God Recreated the Earth 6,000 Years Ago!

[Me Myself]

I said yes, but I dont believe in it for one second.

 

[Ouroboros]

Thanks for your interesting questions and Bible quotes, Ouroboros. Eccl 3:21 suggests to me that our human "souls" continue to "spiritually" exist after the death of our minds and bodies; whereas, an animal "soul" would rot into the ground after it dies and therefore the animal's soul would no longer continue to exist after the death of its mind and body. Furthermore, the Bible always seems to make a distinction between the souls of humans and animals.

That's not my point. You said animals don't have a soul. I just showed you, based on the Bible, that they do (if you believe what the Bible says).

I think the Bible implies that a human continues to exist in the form of a spirit after the death of its body; whereas, an animal soul ceases to exist after it dies.

Still... animals have a soul, according to the Bible.

Biblical chronology does put the date of Adam's creation to around 4,000 B.C.

If you want to take the Bible literally, as some history book (which it isn't, and it's not a science book either), but if you do take it literally, then you can't reject animals having a soul or a spirit (since it says that they do).

Furthermore, the Bible makes it clear that Adam and Eve were the first humans and that they had no biological parents.

Not according to genetic, archeological, anthropological, etc, evidence, as been pointed out to you several times. Humans existed long time before 6,000 years ago.

Although, most biologists and geneticists believe in evidence which suggests that the most recent common male ancestor of all humans had lived over 150,000 years ago. I'm starting to now think that the biblical Adam and Eve might have been fictional characters instead of actual historical people.

Think of the Bible as a religious book instead of a historical book. It's the principle you can see there, not the scientific details. The word Adam really means something like "human", and Eve means something like "mother". What the story suggests is that God created humans, not a specific Adam and Eve literally. It's a religious analogy, talking in general terms.

And I'm happy to see that you have an open mind to change your views based on what's being discussed here. That's a very good attitude.

 

[Nietzsche]

Ya mad props to him for moving forward, instead of defending all ancient mythology in error.

I'm honestly kind of lost as to what to do here. I've never met someone with a proposition like this be met with facts and then...you know, attempt to reconcile with them. It's strange & alien. Each time someone has pointed out one thing or another that he seems genuinely to have not known, he's adjusted his premise and moved forward. Not a single instance has he actually contested something when given enough evidence.

I actually feel quite bad for being so aggressive in the beginning.

 

[Salvador]

Do you have the slightest idea how utterly remote an 'atomic reaction' caused by an earthquake, no matter how powerful, would be? I can give you a quick overview of how radioactive materials work, and more importantly, how utterly small the "danger zone" for a 'burst' is. The only way this could've happened would be if the Romans nailed Jesus to a cross on top of a natural nuclear reactor. And yes, natural nuclear reactors do actually exist. They are ludicrously rare, but they exist.


Well at least we're making progress, that's far more than I can say about many people

What of the whole "Modern Humans" thing? We've been around, bare minimum, for 150,000 years. And again by 'Modern Human', I mean utterly indistinguishable from you or I. If I had a time machine and brought a human child to the present from 150,000 years ago you would not be able to pick him out from a crowd. He would develop in school literally no differently from other children.

I've just read that the matrilineal most recent common ancestor of all living humans had lived about 150,000 years ago. The most recent common patrilineal ancestor of all living male humans may have also lived about 150,000 years ago. I think Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosomal Adam may have lived close together in time, but they most likely did not know each other.

"Unfortunately, the scientific evidence shows that Adam and Eve could not have existed, at least in the way they’re portrayed in the Bible. Genetic data show no evidence of any human bottleneck as small as two people: there are simply too many different kinds of genes around for that to be true. There may have been a couple of “bottlenecks” (reduced population sizes) in the history of our species, but the smallest one not involving recent colonization is a bottleneck of roughly 10,000-15,000 individuals that occurred between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago. That’s as small a population as our ancestors had, and—note—it’s not two individuals."

Adam and Eve: the ultimate standoff between science and faith (and a contest!) « Why Evolution Is True

 

[Salvador]

Do you have the slightest idea how utterly remote an 'atomic reaction' caused by an earthquake, no matter how powerful, would be? I can give you a quick overview of how radioactive materials work, and more importantly, how utterly small the "danger zone" for a 'burst' is. The only way this could've happened would be if the Romans nailed Jesus to a cross on top of a natural nuclear reactor. And yes, natural nuclear reactors do actually exist. They are ludicrously rare, but they exist.


Well at least we're making progress, that's far more than I can say about many people

What of the whole "Modern Humans" thing? We've been around, bare minimum, for 150,000 years. And again by 'Modern Human', I mean utterly indistinguishable from you or I. If I had a time machine and brought a human child to the present from 150,000 years ago you would not be able to pick him out from a crowd. He would develop in school literally no differently from other children.

