and the fact there are mulitple messiah stories where they were born to virgins on Dec. 25th with many other similarities.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
what color skin did adam and eve have......
- Thread starter manu1959
- Start date
and the fact there are mulitple messiah stories where they were born to virgins on Dec. 25th with many other similarities.
Wrong.
December 25th (which is supposedly, according to Christians, the date of Yeshua's birth), is actually an invention of the Catholic Church.
Seems they were having troubles with the pagans, and they wanted to convert them to Christianity. So, they told them that Yeshua was born on December 25th (which incidentally lined up with the Winter Solstice, very important to Pagans).
Which is why, everyone believes that Yeshua was born in December.
A closer timeframe would be somewhere between 1 July and 31 October.
and the fact there are mulitple messiah stories where they were born to virgins on Dec. 25th with many other similarities.
Wrong.
December 25th (which is supposedly, according to Christians, the date of Yeshua's birth), is actually an invention of the Catholic Church.
Seems they were having troubles with the pagans, and they wanted to convert them to Christianity. So, they told them that Yeshua was born on December 25th (which incidentally lined up with the Winter Solstice, very important to Pagans).
Which is why, everyone believes that Yeshua was born in December.
A closer timeframe would be somewhere between 1 July and 31 October.
believe it or not, some have calculated September 11th as the birth date of Christ....and this was done before the September 11th attack here in the USA....i sometimes wondered if those that attacked us had not read the study that came out with that september 11th date?
I am not saying this was the actual date of his birth, but there is some sound reasoning coming up with september....
BIRTH OF CHRIST RECALCULATED
fair enough.....how can you tell the color of ones skin and eyes from a coin....
fair enough
similar to putting any of our presidents on coins, face features and eye colors are dipicted in carvings or engravings....but if i am wrong, then it doesn't matter....
His skin color was never talked about in His ministry so to me, that means it just didn;t matter to the messege.
Same with Adam and eve, their skin color was not mentioned in the Bible that i have read, so i guess it really doesn't matter...
care
i agree skin color doesn't matter.....but why there are multiple skin colors and where why and who the evolved does interest me.....
the christian story is a white one....the evolution story is one of color......is it possible they are both true....both wrong....the same story from different perspectives.....
if it is that we are common from one original set of mates.....the genetic traits of that original pari is of interest to me.....it could explain the level of hatred some of one set of traits has for another....
the Christian story may have been a "white one" in later years but it was not a "white one" in the beginning....it was a message for ALL MANKIND, no matter their ethnicity or color....
much of the middle eastern people were early Christians who then were converted through the Crusades to Islam....these were not pearly white skinned humans...nor were those in egypt and other parts of Africa who became part of the converted groups of people to Christianity.
Christianity never really was a White story, it still isn't a white story...it is a message of good news and all colors of people from white, brown and black etc, believe in Christianity and not as a story for only whites, but as said, a messege for mankind...
As far as the differences in colors and heights and body shapes here on earth and the differences among us all on the surface and in dimensions....evolution has a good deal to do with it....saw a show that showed how our skin pigment became lighter and lighter as we moved farther north...
Dna has been traced back for men to Scientific Adam, women with their dna have been traced back to a handful of women....speculation was that this was because of the great flood, where most all women and men were wiped out....but then when they traced Scientific Adam afterwards and were able to get much closer if not to Scientific Adam with those dna tests throughout the world....
There is legend or even scripture that was not put in the old testament that speaks of Lilith being Adams first wife before eve came along....for various rebellious reasons, she was banished from earth, this is when God supposedly made Eve out of adams rib, (which really could mean out of his dna).....intitial genesis story we, male and female, were made in the image of God, then the second genesis acount female was made out of male....
one lilith, one Eve....makes sense as well....for Cain and Able and seth and others to have women availbLE for them to marry and have children with....
In the Book of Jubilee I believe, is where Lilith and Adam is brought up....
So this could be one of the reasons women's dna has not been able to be narrowed down to a scientific Eve....last program i saw on the history chanel or maybe the discovery chanel on this was dated 2007....maybe more has come out on this since then?
