made a coupla more folk just to pass the time and make a more substantially populated world.

It's too bad your ideas on the Bible aren't, well, Biblical. Eve was named Eve because she was to become mother of humanity. Nowhere does it say that God "made a coupla more folk" -- it does, however, say that mankind sprang from Adam and Eve, not "Adam and Eve and a couple more folk God created for the hellovit."

The problem with this idea, morally, is that it means that not everyone necessarily has inherited Adam/Eve's natural sin, which of course is a bad thing when it comes to all the lessons we were taught.

Unless you think natural sin is a gene, that wouldn't even come up.

Back when people working with the theory of evolution first began to consistently posit that humans have to have been the product of evolution as well, people had the idea of an Adam creature. A creature whose descendents, descendents would then give birth to humanity. Think an early primate who ended up birthing all of the guys who would birth humanity.

"An Adam creature" refers to the first creature, from which came all of mankind. That's a name for this fictious creature, a label. Nothing to do with Adam and Eve. hellbred was correct in the assumption that a belief in Adam and Eve usually doesn't have anything to do with anything other than the Adam and Eve of the Bible, who were human.

Science just accepts what is the least problematic. Evolutionism is pretty damn problematic, but it's a lot better than the idea of some outward force molding humans. There's a whole bunch of problems with that one.

Evolutionism is the idea of some outward force molding humans. The only difference between Evolutionism and any other religion is that there's no organized worship structure for Evolutionism. Every belief Evolutionism has is congruent with religion.

[hellbred]

Wrong again. The literal translation of the word for "day" used in the Bible is the same word they use now, meaning a 24-hour period. (Actually, back then, it'd probably be more like 23 1/2 hours.) Not a billion years. One day means one day.

I'm going to have to side with Sasquatch on this one. Every church minister I've listened to refers to the time God made the Earth as in literal days. Maybe that's why there are 7 days in a week -- including 1 non-work day

[Secret Azn Man]

What? Can you kindly provide examples of modern science supporting a literal translation of the Bible? Because I find that hard to believe without some examples.

I'm sorry. While I respect the Bible as a literary work in the same category as the Prose Edda, I simply cannot take the Bible literally. There's too much conflictions if we take everything it says literally. I mean, if God made Eve out of one of Adam's ribs, what the Hell was Adam made out of? Why did God chose one of Adam's ribs to spawn Eve instead say... his tonsils? Why did it took God precisely 7 days to create the world? Or rather, 6 days? How come each major steps in the creation of the world each takes up precisely one day each? Shouldn't some steps take longer or less time? But if he is supposedly eternal and beyond the limits of time, why did his efforts actually took up any amount of time? Why not instantly? Why does he need to rest? For a whole day, too, no less. In fact, why does the Bible say he created the world in 7 days when he really did it in 6? Who the Hell counts time off? Was God on a payroll and he's just trying to milk the extra wages?

When you start taking mythologies like these literally, you are force to nitpick over the smallest, dumbest things and as a result, totally miss the general message. I mean, why else did the question of inbreeding among Adam & Eve arise? Because we took the story literally. Two founders of humanity, one came from the other and therefore biologically realated, they have kids. C'mon, now, man. Y'know someone's gonna bring up inbreeding among other queries. Then everybody starts arguing semantics, nitpicking, and junk. Like y'know, the definition of "day." And we all ignore or miss the message of the story.

But if we all step back and look at the bigger picture of the story such as Genesis, and not artificially restrict ourselves to a literal interpretation of what could be an abstract, general description designed to carry only the core message because anything else would not fit in a compact book nor be as entertaining.

Besides. The Bible is supposedly the result of divine inspiration. It's source is of an omnipotant, infinite being? Why limit its message to a very, very, restrictive human language? I mean, I speak Khmer. There are Khmer words and expressions that has no English equivilant. If I were to translate such words, to the closest English word, some of the meaning and impact gets lost. But, if I provide additional alternative English words, the meaning gets through more easily with less loss of impact.

If words and phrases can lose meanings across different mortal human languages, how can you reasonably believe your literal interpretation of the Bible, that was not originally written in English, supposedly inspired by a higher being of which we may never fully comprehend, to be the absolute truth?

If I were God, in all his omniscient wisdom, and knew my message will get diluted as it passes from me to a finite being and its limited language, I'd keep the message as simple as possible. Just like when parents teach kids "The Birds & The Bees" instead of confusing them with the nitty gritty biological procreation, I wouldn''t really tell EXACTLY how I made the world. I'd use simple human terms and concepts like "day." I'll also tell them, I'm a male entity even though I have no need for genders. It'd be easier for humans to relate since they are used to the need for genders. Trying to explain why I have no gender would just confuse and distract those limited beings with their limited concepts and understandings. Sure, they'll think I'm male when I'm not. But the important thing is that they recognize and acknowledge me as their creator or "Heavenly Father."