I'm honestly kind of lost as to what to do here. I've never met someone with a proposition like this be met with facts and then...you know, attempt to reconcile with them. It's strange & alien. Each time someone has pointed out one thing or another that he seems genuinely to have not known, he's adjusted his premise and moved forward. Not a single instance has he actually contested something when given enough evidence.

I actually feel quite bad for being so aggressive in the beginning.

I apologize for suggesting a false premise that the Earth and life could have made created/recreated 6,000 years ago. There's just way to much evidence against the biblical assertion that all living humans had originated from one couple who had lived only 6,000 years ago. I no longer can believe in the Bible.

 

[gnostic]

I apologize for suggesting a false premise that the Earth and life could have made created/recreated 6,000 years ago. There's just way to much evidence against the biblical assertion that all living humans had originated from one couple who had lived only 6,000 years ago. I no longer can believe in the Bible.

I have only waken up less than an hour ago.

So I can't tell if you being sincere or sarcastic.

If you are sincere, then I will have to say, no one is telling you to give up on the bible.

Just don't treat it so literal, as if they were scientific or historical accounts. That's the common mistake creationists make, when they treat the Genesis as if it was scientific cosmology or historical account.

I think that the stories of Adam and Eve, and Noah and other narrative should be read as allegories, for the purpose of teaching morals.

Jesus did all the time, telling parables or stories that carry messages of what to do or what to not do, hence they have moral meaning.

I am quite sure if you read Genesis 1 to 11 that way, you can see that it is alright to read them like some parables.

 

[Salvador]

That's not my point. You said animals don't have a soul. I just showed you, based on the Bible, that they do (if you believe what the Bible says).


Still... animals have a soul, according to the Bible.


If you want to take the Bible literally, as some history book (which it isn't, and it's not a science book either), but if you do take it literally, then you can't reject animals having a soul or a spirit (since it says that they do).

I have only waken up less than an hour ago.

So I can't tell if you being sincere or sarcastic.

If you are sincere, then I will have to say, no one is telling you to give up on the bible.

Just don't treat it so literal, as if they were scientific or historical accounts. That's the common mistake creationists make, when they treat the Genesis as if it was scientific cosmology or historical account.

I think that the stories of Adam and Eve, and Noah and other narrative should be read as allegories, for the purpose of teaching morals.

Jesus did all the time, telling parables or stories that carry messages of what to do or what to not do, hence they have moral meaning.

If Adam and Eve can't be taken literally, then where did the notion of original sin come from? If there was no original sin, then I don't believe that Christ's grace would have been necessary to erase the sins of mankind.
well, I’m curious to know if Adam and Eve never existed

where did Original Sin come from?”...


I am quite sure if you read Genesis 1 to 11 that way, you can see that it is alright to read them like some parables.

Not according to genetic, archeological, anthropological, etc, evidence, as been pointed out to you several times. Humans existed long time before 6,000 years ago.


Think of the Bible as a religious book instead of a historical book. It's the principle you can see there, not the scientific details. The word Adam really means something like "human", and Eve means something like "mother". What the story suggests is that God created humans, not a specific Adam and Eve literally. It's a religious analogy, talking in general terms.

And I'm happy to see that you have an open mind to change your views based on what's being discussed here. That's a very good attitude.

I have only waken up less than an hour ago.

So I can't tell if you being sincere or sarcastic.

If you are sincere, then I will have to say, no one is telling you to give up on the bible.

Just don't treat it so literal, as if they were scientific or historical accounts. That's the common mistake creationists make, when they treat the Genesis as if it was scientific cosmology or historical account.

I think that the stories of Adam and Eve, and Noah and other narrative should be read as allegories, for the purpose of teaching morals.

Jesus did all the time, telling parables or stories that carry messages of what to do or what to not do, hence they have moral meaning.

I am quite sure if you read Genesis 1 to 11 that way, you can see that it is alright to read them like some parables.

If Adam and Eve didn't exist, then I can't believe in the notion of Original Sin. A metaphoric Adam and Eve changes my entire outlook about the Bible and Christianity. If there wasn't Original Sin, then I don't believe that baptism is necessary for salvation. If the biblical story about Adam and Eve is some of metaphor, then what is the meaning of Luke 3:38, where the genealogy of Jesus is traced back 77 generations to Adam who is then described as the son of God? I think that a metaphoric Adam and Eve does raise more questions, then answers. I think that much of the Bible would be nonsense, if the biblical Adam and Eve never actually existed.