Height, eye colors etc, all mutations that made life better....for the people within those regigions... eskimos are short and stocky because it keeps their heart and bodies warmer in frigid, windy weather.....type thing...
And OF COURSE because i am a "believer" in all of this and blind faith is abound i have no problems being laughed at for my stance on adam and eve and lilith etc, but it is what i believe, proof or no proof, none the less....
care
wrong the catholic church got the idea from such Gods as Horus and a few others that date farther back than Christ!and the fact there are mulitple messiah stories where they were born to virgins on Dec. 25th with many other similarities.
Wrong.
December 25th (which is supposedly, according to Christians, the date of Yeshua's birth), is actually an invention of the Catholic Church.
Seems they were having troubles with the pagans, and they wanted to convert them to Christianity. So, they told them that Yeshua was born on December 25th (which incidentally lined up with the Winter Solstice, very important to Pagans).
Which is why, everyone believes that Yeshua was born in December.
A closer timeframe would be somewhere between 1 July and 31 October.
Ancient God's That were very Similar to The Jesus Christ god
Truthspeaker
Αλήθεια η&
Anybody got back to me yet about that bellybutton question? Did Adam have one?
anybody got back to me yet about that bellybutton question? Did adam have one?
No.
Red Dawn
Senior Member
why are they and jesus always show with white skin......wasn'tthe garden of eden in the middle east and was not jesus born there....
wouldn't they have all been darked skinned.....
is being white a genetic mutation......
there was no adam and eve. That's just a biblical story. and there was no garden of eden either.
as for Jesus, I'm no religious expert, but Jesus isn't "always" shown as a blonde white dude. That's just the euro-centric cultural bias you grew up with.
The depiction of Jesus is culturally dependent. Ethiopian christianity which I think pre-dates european christianity, depicts jesus with african features. The muslims would probably consider jesus to be middle eastern looking an olive skinned semite. But as jesus is considered a great prophet of God in Islam, and Islam generally has a prohibition against drawing pictures of all the prophets, I don't think muslims have depictions of jesus.
You should ask yourself if Ape's have belly buttons or if ape/humans such as "Sara" had belly buttons? Like red dawn said there was no adam and eve. With a species usually evolving together if in the same region there would have been more than a one man and one women!Anybody got back to me yet about that bellybutton question? Did Adam have one?
LiveUninhibited
Caffeine Junkie
- Feb 16, 2009
- 503
- 60
- 28
To access URLs you'll need to remove spaces:
If we treat the concept of "Adam and Eve" as symbolically representing early Homo Sapiens, then they were Black. White, yellow, and red skin, as they are called, resulted from a combination of favorable new environments for them and many mutations that turned out to be useful for the purpose of balancing Vitamin D synthesis with protection from UV rays when small offshoots of the original populations moved away from the equator.
Races are a social construct as they are superficially distinct genetically, and all of us can trace our ancestors to Africa. The "Out of Africa" model is well-supported.
In a limited sense, there was probably an Eve and an Adam in pre-historical Africa, but they did not live at the same time and they were not the only humans alive during their time. Matrilineally there was a Mitrochondrial Eve, who lived ~140,000 years ago:
http: //en . wikipedia . org/ wiki/ Mitochondrial_Eve
About half as long ago, there was a patrilineal ancestor of the existant human Y-Chromosomes. But as far as an actual first couple as depicted in the Bible, evidence would suggest that no such thing ever existed. Biologically, a single mating pair can rarely produce a successful population due to genetic diseases. If Adam and Eve had somehow been devoid of such diseases, more time would have been required for these diseases to develop in subsequent generations, and these diseases would all be uniquely human. In fact, the opposite is true. Most genetic diseases are billions of years old:
http: //mbe . oxfordjournals . org/cgi/content/full/25/12/2699
Instead, modern humans resulted from the African population of Homo Erectus that underwent speciation.
http: //www . wikinfo . org/index . php/Evolution_of_Homo_sapiens
If we treat the concept of "Adam and Eve" as symbolically representing early Homo Sapiens, then they were Black. White, yellow, and red skin, as they are called, resulted from a combination of favorable new environments for them and many mutations that turned out to be useful for the purpose of balancing Vitamin D synthesis with protection from UV rays when small offshoots of the original populations moved away from the equator.