You get the idea.

[Sasquatch]

Originally Posted by Secret Azn Man

What? Can you kindly provide examples of modern science supporting a literal translation of the Bible? Because I find that hard to believe without some examples.

Actually, quite a bit of scientific evidence supports a young-earth theory of Creation. Not that it's made mainstream, though.

I mean, if God made Eve out of one of Adam's ribs, what the Hell was Adam made out of?

Adam was made out of dust. The Bible says this.

Why did God chose one of Adam's ribs to spawn Eve instead say... his tonsils? Why did it took God precisely 7 days to create the world? Or rather, 6 days? How come each major steps in the creation of the world each takes up precisely one day each? Shouldn't some steps take longer or less time? But if he is supposedly eternal and beyond the limits of time, why did his efforts actually took up any amount of time? Why not instantly? Why does he need to rest?

Why does it matter? Why did I have salsbury steak for lunch instead of pizza or Ramen? Why does fine silt make clay and coarse silt make sand? Why is leather such a good covering material? Why does sugar rot your teeth? Why does iron oxydize but aluminum doesn't? Why do you drive on a parkway but park in a driveway? If you throw a cat out the window, does it become kitty litter? If you get cheated by the Better Business Bureau, who do you complain to? How come there aren't B batteries? And what if the Hokey Pokey really is what it's all about?

In fact, why does the Bible say he created the world in 7 days when he really did it in 6?

Because, in resting on the seventh day, He lets us know that we should dedicate the seventh day of the week to Him instead of working.

When you start taking mythologies like these literally, you are force to nitpick over the smallest, dumbest things and as a result, totally miss the general message. I mean, why else did the question of inbreeding among Adam & Eve arise? Because we took the story literally. Two founders of humanity, one came from the other and therefore biologically realated, they have kids. C'mon, now, man. Y'know someone's gonna bring up inbreeding among other queries. Then everybody starts arguing semantics, nitpicking, and junk. Like y'know, the definition of "day." And we all ignore or miss the message of the story.

I don't think anybody's "missed the message of the story". The question was brought up concerning the possibility of the Adam and Eve story being factual, and it was prettymuch confirmed that it would have been possible for all human life to be traced back to Adam and Eve. This shouldn't really make anybody doubt their faith, but reaffirm their faith from the doubts they may have already had.

If words and phrases can lose meanings across different mortal human languages, how can you reasonably believe your literal interpretation of the Bible, that was not originally written in English, supposedly inspired by a higher being of which we may never fully comprehend, to be the absolute truth?

This is a common question, but modern-day English translations are extremely accurate when compared with original texts. True, they're not of the same language, but the translations are very, very similar.

EDIT: To the schmuck who gave me negative reputation with the label "other people do have opinions" -- Yes, I realize that other people have opinions. I also have opinions. But when their opinions are completely wrong, I like to point it out. I also appreciate having it pointed out when I'm wrong, which does happen. So say as many opinions as you want, it's healthy -- just don't get mad when the opinions of others don't agree with yours.

[Secret Azn Man]

You haven't provided examples of any modern science supporting or at least lending some scientific credibility to the Young Earth theory. I don't care if it's not mainstream. String Theory wasn't mainstream at first. So, please, link me to such articles.

As for my barrage of questions about Genesis, I was trying to prove a point which you said, "Why does it matter?" As I said, if we take the Bible literally based on what we understand, there will be questions that pop up and distract us. Little plot holes, and trivial errors crop up. Because even if the Bible was inspired by the divine, it's still written and translated by flawed humans. Why else do some people ignore the old testament or levitcus verses?

In addition, you may claim that the English translation is very similar and faithful to the original languagee. But is the original language faithful to God's divine message? Remember, I think no language on earth can fully carry the divine meanings intact because the finite cannot describe the infinite. Hell, finite can't fully describe finiite. People have a hard enough time describing "love to others. Let alone describe a specific color to a blind person. The vast majority of the human language is very limited. How can we be so sure that any of our language can do God's words justice?

Please bear in mind I'm not trying to invalidate the Bible as a source of truth. I just think even the Bible, written in human language can't hold the whole truth. And so, it had to get real fancy with words and attempt to get close to God's true message. So, to take the Bible as the literal truth could be like taking the "sphere described as a circle" as the literal truth when in fact there's more to it.