 

[Ouroboros]

I've just read that the matrilineal most recent common ancestor of all living humans had lived about 150,000 years ago. The most recent common patrilineal ancestor of all living male humans may have also lived about 150,000 years ago. I think Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosomal Adam may have lived close together in time, but they most likely did not know each other.

I think the genetic Eve lived more like 200,000 years ago. You know they didn't have to live at the same time.

 

[Ouroboros]

I no longer can believe in the Bible.

Not necessary. You can see the Bible as a path or description of religious/spiritual life in prose. Think of it as concepts described in there rather than things or history. Put it this way, let's say you have a concept of something you want to teach a kid, like not stealing. You can either do it by saying "don't steal Paul, or else..." or you tell a story about a wolf that stole a goblet from the pretty princess, and then how it went bad for him. The story can stick with a kid more than just commands. The Bible stories can be read more like this. Like ideas written in stories.

 

[Ouroboros]

If Adam and Eve didn't exist, then I can't believe in the notion of Original Sin. A metaphoric Adam and Eve changes my entire outlook about the Bible and Christianity.

The original sin might not be what you think it is. Literalism and fundamentalism has basically made it to some cold hard facts of religion instead of the spiritual life.

The original sin, the way I see it nowadays, is that we have left God (which is nature) and follow our greed, desires, and won't think of the consequences. We're bringing death to ourselves by being slaves under technology and science. We need technology, science, and medicine, and so on, but we also need to find the inner connection with God/nature/the whole. All things around us either prosper or suffer based on what we do. Our sin is to neglect the health of Eden. And we're constantly searching for means to live longer instead of living healthier and happier lives. The salvation is to become Jesus, to die from ourselves, and be resurrected into a larger understanding of our place in nature/world/reality. We are the gods who need to understand we make Eden come to life. We are our own saviors from the sins of selfishness. Does that make sense to you?

If there wasn't Original Sin, then I don't believe that baptism is necessary for salvation.

Baptism is only a symbol. It's an ancient symbol for dying and being resurrected into a new life. The outwards symbol doesn't save you. Your inner change will.

If the biblical story about Adam and Eve is some of metaphor, then what is the meaning of Luke 3:38, where the genealogy of Jesus is traced back 77 generations to Adam who is then described as the son of God?
[/quote
There are two genealogies in the new testament, and they don't match. Even if they describe one for Mary and one for Joseph, there's a problem in the lists when you compare them. They match first third and the last third, but somehow the common people in the last part had different parents in each line. It's obvious that they're not accurate.

I think that a metaphoric Adam and Eve does raise more questions, then answers. I think that much of the Bible would be nonsense, if the biblical Adam and Eve never actually existed.

A lot of people live very happy spiritual lives without resorting to historical Adam and Eve. Thinking of them as actual people is what Paul called being a child and only drinking milk. Eating meat is when you've grown up and can see beyond the symbols. Unfortunately, growing up can hurt sometimes and you might go through a time when you feel lonely after leaving the parents. But then you start to become wiser.

 

[gnostic]

If Adam and Eve didn't exist, then I can't believe in the notion of Original Sin. A metaphoric Adam and Eve changes my entire outlook about the Bible and Christianity. If there wasn't Original Sin, then I don't believe that baptism is necessary for salvation.

Judging by what I have read in the gospels, the Original Sin was nothing that Jesus taught. It was first brought up by Paul, whom never met Jesus, and later by the early church fathers.

If the biblical story about Adam and Eve is some of metaphor, then what is the meaning of Luke 3:38, where the genealogy of Jesus is traced back 77 generations to Adam who is then described as the son of God?

The genealogy is flawed anyway, because between David to Joseph, in the two gospels, totally conflict with each other with Jesus' supposed descendants. How can you possibly decide which one is right? Or perhaps, they are both wrong, that both Matthew and Luke invented the lineage so it would tie Jesus to the House of David?

Some Christian apologists make excuses that Luke's genealogy is that of Mary, even though it clearly state Joseph to be "son of Heli", and not "Mary daughter of Heli". I have heard this argument before in this forum, and it has never been a convincing argument.

Second, in Luke's, it state Mary was a kinswoman of Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist.

And now, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month for her who was said to be barren.

More to the point, it clearly state in Luke 1:5 that Elizabeth to be descendant of Aaron:

In the days of King Herod of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly order of Abijah. His wife was a descendant of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.

This all suggest that Mary was also descendant of Aaron, and not that of David. It is further confirmed that Joseph to be of the House of David, when Gabriel visited Mary:

In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth, 27 to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin’s name was Mary.

It never same that Mary was of the House of David, but it does say so in this verse. So the family tree in 3:23-31 is that of Joseph, not Mary's.