(from Wikipedia on Race (classification of human beings)).In 1964, biologists Paul Ehrlich and Holm pointed out cases where two or more clines are distributed discordantlyfor example, melanin is distributed in a decreasing pattern from the equator north and south; frequencies for the haplotype for beta-S hemoglobin, on the other hand, radiate out of specific geographical points in Africa (Ehrlich and Holm 1964). As anthropologists Leonard Lieberman and Fatimah Linda Jackson observed, "Discordant patterns of heterogeneity falsify any description of a population as if it were genotypically or even phenotypically homogeneous" (Lieverman and Jackson 1995).
Patterns such as those seen in human physical and genetic variation as described above, have led to the consequence that the number and geographic location of any described races is highly dependent on the importance attributed to, and quantity of, the traits considered. For example, if only skin colour and a "two race" system of classification were used, then one might classify Indigenous Australians in the same race as Black people, and Caucasians in the same race as East Asian people, but biologists and anthropologists would dispute that these classifications have any scientific validity. Scientists discovered a skin-whitening mutation that partially accounts for the appearance of white skin in humans (people who migrated out of Africa northward into what is now Europe) which they estimate occured 20,000 to 50,000 years ago. The East Asians owe their relatively light skin to different mutations.[47] On the other hand, the greater the number of traits (or alleles) considered, the more subdivisions of humanity are detected, since traits and gene frequencies do not always correspond to the same geographical location. Or as Ossario and Duster (2005) put it:
Anthropologists long ago discovered that humans' physical traits vary gradually, with groups that are close geographic neighbors being more similar than groups that are geographically separated. This pattern of variation, known as clinal variation, is also observed for many alleles that vary from one human group to another. Another observation is that traits or alleles that vary from one group to another do not vary at the same rate. This pattern is referred to as nonconcordant variation. Because the variation of physical traits is clinal and nonconcordant, anthropologists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries discovered that the more traits and the more human groups they measured, the fewer discrete differences they observed among races and the more categories they had to create to classify human beings. The number of races observed expanded to the 30s and 50s, and eventually anthropologists concluded that there were no discrete races (Marks, 2002). Twentieth and 21st century biomedical researchers have discovered this same feature when evaluating human variation at the level of alleles and allele frequencies. Nature has not created four or five distinct, nonoverlapping genetic groups of people.[48]
Races are a social construct as they are superficially distinct genetically, and all of us can trace our ancestors to Africa. The "Out of Africa" model is well-supported.
(From "Human Genetic Variation," Wikipedia).The recent African origin theory for humans would predict that in Africa there exists a great deal more diversity than without Africa, and that diversity should decrease the further from Africa a population is sampled. Long and Kittles show that indeed, African populations contain about 100% of human genetic diversity, whereas in populations outside of Africa diversity is much reduced, for example in their population from New Guinea only about 70% of human variation is captured. This distribution of genetic variation differs from the pattern seen in many other mammalian species, for which existing data suggest greater differentiation between groups (Templeton 1998; Kittles and Weiss 2003).
Our history as a species also has left genetic signals in regional populations. For example, in addition to having higher levels of genetic diversity, populations in Africa tend to have lower amounts of linkage disequilibrium than do populations outside Africa, partly because of the larger size of human populations in Africa over the course of human history and partly because the number of modern humans who left Africa to colonize the rest of the world appears to have been relatively low (Gabriel et al. 2002). In contrast, populations that have undergone dramatic size reductions or rapid expansions in the past and populations formed by the mixture of previously separate ancestral groups can have unusually high levels of linkage disequilibrium (Nordborg and Tavare 2002).
In the field of population genetics, it is believed that the distribution of neutral polymorphisms among contemporary humans reflects human demographic history. It is believed that humans passed through a population bottleneck before a rapid expansion coinciding with migrations out of Africa leading to an African-Eurasian divergence around 100,000 years ago (ca. 5,000 generations), followed by a European-Asian divergence about 40,000 years ago (ca. 2,000 generations). Richard G. Klein, Nicholas Wade and Spencer Wells, among others, have postulated that modern humans did not leave Africa and successfully colonize the rest of the world until as recently as 60,000 - 50,000 years B.P., pushing back the dates for subsequent population splits as well.
