Genesis,where did the other Guys come from

[outhouse]

I can post all the reality and proof and could have jesus himself sittin on the couch on webcam

the faithfull are so closed minded, reason and reality wont register.

I have run across [i dont want to call them complete morons] but I run across these nice folks that still believe the world is 6000 years old, some believe man can live to 200 years no problem with diet and clean living. theres a thread right now with such a gentleman.

what will happen for this to register in humanity is the same exact thing as the creationist myth,,, people will need to be educated and there minds not closed at an early age, as the old stubborn closed minds die so will these old myths. The new generations will carry on reason and reality.

this wont happen in my life time sadly. [and im not that old]

 

[Rakhel]

You,your Husband

Oh he was asleep. I just woke him up

 

[iholdit]

In response to the op.

There are 2 seperate an independant creations of "man and woman" described in the bible. One is in gen 1:26 and one begins with the creation of adam in gen 2:7.

Man and woman existed before adam and eve and as seen by the sequence of creation, there was a seperate and independant creation during the time of adam.

The previous men and women would have been the people cain was afraid of killing him. A previous woman would have been who cain married etc.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Wow you mean the Cain and Abel story isn't literal? Oh my gosh! I think I just ruptured a brain cell! That just can't be true!

 

[iholdit]

Wow you mean the Cain and Abel story isn't literal? Oh my gosh! I think I just ruptured a brain cell! That just can't be true!

Whats not literal about the cain and abel story?

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Whats not literal about the cain and abel story?

The whole thing, as England pointed out. It has all the evidences of a later traditional myth. It says that Cain went into the land of Nod and married. This is obviously a myth.

 

[iholdit]

The whole thing, as England pointed out. It has all the evidences of a later traditional myth. It says that Cain went into the land of Nod and married. This is obviously a myth.

It has evidences of a later traditional myth, so how does that means the earlier story of cain and able in the bible is a myth? How does any of this make it a myth?

 

[Rainbow Mage]

It has evidences of a later traditional myth, so how does that means the earlier story of cain and able in the bible is a myth? How does any of this make it a myth?

Because it has no historical evidence and it's contained in a holy text that scholars know factually was written off of four differing traditions: Elohist, Yahwist, Priestly, etc.

 

[iholdit]

Because it has no historical evidence and it's contained in a holy text that scholars know factually was written off of four differing traditions: Elohist, Yahwist, Priestly, etc.

There is constantly new historical evidence being found all the time. We used to think the whole trojan horse thing was a myth too, turns out it wasnt a myth.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

There is constantly new historical evidence being found all the time. We used to think the whole trojan horse thing was a myth too, turns out it wasnt a myth.

Well then when they find evidence that some of the things in Genesis, talking snakes, etc. actually took place within the realm of reality, then come back and let me know.

Talking snakes, talking burning bushes, etc. Good luck.

 

[England my lionheart]

There is constantly new historical evidence being found all the time. We used to think the whole trojan horse thing was a myth too, turns out it wasnt a myth.

I can't wait to see this historical evidence which you will hopefully will provide for us

 

[KnightOwl]

I love the way Bill Maher calls out people on Real Time who are believers... he'll point blank ask them if they really believe in the talking snake. I would hope some Christians who have never given it much thought hear that and say to themselves, "OMG... how could I not have seen what a bunch of mythology this is?" Even if you decide Genesis is allegory or parable at that point, the seed has been planted and you'll probably end up losing belief in the Abrahamic god.

A case in point -- Dan Barker, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation used to be a traveling Pentecostal preacher. He talks about how his first step toward atheism was when he was confronted with a married couple who were members of a church he was visiting who did not believe Adam and Eve were the first people. He thought that was shocking and assumed these blasphemous people must be evil. He met them and they did not seem evil. That started the ball of doubt rolling.

 

[iholdit]

I can't wait to see this historical evidence which you will hopefully will provide for us

Its believed by many historians that the trojan horse existed but that is not my point. How about this, we once believed the city of troy was a myth and we now believe the city of troy actually existed.

The point is there is some archeological evidence to support some of the bible being literal. Will we ever find evidence of a body in a field that was murdered and prove it was able? I doubt it that is a hard find. We have difficulty in modern times finding children who have gone missing for example. A city is easier to find than one body in a field.

 

[iholdit]

I love the way Bill Maher calls out people on Real Time who are believers... he'll point blank ask them if they really believe in the talking snake. I would hope some Christians who have never given it much thought hear that and say to themselves, "OMG... how could I not have seen what a bunch of mythology this is?" Even if you decide Genesis is allegory or parable at that point, the seed has been planted and you'll probably end up losing belief in the Abrahamic god.