In all or most case the only thing that we can be sure of about religion is the fact that it is a well detailed guess, and in my opinion not a very well put one at that. The fact that it began as an "Oral Text" used by the Jews that later translated it into The Torah....makes everyone stop an think about whether or not we are even getting the correct story.

To comment on the theory of Eve an Adam creating baby an then their children only being able to be "intamite" with eachother can be taken in two ways. One is .....Saying that the bible was correctly translated (even though the New Testiment shows that it was written later in an not by Jews) God never said that he did not create more humans after Adam an Eve. In-fact the only reason he probably cared to mention it was because it told the story of the first humans an our descent into sin. He could have very well made more human beings, but because it might have meant more to him to get the main family's story sttraight...he may have descided to leave out the other charaters.

One more contradiction though that many people seem to miss is , why do the painting of Jesus show a white male with long hair...when in the bible it was a sin to have long hair (besides samson) an since he was jewish he may have been a little darker of a color. Not only that is in the pictures of Jesus on the cross getting jabbed by a guy with a reallt big stick...take a closer look , those guys are not jewish. Though depicted as Jews killing christ...Jesus said in the New Testament that he was only a teacher an not a god of any sort....It was the other followers in the bible that spoke of him as a lord ( thus creating our first an very own cult or likeness of )

[Sasquatch]

Originally Posted by Secret Azn Man

You haven't provided examples of any modern science supporting or at least lending some scientific credibility to the Young Earth theory. I don't care if it's not mainstream. String Theory wasn't mainstream at first. So, please, link me to such articles.

You're trying to tell me you wouldn't pass them off as Christian rhetoric and religious rants? I won't link to things straight out, but if you'd like, I'll do that next post. As for examples of modern science supporting a Young Earth Creation theory -- to tell you the truth, most of it simply disproves the idea that the earth is billions of years old. Things like, say, the Green River. You know how different layers of sediment form every year or every few years, and when we look at something like the Grand Canyon (or the Green River Canyon), we can simply count the rings to find out how old the earth is? No. You can take a handful of dust from the side of the Green River Canyon and put it in a glass with water, shake it up, and in ten minutes, it'll settle into at least six or eight different layers -- disproving the idea that it took millions or billions of years for that many layers to form. Or, you could look at Niagra Falls, the largest waterfall on earth. Every year, the waterfall erodes the area behind it a certain amount (a few inches, I believe, not sure what it is exactly) -- if it was billions of years old, like they say it is (and why wouldn't it be?), there would be huge caverns there. Or, you could look at something that's practically impossible to argue against, if you'd like -- time. Every year, days get longer. Not by much, no, but they do get longer. The earth is slowing in rotation at the axis. A few thousand years ago -- around the time the earth began in a Young Earth Creation theory -- days would have been about 23 1/2 hours. A few million years ago, they would have been a lot shorter, and a few hundred million years ago, days would have lasted only a few hours, and the earth would be spinning so fast that its gravity couldn't catch up -- which means that everything on it would fly off, and that the earth itself would come apart. Even if the earth held together, if it was supposedly a lot "softer" back then, it would definitely be one huge pancake, as the area around the equator spins faster than the area around the poles.

As for my barrage of questions about Genesis, I was trying to prove a point which you said, "Why does it matter?" As I said, if we take the Bible literally based on what we understand, there will be questions that pop up and distract us. Little plot holes, and trivial errors crop up.

I was trying to prove a point, too. First of all, there are no "errors", trivial or not. Second, your questions don't matter. Why did God use Adam's rib? Why not? Because Adam could spare a rib, how 'bout that? Why does any of that matter? Why are plants green, and not some other color, huh? Why did God make chlorophyl green, or make the light spectrum have the colors it does instead of different ones? He just did. People that believe the Bible don't have to question the little meaningless things, because they're just that -- little meaningless things.

But is the original language faithful to God's divine message? Remember, I think no language on earth can fully carry the divine meanings intact because the finite cannot describe the infinite.

You don't think God would describe it to the authors of the Bible in ways that they could understand? God doesn't have a problem communicating with us. It's nowhere near "sphere described as a circle", but God has inspired what He has done to the best of human ability to understand. I'd imagine God is much better at getting people to understand things than we are, wouldn't you say?

Originally Posted by cheesevixen

The fact that it began as an "Oral Text" used by the Jews that later translated it into The Torah....makes everyone stop an think about whether or not we are even getting the correct story.

Actually, much of the bible was written soon after it happened, apart from maybe Genesis. The New Testament wasn't passed down orally for generations, that's for sure. And Genesis may have been before Moses started writing what God told him to, but I'm sure God made sure Moses got the story straight.