The rapid expansion of a previously small population has two important effects on the distribution of genetic variation. First, the so-called founder effect occurs when founder populations bring only a subset of the genetic variation from their ancestral population. Second, as founders become more geographically separated, the probability that two individuals from different founder populations will mate becomes smaller. The effect of this assortative mating is to reduce gene flow between geographical groups, and to increase the genetic distance between groups. The expansion of humans from Africa affected the distribution of genetic variation in two other ways. First, smaller (founder) populations experience greater genetic drift because of increased fluctuations in neutral polymorphisms. Second, new polymorphisms that arose in one group were less likely to be transmitted to other groups as gene flow was restricted.
Many other geographic, climatic, and historical factors have contributed to the patterns of human genetic variation seen in the world today. For example, population processes associated with colonization, periods of geographic isolation, socially reinforced endogamy, and natural selection all have affected allele frequencies in certain populations (Jorde et al. 2000b; Bamshad and Wooding 2003). In general, however, the recency of our common ancestry and continual gene flow among human groups have limited genetic differentiation in our species.
In a limited sense, there was probably an Eve and an Adam in pre-historical Africa, but they did not live at the same time and they were not the only humans alive during their time. Matrilineally there was a Mitrochondrial Eve, who lived ~140,000 years ago:
Mitochondrial organelles, which contain mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), are passed only from mother to offspring. A comparison of DNA sequences from mtDNA in a population reveals a molecular phylogeny. Unlike mtDNA, which is outside the nucleus, genes containing nuclear DNA become recombined after being inherited from both parents, and therefore we can be statistically less certain about nuclear DNA origins than we can for mtDNA, which is only inherited from the mother. mtDNA also mutates at a higher rate compared to nuclear DNA, so it gives researchers a more useful, magnified view of the diversity present in a population
Since Mitochondrial Eve is believed to have lived in Africa she is sometimes referred to as African Eve, an ancestor who has been hypothesized on the grounds of fossil as well as DNA evidence. According to the most common interpretation of the mitochondrial DNA data, the titles belong to the same hypothetical woman. Family trees (or "phylogenies") constructed on the basis of mitochondrial DNA comparisons show that the living humans whose mitochondrial lineages branched earliest from the tree (L1) are prevalent among the San and the Mbuti people.[14] The subsequent branches of L2 and L3 are also largely confined to Africa, while only the macrogroups M and N, descended from L3, participated in the migration out of Africa.
Researchers therefore reason that all living humans descend from Africans, some of whom migrated out of Africa and populated the rest of the world. If the mitochondrial analysis is correct, then because mitochondrial Eve represents the root of the mitochondrial family tree, she must have predated the exodus and lived in Africa. Therefore many researchers take the mitochondrial evidence as support for the "single-origin" or Out-of-Africa model.[1]
http: //en . wikipedia . org/ wiki/ Mitochondrial_Eve
About half as long ago, there was a patrilineal ancestor of the existant human Y-Chromosomes. But as far as an actual first couple as depicted in the Bible, evidence would suggest that no such thing ever existed. Biologically, a single mating pair can rarely produce a successful population due to genetic diseases. If Adam and Eve had somehow been devoid of such diseases, more time would have been required for these diseases to develop in subsequent generations, and these diseases would all be uniquely human. In fact, the opposite is true. Most genetic diseases are billions of years old:
Several thousand genes in the human genome have been linked to a heritable genetic disease. The majority of these appear to be nonessential genes (i.e., are not embryonically lethal when inactivated), and one could therefore speculate that they are late additions in the evolutionary lineage toward humans. Contrary to this expectation, we find that they are in fact significantly overrepresented among the genes that have emerged during the early evolution of the metazoa. Using a phylostratigraphic approach, we have studied the evolutionary emergence of such genes at 19 phylogenetic levels. The majority of disease genes was already present in the eukaryotic ancestor, and the second largest number has arisen around the time of evolution of multicellularity. Conversely, genes specific to the mammalian lineage are highly underrepresented. Hence, genes involved in genetic diseases are not simply a random subset of all genes in the genome but are biased toward ancient genes.
http: //mbe . oxfordjournals . org/cgi/content/full/25/12/2699
Instead, modern humans resulted from the African population of Homo Erectus that underwent speciation.