A case in point -- Dan Barker, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation used to be a traveling Pentecostal preacher. He talks about how his first step toward atheism was when he was confronted with a married couple who were members of a church he was visiting who did not believe Adam and Eve were the first people. He thought that was shocking and assumed these blasphemous people must be evil. He met them and they did not seem evil. That started the ball of doubt rolling.

There are a few problems here. First is that the bible doesnt actually say adam and eve were the first man and woman. It says the terms "man" and "woman" were invented by adam but it doesnt say no people existed before adam. I have posted what the bible says and that is 2 seperate, independant creations of man and woman.

Second, there are talking birds for example so a talking snake isnt exactly impossible. Have we ever found a talking snake? Not as far as i know, but evolutionists believe there is between 5 million and 100 million living species and we havent even found 2 million yet. This is just living species it doesnt include species that have gone extinct that we havent found. We could be talking hundreds of millions of species in total. Would it really be impossible to find 1 talking snake amongst them? We know we can communicate with certain animals such as with koko the gorilla etc. So is it really impossible that we could have communicated with a snake at some point?

I dont know your beliefs so please dont be offended if i speculate wrong here. You probably believe that man would have evolved from some original microorganism. Have we ever found historical evidence of that exact microorganism?
You probably believe that original organism was created through abiogenesis, have we ever observed abiogenesis create an actual living organism?

All of your beliefs(if i got them right) have not been proven by actual historical or even observable evidence either. There is some level of speculation in both some of your beliefs as there is in some of my beliefs. The difference is you seem to be forgetting that all of your beliefs havent been proven.

 

[reve]

We all share a common ancestor dont we. That person is not a myth, they existed, survived and bred. The Neanderthals did not, nor the giants who lived in Java and left teeth and a jawbone. You cant blame Genesis for not knowing that the people Cain (a literal person if we have one common ancestor) was afraid of were called Neanderthals not men. This is all logical but the date is not precise. Genesis does mention the first races of hominoids being created but eventually wiped out. Then it mentions the first 'red man', Adam. Hebrews believe he had a first 'wife' Lilith. Eve is made from his rib, that is his daughter. Maybe Lilith is our common ancestor and Adam's mother. There are very ancient statuettes all ovber the world of a mother figure with pendulous breasts. There is obviously a genetic change going on and the breeding results are less than perfect. Violent people hell bent on a mission of destruction and havoc to this day. A literal Adam (first redman) had descendants who wiped the others out with their giant and monster hunting and subdued the inhabitants of anywhere pleasant as did the first Pharaohs who appear at that time out of the blue, turning their homelands into private estates to this day. Cain may be the first Inca and Nod the land of the sleeping one (America). There obviously was a first wave of inhabitants there, with a common ancestor but differing languages now and oral traditions. Look how fast we pick up the local accent. Friends who moved to Australian now unable to speak English. Genesis is not to be discounted if one is looking for the common thread. DNA synthesis.

 

[KnightOwl]

There are a few problems here. First is that the bible doesnt actually say adam and eve were the first man and woman. It says the terms "man" and "woman" were invented by adam but it doesnt say no people existed before adam. I have posted what the bible says and that is 2 seperate, independant creations of man and woman.

Second, there are talking birds for example so a talking snake isnt exactly impossible. Have we ever found a talking snake? Not as far as i know, but evolutionists believe there is between 5 million and 100 million living species and we havent even found 2 million yet. This is just living species it doesnt include species that have gone extinct that we havent found. We could be talking hundreds of millions of species in total. Would it really be impossible to find 1 talking snake amongst them? We know we can communicate with certain animals such as with koko the gorilla etc. So is it really impossible that we could have communicated with a snake at some point?

I dont know your beliefs so please dont be offended if i speculate wrong here. You probably believe that man would have evolved from some original microorganism. Have we ever found historical evidence of that exact microorganism?
You probably believe that original organism was created through abiogenesis, have we ever observed abiogenesis create an actual living organism?

All of your beliefs(if i got them right) have not been proven by actual historical or even observable evidence either. There is some level of speculation in both some of your beliefs as there is in some of my beliefs. The difference is you seem to be forgetting that all of your beliefs havent been proven.

Please don't worry about offending me. That's a pretty difficult task. The way I read Genesis, it sure looks like they're talking about the creation of mankind with Adam and Eve. In context, I don't see how you can come to any other conclusion.

My understanding regarding snakes is, they don't have the physical capacity to vocalize. just like pigs don't have the ability to fly.

The 2 separate creations, if you're referring to what I think you are is a puzzling bit. The thing is, it isn't just the 2nd creation of man and woman, but the whole shebang of our world meaning it seems like two incongruous stories about the same event.

I do believe we evolved from microorganisms if you go back far enough. The fact that all life shares the same building blocks and knowing what we know about evolution, it just makes sense. Here's a video where Ken Miller describes how we know we share ancestors with great apes.