To comment on the theory of Eve an Adam creating baby an then their children only being able to be "intamite" with eachother can be taken in two ways. One is .....Saying that the bible was correctly translated (even though the New Testiment shows that it was written later in an not by Jews) God never said that he did not create more humans after Adam an Eve.

No. The New Testament was written in time and by Christians. Why would the Christian holy book be written by Jews? Either way -- the Bible mentions the creation of Adam and Eve (and how they were created), then goes on to explain life, death, and even the one man who didn't die. It went into the creation of all life, including human, and Cain and Abel, and Seth. The next humans that the Bible mentions being created are the offspring of Adam and Eve. If God had created any more humans, the Bible would have mentioned it. There's no reason it wouldn't.

One more contradiction though that many people seem to miss is , why do the painting of Jesus show a white male with long hair...when in the bible it was a sin to have long hair (besides samson) an since he was jewish he may have been a little darker of a color.

First off, please show me a Bible verse that says it's a sin to have long hair. Second, even if it was Jewish tradition to have shorter hair, that's exactly the reason Jesus came, because Jews were following "ritual" too much and not enough faith. Christians don't have to eat Kosher foods either, because we've seperated ourselves, through Jesus, from Jewish tradition. (There are some Christians, called "Messianic Jews", that still follow Jewish tradition, but those are usually converted Jews.) As for the "white" thing, you're right, He would have looked Middle Eastern (because He was Middle Eastern) and not white, but each depiction is relative to the artist. I'm sure God's a black guy to any African Christians, or oriental to any Asian Christians, etc. etc.

Not only that is in the pictures of Jesus on the cross getting jabbed by a guy with a reallt big stick...take a closer look , those guys are not jewish. Though depicted as Jews killing christ...

You would have to know the situation to understand. Israel at the time was ruled by the Roman Empire -- but the Romans figured they'd have an easier time if they just let Israel rule itself, with a few extra rules and taxes from Rome. Kind of like a federal government and a colonial government. Jesus claiming to be the Son of God was illegal under Jewish law, but not under Roman -- Pilat (in accordance with Jewish holiday tradition) even made the Jewish crowd choose between letting Jesus go and letting Barabus, a thief and murderer, go free -- and the Jews chose to crucify Jesus. The Romans were acting in their authority, but under Jewish request, in crucifying Jesus. So, though the Jews demanded it, the crucifiction was actually carried out by Romans. (By the way, he was "jabbed" by a spear by a Roman soldier, but a Christian held up a sponge soaked with vinegar on a "really big stick" -- vinegar "quenches thirst" better than water, and Jesus didn't have to worry about the delayed effects of dehydration.)

Jesus said in the New Testament that he was only a teacher an not a god of any sort....It was the other followers in the bible that spoke of him as a lord ( thus creating our first an very own cult or likeness of )

Please show me this. Where did Jesus say that he wasn't the Son of God? What book, chapter, and verse? I'd like to see this, if it's in the Bible -- but I've read the Bible through more than once, and I haven't found it yet. Show me where Jesus denied being the Son of God.

(If you think Christianity is anything like a cult, you're just an idiot, there's not much else to say. Either a moron, or extremely ignorant -- I'll go with the latter, out of whatever small amount of respect is due such an ignorant comment.)

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Actually, much of the bible was written soon after it happened, apart from maybe Genesis. The New Testament wasn't passed down orally for generations, that's for sure. And Genesis may have been before Moses started writing what God told him to, but I'm sure God made sure Moses got the story straight.No. First off, please show me a Bible verse that says it's a sin to have long hair. Second, even if it was Jewish tradition to have shorter hair, that's exactly the reason Jesus came, because Jews were following "ritual" too much and not enough faith. Where did Jesus say that he wasn't the Son of God? What book, chapter, and verse? I'd like to see this, if it's in the Bible -- but I've read the Bible through more than once, and I haven't found it yet. Show me where Jesus denied being the Son of God.

(If you think Christianity is anything like a cult, you're just an idiot, there's not much else to say. Either a moron, or extremely ignorant -- I'll go with the latter, out of whatever small amount of respect is due such an ignorant comment.)

One....Where you there ? Even in todays culture there are books of so-called facts an then a just as good book comes along an disproves that one...so unless you where there I think it is not nice to use guessing as a way to argue.

Two....I see your "not believeing Jesus was a jew", as a way of my knowing that what I say will only fall upon deaf ears. I am not going to sit here an try to convert you, but since this is all in theory..if Jesus was a Jew..becoming Chrisitan would still be against the bible. The comandment of not putting of any god s before me would have blown him out of the whole "never sinned" water.