Since the mid-1990s, there has been a remarkable convergence of views about the evolution of Homo sapiens amongst paleoanthropologists, geneticists, and molecular biologists. This convergence is the subject of books such as Steve Olsen's Mapping Human History (2002). This modern synthesis is also remarkable for its specificity. For example, there is strong scientific evidence supporting these conclusions:
-around 2 to 2.5 million years ago, the genus Homo first appeared;
-about 7,500 generations have passed since the appearance of modern humans;
-every person alive today is descended from a relatively small group of individuals living in Africa sometime between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago;
-mitochondrial Eve lived about 150,000 years ago;
-Y-chromosomal Adam lived between 35,000 and 90,000 years ago.
However, the fossil record is far from complete and it is to be expected that many currently held hypotheses about human evolution will need to be revised.
Between 400,000 years ago and the second interglacial period in the Middle Pleistocene, around 250,000 years ago, the trend in cranial expansion and the elaboration of stone tool technologies developed, providing evidence for a transition from H. erectus to H. sapiens. The direct evidence suggests that there was a migration out of Africa of H. erectus, then a further speciation of H. sapiens from H. erectus in Africa and a subsequent migration from Africa which replaced the dispersed H. erectus.
http: //www . wikinfo . org/index . php/Evolution_of_Homo_sapiens
Last edited:
why are they and jesus always show with white skin......wasn'tthe garden of eden in the middle east and was not jesus born there....
wouldn't they have all been darked skinned.....
is being white a genetic mutation......
Darker? Maybe a bit tanned but not darker by much. As for Adam and Eve since they were created they could have been any color and lived anywhere. Where Eden was is irrelevant.
Agnapostate
Rookie
- Banned
- #52
Adam and Eve did not exist, in my opinion, but Jesus was likely of dark complexion.
Last edited:
- Dec 29, 2008
- 36,329
- 19,221
- 1,905
Adam and Eve did not exist, in my opinion, but Jesus was likely of dark complexion.
How do you know Jesus existed? There are no writings about him during the time in which he was alive. Everything weve ever found that spoke about him was 60 years after he supposedly died.
Your telling me that there was this miracle man who was able cure the blind, heal the sick, walk on water, turn water into wine, and a host of other wizardly type powers, yet not a single of the world scholars during his time ever wrote a word about him? Wouldnt a guy like this be the most popular man on earth? Furthermore, while this man could perform these miracles, im supposed to believe that other men tortured and crucified him anyway? If Jesus could do the things the bible claims he could do, there would be absolutely no dispute in anyones mind, and no primitive god fearing man back in those times would lay a finger on a magic man with thousands of followers who claim hes the son of god. The jews didnt believe he was the messiah? Are you kidding me? What other fucking proof would they have needed?
No, im sorry, but this story just doesnt add up. If all that other crap written about jesus is a lie, why should i believe any part of the story? At this point, theres more proof that he DIDNT exist, than he did.
Last edited:
Agnapostate
Rookie
- Banned
- #54
Actually, no, I didn't claim that Jesus performed multiple miracles, and I'm quite aware that there were (and are) multiple accounts published of his life and death, several of them contradicting each other. Indeed, examining the multiple forms of "Christianity" that existed for the first several centuries after his death makes the current sect differences (and all the sects descended from one form of Christianity) look rather petty and trivial.
I think it likely that Jesus of Nazareth was a legitimate historical figure and religious teacher; I no longer believe that he was divine or the Savior of humanity.
I think it likely that Jesus of Nazareth was a legitimate historical figure and religious teacher; I no longer believe that he was divine or the Savior of humanity.
Interesting stuff posted on homo erectus and homo sapiens.....