[youtube]zi8FfMBYCkk[/youtube]

Evidence of evolution is based on direct observation in a variety of scientific fields. Some things we know in science aren't from direct observation but indirect such as noting when we first see light after an eclipse as evidence of gravity affecting light.

 

[outhouse]

The point is there is some archeological evidence to support some of the bible being literal.

no

there is no evidence anywhere pointing to the bible being literal

 

[iholdit]

Please don't worry about offending me. That's a pretty difficult task. The way I read Genesis, it sure looks like they're talking about the creation of mankind with Adam and Eve. In context, I don't see how you can come to any other conclusion.

My understanding regarding snakes is, they don't have the physical capacity to vocalize. just like pigs don't have the ability to fly.

The 2 separate creations, if you're referring to what I think you are is a puzzling bit. The thing is, it isn't just the 2nd creation of man and woman, but the whole shebang of our world meaning it seems like two incongruous stories about the same event.

I do believe we evolved from microorganisms if you go back far enough. The fact that all life shares the same building blocks and knowing what we know about evolution, it just makes sense. Here's a video where Ken Miller describes how we know we share ancestors with great apes.

[youtube]zi8FfMBYCkk[/youtube]

Evidence of evolution is based on direct observation in a variety of scientific fields. Some things we know in science aren't from direct observation but indirect such as noting when we first see light after an eclipse as evidence of gravity affecting light.

Gen 1 has the whole shebang as you put it. Gen 2 has a second, independant creation of a seperate form of man, birds and beasts of the field. There is not a second creation of the whole shebang in gen 2.

Not all birds can vocalize either but some can vocalise and actually "speak" what a human has said. I am not saying all snakes can vocalize i am saying it is possible one snake or species of snake could have vocalized. That isnt the same as saying a pig can fly athough if you believe all living beings are descended from microorganisms than you would believe a pigs ancestor or descendant could fly.

As we see from genesis there was some form of change that occured to the serpent after it was cast from the garden. Perhaps it is an ancestor of the snake or serpent that could have vocalized and it evolved into modern snakes which can not.

I have already seen the evidence that ken miller presents regarding the fused chromosome so im guessing thats what the video talks about. Im not trying to turn this into an evolutionary theory debate.

My point is that even though you believe it makes sense there still isnt absolute proof that man evolved from apes, who going back far enough evolved from a microorganism. Just like there isnt absolute proof life was created on earth through abiogenesis. It may seem reasonable and there may be some evidence that supports it but that is not historical proof or observable proof.

We know there are numerous varieties of animals who can do numerous incredible things. There are animals that can change colors, walk on water, talk etc. So i dont think a talking serpent is really that far fetched of an idea. Although there is no historical proof or observable proof of serpents talking either.

 

[outhouse]

there still isnt absolute proof that man evolved from apes

i understand you dont think %99.999 percent of scientist know what there doing.

Man evolved. there is no scientific debate about this.

So i dont think a talking serpent is really that far fetched of an idea

double facepalm

Genesis is a myth, many unknown hebrews wrote it. Not one ment for it to be read literally. Even jews today will tell you to read these old fables allegorically.
you dont know ,,,,but that is due to your lack of education in the field at hand.

 

[iholdit]

no

there is no evidence anywhere pointing to the bible being literal

"In 1990, Harvard researchers working in the ancient city of Ashkelon, north of the Gaza Strip, unearthed a small silver-plated bronze calf figurine reminiscent of the huge golden calf mentioned in the Book of Exodus. In 1986, archaeologists found the earliest known text of the Bible, dated to about 600 B.C. It suggests that at least part of the Old Testament was written soon after some of the events it describes. Also in 1986, scholars identified an ancient seal that had belonged to Baruch, son of Neriah, a scribe who recorded the prophecies of Jeremiah in 587 B.C." "

In what may be the most important of these discoveries, a team of archaeologists uncovered a 9th century B.C. inscription at an ancient mound called Tel Dan, in the north of Israel, in 1993. Words carved into a chunk of basalt refer to the "House of David" and the "King of Israel."

"The Bible version of Israelite history after the reign of King Solomon, for example, is generally believed to be based on historical fact because it is corroborated by independent accounts of Kings and battles in Egyptian and Assyrian inscriptions of the time."
"Nahman Avigad of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem identified the impressions stamped into one piece of clay as coming from the seal of Baruch, son of Neriah, a scribe who recorded the doomsday proclamations of the prophet Jeremiah. Another bore the seal of Yerahme'el, son of King Jehoiakim's son, who the Book of Jeremiah says was sent on an unsuccessful mission to arrest both prophet and scribe — again confirming the existence of biblical characters."
Read more: Is the Bible Fact or Fiction? Archaeology's Discoveries - TIME
There is plenty more but i doubt you will listen anyway.
​

​