Three....He says he is not God in........
Mathew 23:9-10 "And do not call anyone on earth "father", for you have one father an he is in heaven.Nor are you to be called "teacher" for you have one teacher, the christ"



Another Theory I have is that Adam an Eve could both have had all the genic codes of all the races to make children with different genetic codes,therefore it would not be inbreeding......cause remember that noah had three different races of son's yet one wife.... because "the bible" does infact say that all the world was created with adam...SO I do agree with that fact. Genisis may not be talking about inbreeding.

you pointed out a lot of good things...espeacially since I was just being light about the whole black thing an romans. BUt to call me an idiot will not prove your point any better....Infact it makes you look like you are not following in Jesus's footsteps. What happened to playing nice ?

[Sasquatch]

Originally Posted by cheesevixen

One....Where you there ? Even in todays culture there are books of so-called facts an then a just as good book comes along an disproves that one...so unless you where there I think it is not nice to use guessing as a way to argue.

Does it matter if I was there? You weren't born until the 80s, so what if some old person told you that the Holocaust never happened -- he was around back then, anyway, right? No study of the Bible -- and there have been thousands, doubtless -- has ever "disproven" any part of it. The Bible is the most examined, the most scrutinized book in the history of earth, and it's stood up to all of it -- relying on it would be far from "guessing".

Two....I see your "not believeing Jesus was a jew", as a way of my knowing that what I say will only fall upon deaf ears. I am not going to sit here an try to convert you, but since this is all in theory..if Jesus was a Jew..becoming Chrisitan would still be against the bible. The comandment of not putting of any god s before me would have blown him out of the whole "never sinned" water.

You would be correct, if Jesus wasn't the Son of God. First off, Jesus knew He was the Son of God -- which made him Jewish by descent, with a Jewish upbringing, but Christian by religion (believing Jesus was the Messiah). So yes, Jesus went against the Old Testament, went against the Torah. But the Torah isn't the Bible. Becoming a Christian went against the Torah and Judaism, yes, obviously, not not against the Bible -- as the Bible is the holy book of Christianity, and during Jesus's time, most of the New Testament wasn't written yet.

Three....He says he is not God in........
Mathew 23:9-10 "And do not call anyone on earth "father", for you have one father an he is in heaven.Nor are you to be called "teacher" for you have one teacher, the christ"

How do you manipulate that into meaning that Jesus "admitted" to not being the Son of God? He said we have one Father, and that's God, and one Teacher, and that's Christ. Nowhere there does it say that Jesus is not God. Ever heard of the Trinity? God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit? The Father -- God -- is the same god the Jews worship and believe in. Then came Jesus, the Son of God, to grant us forgiveness -- and when He went back up to Heaven, He sent the Holy Spirit to guide us until His return. Jesus came to earth not only to pay for our sins, but also to teach us (hence, "Teacher") how to believe.

Another Theory I have is that Adam an Eve could both have had all the genic codes of all the races to make children with different genetic codes,therefore it would not be inbreeding...

So, what, Adam and Eve had thousands of genes in them, and they were all seperated in every child? Eventually, no matter what ideas you have about how it started, inbreeding would have had to occur, which means the mixing of genes and such.

...cause remember that noah had three different races of son's yet one wife...

And where do you get that all three of Noah's sons were of different races? (I'm not just saying "you're full of it" here, I really would like to know where you got that before I pass it off.)

you pointed out a lot of good things...espeacially since I was just being light about the whole black thing an romans. BUt to call me an idiot will not prove your point any better....Infact it makes you look like you are not following in Jesus's footsteps. What happened to playing nice ?

I am being nice. If you think Christianity is a cult, you are an idiot. That is a nice way to put it. But I did say that I would assume ignorance over stupidity, to your credit.

I am not iggnorant in any way, I come in here to express my idea with people they may very well give me some sound points...whiich you did. I posted on topic about theories....since when did theories become hard core facts..I know plenty about the bible. Is it that hard for you to talk with someone that have different views? I do not manipulate words...an I could say the exact thing about your interpritation...because you have your views vice-vers to mine. i do not think christianity is a cult either...I am sorry if you took it that way, but I meant no harm.An as far as jews are concerned they "have " proven the bible wrong an have many great books to tell you. I never said that what I was saying was hardcore fact...funny how you skipped over the "in theory" parts to make me seem like I was attacking you.i always was taught that god said to be loyal to your gov. an maybe I am wrong, but even though it was his choice to be christian it was still wrong by god. He was not being faithful to his people , goverment. I do not hate Jesus..I belivev he taught us many great things an then there are believers like you that kinda give us a bad rap...trying to start a fight with anyone that does not view your views, or simply questions them