As someone who does "believe" in a creator and a "thereafter" even though I know none of it makes sense, none of it can be proved, and all of it seems just illogical on the one hand, yet on the other hand...the inner me, just can't knock it...the inner me is dead set on believing it ALL...
and that inner me knows it is true....don't ask me how? I never had really religious parents though we did attend church on Sundays... I never went to Sunday school or Catechism to any degree of consistency because we moved so much...never could catch up all the schooling missed...never went to Catholic schools...
i didn't even really know what I did believe or didn't believe about the different Christian Doctrines...nada, niente, nothing, zilch....until i was in my 30's and i got a great yearning to learn more....or to read the Bible and any text I could on religions, not just christianity....and I suppose, one could call it a transformation....something happened inside...boom, that was it....i just knew I believed in God and believed He came to us via His Son....
very, very, very strange.... Been dead set on believing ever since and nothing, absolutely nothing can take that away....no logic...none.... weird, I KNOWWWWW!!!!!!! But so true.... hahahahahaha!
I was raised Catholic though my father was not, my mother was... so those who were raised Catholic will understand, I had no understanding of what being 'born again' meant, it is just not a term Catholics use frequently....but if i were to describe the event or the turn around...."born again" fits what happened....I don't know if it was some sort of brain washing, I don't believe so because this conversion of mine took place when I was alone, not involved with any church or church denomination and I still do not belong to a so called "established church"?
Well, that's my story and I am sticking with it!
Anyway, now that you all know where I am coming from..., here are some of my crazy thoughts regarding this that relate to homo erectus and homo sapians:
First let me say that I believe it is possible, that the Bible has lost alot in translation and in books and is possible the Bible is just one (conglomeration)Book that covers some of the History of mankind, from the beginning...I am not dead set that the Bible is the "end all and be all" and no other ancient books out there matter...
shoot, i believe there is an Atlantis, though not found yet, because some author of the past...wrote a story about it in a book.... why not other ancient writings?
There are some things in the Bible that seem God inspired to me....for example there were a group of religious people arguing that there were only "X" amount of planets and stars in the sky....and the astronomy or astrology of the day also thought and expressed the knowledge of knowing the Star count....but then, in the Bible it states that the stars and planets in the universe are soooo many that they can not be counted....
The "science" of the day said that they could be counted and the arrogance of the day said that they could be counted....but the Bible stated that they ALL could not be counted.
We know today through our most updated technology, that they all can not be counted by us...
How did the writer of this passage in the Bible KNOW that all the stars and planets of the universe could not be counted by us several thousand years ago?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then, in the genesis story....it all laid out like a simple play in the right order from scene to scene....not the 6 days thing...which is a human misinterpretation....mainly because God indicates that a day of his time could be like a thousand years of our time....that is a metaphor to say that OUR interpretation of TIME, IS NOT HIS TIME....so why Christians try to insist that it was all done in 6 (24 HOUR) days is beyond me....though i did see a program on a science channel the other day that was saying that "in the beginning" what we call a day on earth, were much much much longer than a 24hr day due to our original distance from the sun and some other things.....so, who really knows, i could be wrong and the 6 day thing will all turn out to be correct?
but just the sequence of the genesis story IS THE SCIENTIFIC sequence as well, only in very simple terms....
FIRST there was the heavens and then the Earth which was not completely formed...
Then, he gave earth the sun....then the earth rose up and all the waters were gathered from the heavens and earth in to a big body of water, with land mass rising, then we were given a moon separating day and night with the sun being the stronger light, then all the plants, then the animals and creeping things, then humans....
I mean, holy crap, how the hell did they know that this was how the earth progressed several thousand years ago? They got the order of progression to the tee?
Even gathering the waters from our galaxy...think about it, our other planets have signs of having water at one time, but no real water now?
And even the waters on earth were gathered together in to one big ocean and we had one big land mass...Pangea or something like that....is what scientists are saying now....it fits with genesis.
This is all in genesis 1
making male and female....
