Genesis,where did the other Guys come from

[Zardoz]

Hello my Freind,so its not the phyical but the addition of the Soul post Adam if i'm reading this right

Yes and no. For everyone other than Adam, nothing changed except the addition of the soul. Adam himself was constructed, not born. Constructed as a perfect specimen of the human genetic blueprint that nature created by evolution. Therefore he had no genetic diseases or defects, so was as close to immortal as a living being could be. Those impossible to believe lifespans in the 'begats' of Genesis do not reflect the average lifespan of humans, but only the direct descendants of Adam. That's why their ages are listed, as the extreme ages of these people are the sign that they are descended from Adam. All other humans lived perhaps seventy tops. It's a major problem with people who just pick up a bible and start from the beginning and read, when they get to the 'begats' they think ... what BS ... without understanding the real meaning of the text.

 

[outhouse]

and people wonder why I have a problem with religion

 

[Zardoz]

FYI: I'm sure the previous poster had something really witty and biting to say, but I don't really care as he's on my ignore list, so I don't see it.

 

[reve]

We can find what is in realm of possibility to agree on that at least. Our common ancestor? who is that and where from?

 

[lilmama1991]

everybody knows jehovah god created adam and he took a rib from him and created eve. basically the rest of the men came from a woman

 

[outhouse]

everybody knows jehovah god created adam and he took a rib from him and created eve. basically the rest of the men came from a woman

so the earth is 6000 years old like the bible says through genealogy ??

 

[KnightOwl]

Yes and no. For everyone other than Adam, nothing changed except the addition of the soul. Adam himself was constructed, not born. Constructed as a perfect specimen of the human genetic blueprint that nature created by evolution. Therefore he had no genetic diseases or defects, so was as close to immortal as a living being could be. Those impossible to believe lifespans in the 'begats' of Genesis do not reflect the average lifespan of humans, but only the direct descendants of Adam. That's why their ages are listed, as the extreme ages of these people are the sign that they are descended from Adam. All other humans lived perhaps seventy tops. It's a major problem with people who just pick up a bible and start from the beginning and read, when they get to the 'begats' they think ... what BS ... without understanding the real meaning of the text.

Do you believe that those Genesis genealogies allow you to date the Noahic flood Zardoz? If so, when do you place it?

btw, I really must see that movie if for not other reason, than to laugh at Sean Connery's outfit. I've seen still pics and it really is funny.

 

[blackout]

Adam and Eve could be read metaphorically
to mean Man/Men and Woman/Women in general.

 

[outhouse]

Our common ancestor? who is that and where from?

glad you asked, it was getting deep in here.

funny how old magic man didnt have a thing to do with human evolution at all

 

[outhouse]

Adam and Eve could be read metaphorically
to mean Man/Men and Woman/Women in general.

its ment to be read allegorically as all fiction should be read.

to understand genesis one must understand how it was created in detail. How many unknown authors or groups of authors wrote it and how long it took to contruct.

One must understand hebrew culture around 1000 BC

One must understand history in that geographic location from 4000BC to 500BC

then one can come to understand what the writen word represents and why it was worded the way it was and one can then properly interpret its real meaning.

either way its fiction.

 

[blackout]

its ment to be read allegorically as all fiction should be read.

to understand genesis one must understand how it was created in detail. How many unknown authors or groups of authors wrote it and how long it took to contruct.

One must understand hebrew culture around 1000 BC

One must understand history in that geographic location from 4000BC to 500BC

then one can come to understand what the writen word represents and why it was worded the way it was and one can then properly interpret its real meaning.

either way its fiction.

Well, that and... stories, allegories, symbolisms, mythologies...
can certainly be interpreted uniquely
by each unique individual.

Though for some reason
many people don't like this idea.
This is all what we do anyway.

Just try watching the same movie
with 10 other people.
Then discuss.

I'm less concerned with what an "original" author meant,
and more concerned with what it says to me personally.
That's the transcendent value of the arts.
The more metaphorically transcendent ...
ie, interpretively 'open', or 'wide'...
a work is
the more I tend to like it.

In the end,
the "real" meaning of a work of fiction,
for you,
is what it means,
to/for you.