And if Joseph is really not Jesus' real father, then how could Jesus ever claim to be descendant of David, which was important part of the messianic prophecy?

 

[Ouroboros]

The genealogy is flawed anyway, because between David to Joseph, in the two gospels, totally conflict with each other with Jesus' supposed descendants. How can you possibly decide which one is right? Or perhaps, they are both wrong, that both Matthew and Luke invented the lineage so it would tie Jesus to the House of David?

Some Christian apologists make excuses that Luke's genealogy is that of Mary, even though it clearly state Joseph to be "son of Heli", and not "Mary daughter of Heli". I have heard this argument before in this forum, and it has never been a convincing argument.

Also, here's something that just doesn't make sense.

Matthew skipped out on Ahaziah, Joahs, Amaziah from the list because they were evil.

Another problem, up to David, both lists are the same (except for spelling of the names), and then one take the Solomon path, the other Nathan. But then, they meet again at Salathiel/Sheathiel for two generations (Salathiel, Zorobabel) and then diverge again. In one list, Salathiels dad was Jeconiah (and his paternal line), the other is Neri (and his paternal line). So who was the father? Was it a gay marriage perhaps in ancient times?

 

[Mycroft]

If the earth was created 6000 years ago, how do you get around the problem that pretty much...everything can be carbon dated back by tends of hundreds of millions of years ago?

 

[Brickjectivity]

6000 years is not very long. The Earth is 25000 miles in circumference. It is 8000 miles through the middle from end to end. The moon is 6000000 miles away, yet it is so large that we can still see it. One side of it always faces us. The other side always faces away from us. No, I do not think 6000 years is a very long time. There are 3000 year old trees that are still alive. There are clear indications that people have been around for much, much longer than 6000 years.

 

[outhouse]

I actually feel quite bad for being so aggressive in the beginning.

Now I don't know about all that

Could be POE.


have to play this one out longer

 

[Ouroboros]

Could be POE.

New interpretation of the word (as an acronym): Person of Entertainment.

 

[outhouse]

I think that much of the Bible would be nonsense, if the biblical Adam and Eve never actually existed.

No.

It just means your waking up to the reality of what allegory is.

Read in allegory, the book has more meaning and beauty then any absurd literal interpretation.


I have news for you, Israelites who only go back 3200 years, factually knew nothing of human origins. No ancient people did, so they explained it through mythology by making allegorical fables to teach lessons and morals.

All your lessons and morals are still there, to learn from despite the obvious allegory

 

[`mud]

First you get a hook...and then find a worm,
now troll a little.....there's fish for dinner.
~
'mud

 

[gnostic]

I have news for you, Israelites who only go back 3200 years, factually knew nothing of human origins. No ancient people did, so they explained it through mythology by making allegorical fables to teach lessons and morals.

Yes, for why else would Genesis 3 would have something as childish as a "talking" serpent, that can tempt someone doing wrong?

If read literally, it is utterly inane. But if you take it as fable, then you know it is not the literal narrative that's important, but the message it is trying to deliver.

The punishment of the serpent by removing its legs, so that it and offspring (as well as descendants) would crawl on their bellies, remind me of the myth about the Greek god Apollo and the crow.

When Apollo receive an unpleasant news that the girl (Coronis) he loved and made pregnant was in love with a mortal man from a white crow, he punished the bird by turning its feathers, black.

There are many similar myths, all over the world, that explain "why this" or "why that" animals are this way. And Genesis 3 are no different with why snake has lost its legs.

 

[Nietzsche]

I apologize for suggesting a false premise that the Earth and life could have made created/recreated 6,000 years ago. There's just way to much evidence against the biblical assertion that all living humans had originated from one couple who had lived only 6,000 years ago. I no longer can believe in the Bible.

There's never, ever any shame in being wrong. The only time you should be sorry is if you're presented with proof that goes counter to what you're saying and you continue with it, unchanging. You didn't.

Second, while I'm not a Christian(or Abrahamic), I never understood the idea that they had to be literally true. I always felt that cheapens their purpose & meaning. One does not need a talking snake to be real to get the idea of temptation across. So on and so forth. No one should be discouraged from their faith because they understand how the world works. I've got something to show you;

This is Robert T. Bakker.

He is, without question, one of the most prominent & distinguished figures in paleontology. He(and others) is responsible for nigh-everything involved with changing the popular conception of dinosaurs from slow-moving reptilian monsters to the birdlike, intelligent creatures we see now. He's also a devout Christian and a Minister.

You can keep your faith. There's no reason learning about the world should do anything other than make your faith stronger, so long as you're willing to reconcile what we know now with what people thought then.