Let's say for humor's sake, that the scientific Adam and eve at this point were "homo erectus"....we were happy campers, living off of the earth....not super smart and not with the larger brain, as with homo sapiens.....Eve, at this point could actually have been Lilith...adams first woman...according to some books of the bible that were actually LEFT OUT OF THE BIBLE that were found with the Dead sea schrolls....Lilith rebeled against adam and left and was banished from earth living according to the story...
then we have Genesis, chapter 2....this creation story seems to contradict the first genesis story....here it says that God formed man, and then formed Eve out of man's rib....i see the rib thing as a metaphor....but scientifically, women can be made out of man, because men carry the X and the Y chromosone and women ONLY carry the X or XX....so, once again, the Bible got it correct, at least with the possibilities of women coming out of man, because there is ABSOLUTELY NO POSSIBILITY that man came out of women because women DO NOT CARRY THE Y chromosone....how'd they know that back then???
Anyway, the story goes on in genesis saying that this couple, adam and eve, "ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil"....now, I don't know what that means....but what if scientifically this relates to the beginning of Homo Sapiens...the beginning of humans having the larger brain, certainly relates to us gaining knowledge!!!! so once again, scientifically, the Bible's genesis stories make sense and can fit with what we are establishing in science.
I think people are too quick to disregard the Bible and saying it is full of crap type of stuff...the Bible is intriguing imo...and fits with Science much more than Christians and others like Athiests give credit for in my opinion.
Care
As someone who does "believe" in a creator and a "thereafter" even though I know none of it makes sense, none of it can be proved, and all of it seems just illogical on the one hand, yet on the other hand...the inner me, just can't knock it...the inner me is dead set on believing it ALL...
and that inner me knows it is true....don't ask me how? I never had really religious parents though we did attend church on Sundays... I never went to Sunday school or Catechism to any degree of consistency because we moved so much...never could catch up all the schooling missed...never went to Catholic schools...
i didn't even really know what I did believe or didn't believe about the different Christian Doctrines...nada, niente, nothing, zilch....until i was in my 30's and i got a great yearning to learn more....or to read the Bible and any text I could on religions, not just christianity....and I suppose, one could call it a transformation....something happened inside...boom, that was it....i just knew I believed in God and believed He came to us via His Son....
very, very, very strange.... Been dead set on believing ever since and nothing, absolutely nothing can take that away....no logic...none.... weird, I KNOWWWWW!!!!!!! But so true.... hahahahahaha!
I was raised Catholic though my father was not, my mother was... so those who were raised Catholic will understand, I had no understanding of what being 'born again' meant, it is just not a term Catholics use frequently....but if i were to describe the event or the turn around...."born again" fits what happened....I don't know if it was some sort of brain washing, I don't believe so because this conversion of mine took place when I was alone, not involved with any church or church denomination and I still do not belong to a so called "established church"?
Well, that's my story and I am sticking with it!
Anyway, now that you all know where I am coming from...
, here are some of my crazy thoughts regarding this that relate to homo erectus and homo sapians:First let me say that I believe it is possible, that the Bible has lost alot in translation and in books and is possible the Bible is just one (conglomeration)Book that covers some of the History of mankind, from the beginning...I am not dead set that the Bible is the "end all and be all" and no other ancient books out there matter...
shoot, i believe there is an Atlantis, though not found yet, because some author of the past...wrote a story about it in a book.... why not other ancient writings?
There are some things in the Bible that seem God inspired to me....for example there were a group of religious people arguing that there were only "X" amount of planets and stars in the sky....and the astronomy or astrology of the day also thought and expressed the knowledge of knowing the Star count....but then, in the Bible it states that the stars and planets in the universe are soooo many that they can not be counted....
The "science" of the day said that they could be counted and the arrogance of the day said that they could be counted....but the Bible stated that they ALL could not be counted.
We know today through our most updated technology, that they all can not be counted by us...
How did the writer of this passage in the Bible KNOW that all the stars and planets of the universe could not be counted by us several thousand years ago?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then, in the genesis story....it all laid out like a simple play in the right order from scene to scene....not the 6 days thing...which is a human misinterpretation....mainly because God indicates that a day of his time could be like a thousand years of our time....that is a metaphor to say that OUR interpretation of TIME, IS NOT HIS TIME....so why Christians try to insist that it was all done in 6 (24 HOUR) days is beyond me....though i did see a program on a science channel the other day that was saying that "in the beginning" what we call a day on earth, were much much much longer than a 24hr day due to our original distance from the sun and some other things.....so, who really knows, i could be wrong and the 6 day thing will all turn out to be correct?
but just the sequence of the genesis story IS THE SCIENTIFIC sequence as well, only in very simple terms....