 

[blackout]

What I find far more interesting about the genesis story
than some discussion of "what it 'really' means",
(if there even is such a thing. which I doubt.)
are all of the many varried interpretations
I have read,
by individuals each reading through their own eyes.

 

[AllanV]

I wouldn't worry to much. The flood could have been a local event.

Moses was in a desert for 40 years that could have been crossed in a week or so.

All the generation had to die out and their children went into the promised land.

 

[Hawkins]

Adam and Eve can give birth to many children, the Bible however chooses to focus on Cain.

Moreover, even humans know how to plant genetic eggs to a woman's womb to give birth to a child, then why do you have to assume that God can't (the Bible could care less though).

 

[Hawkins]

I wouldn't worry to much. The flood could have been a local event.

Moses was in a desert for 40 years that could have been crossed in a week or so.

All the generation had to die out and their children went into the promised land.

Even when it is a global flood, it by no means says that the flood must leave evidence for humans to find out.

And perhaps humans will find the evidence out but now right now under the current knowledge and technology.

At last but not least, the lack of evidence just says that "we don't know if a global blood happened or not" instead of "we know that the global flood didn't happen". It is a fallacy to use the absence of evidence as the evidence of absence.

 

[Zardoz]

Do you believe that those Genesis genealogies allow you to date the Noahic flood Zardoz? If so, when do you place it?

Not really, considering that the genealogies are from a time that had only oral traditions/stories/legends/myths, if someone or other got forgotten it would not be surprising. That wasn't the point of the list. See, I don't believe in a global flood, so I'm not one who will argue that there were polar bears in the ark, that's just silly. No, the flood only needed to be as large as was necessary to take out all the descendants of Adam listed in the 'begats', with the exception of Noah and his family. People and animals on the other side of the globe, for example, probably were not even aware of the flood.

btw, I really must see that movie if for not other reason, than to laugh at Sean Connery's outfit. I've seen still pics and it really is funny.

Ya, most people only know Zardoz by the humorous 'motivational' posters. It's a low budget movie, but a cult classic.

 

[outhouse]

I wouldn't worry to much. The flood could have been a local event.

Moses was in a desert for 40 years that could have been crossed in a week or so.

All the generation had to die out and their children went into the promised land.

It was a local event in the exact geographic place noahs story comes from.

the euphrates overflowed its banks in 2900BC and its the oldest of 3 sumerian flood myths.

A man loaded his animals on a barge and they went out to sea and then landed did a animal sacrifice and the story began.

 

[outhouse]

Adam and Eve can give birth to many children, the Bible however chooses to focus on Cain.

Moreover, even humans know how to plant genetic eggs to a woman's womb to give birth to a child, then why do you have to assume that God can't (the Bible could care less though).

adan and eve are a myth at this point and there is no evidence those two people ever existed at all.

as a matter of fact there is a good chance the ancient hebrews took the sumerian creation story and made it there own.

their first man was adamu who was made from dirt just like adam was supposed to made from with a little help from a gods breath

 

[outhouse]

Even when it is a global flood, it by no means says that the flood must leave evidence for humans to find out.

And perhaps humans will find the evidence out but now right now under the current knowledge and technology.

At last but not least, the lack of evidence just says that "we don't know if a global blood happened or not" instead of "we know that the global flood didn't happen". It is a fallacy to use the absence of evidence as the evidence of absence.

No sir

there was never a global flood this is a fact

to think anything else is avoiding reason and reality.

do you think the earth is 6000 years old to

 

[outhouse]

considering that the genealogies are from a time that had only oral traditions/stories/legends/myths

correct

the tales could have been told for thousands of years orally but since hebrews really only go back to 1250BC ish its safe to say the storys were told orally for 300-500 years among hebrews before they were written down.

most of the storys in genesis existed long before hebrews. ancient hebrews just changed them for their own needs.

the flood only needed to be as large as was necessary to take out all the descendants of Adam listed in the 'begats', with the exception of Noah and his family

there was allot of life lost during the one flood, it was a local event only and ancient hebrews came from many places.

there is no way all biblical genealogy was lost due to a local flood of the euphrates in 2900BC

People and animals on the other side of the globe, for example, probably were not even aware of the flood.

correct