FIRST there was the heavens and then the Earth which was not completely formed...
Then, he gave earth the sun....then the earth rose up and all the waters were gathered from the heavens and earth in to a big body of water, with land mass rising, then we were given a moon separating day and night with the sun being the stronger light, then all the plants, then the animals and creeping things, then humans....
I mean, holy crap, how the hell did they know that this was how the earth progressed several thousand years ago? They got the order of progression to the tee?
Even gathering the waters from our galaxy...think about it, our other planets have signs of having water at one time, but no real water now?
And even the waters on earth were gathered together in to one big ocean and we had one big land mass...Pangea or something like that....is what scientists are saying now....it fits with genesis.
This is all in genesis 1
making male and female....
Let's say for humor's sake, that the scientific Adam and eve at this point were "homo erectus"....we were happy campers, living off of the earth....not super smart and not with the larger brain, as with homo sapiens.....Eve, at this point could actually have been Lilith...adams first woman...according to some books of the bible that were actually LEFT OUT OF THE BIBLE that were found with the Dead sea schrolls....Lilith rebeled against adam and left and was banished from earth living according to the story...
then we have Genesis, chapter 2....this creation story seems to contradict the first genesis story....here it says that God formed man, and then formed Eve out of man's rib....i see the rib thing as a metaphor....but scientifically, women can be made out of man, because men carry the X and the Y chromosone and women ONLY carry the X or XX....so, once again, the Bible got it correct, at least with the possibilities of women coming out of man, because there is ABSOLUTELY NO POSSIBILITY that man came out of women because women DO NOT CARRY THE Y chromosone....how'd they know that back then???
Anyway, the story goes on in genesis saying that this couple, adam and eve, "ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil"....now, I don't know what that means....but what if scientifically this relates to the beginning of Homo Sapiens...the beginning of humans having the larger brain, certainly relates to us gaining knowledge!!!! so once again, scientifically, the Bible's genesis stories make sense and can fit with what we are establishing in science.
I think people are too quick to disregard the Bible and saying it is full of crap type of stuff...the Bible is intriguing imo...and fits with Science much more than Christians and others like Athiests give credit for in my opinion.
Care
Last edited:
Tough to produce non-retarded offspring from only one coupling. So, if A & E were a metaphor for multiple couples that were the first 'truly human' species as we know it - they likely still were in hot climates and would have darker skin... though why skin that clearly absorbs more light (than lighter skin that clearly reflects more light) was the genetic response to hot, sunny environs is weird.
And assuming they were instantly created as adults like it says in Genesis, no belly button, and likely lacking in fine motor skills.
And assuming they were instantly created as adults like it says in Genesis, no belly button, and likely lacking in fine motor skills.
- Dec 29, 2008
- 36,329
- 19,221
- 1,905
Then, in the genesis story....it all laid out like a simple play in the right order from scene to scene....not the 6 days thing...which is a human misinterpretation....mainly because God indicates that a day of his time could be like a thousand years of our time....that is a metaphor to say that OUR interpretation of TIME, IS NOT HIS TIME....
I have heard this excuse from countless religious people over the years and its total BS. This is NOT an interpretation of time, its an interpretation of a word. Isnt this not the all mighty perfect god that you have all spoken of repeatedly? How is it that god made such a stupid mistake like that? God would know what language man used and when he spoke to man, he would use that language. To say a day is a thousand years to god is absurd, because a day is only 24 hours, you know that, i know that, and certainly a perfect all powerful being like god would know that. Its a simple word with a simple definition. Of all beings, God should be the ultimate communicator. Communicating should never be a problemn for a perfect being that created everything. Furthermore, in order for god to know the word "day" in the first place, that means he would have had to learn english (i realize the bible isnt written in english), in which case he would know the correct meaning of the word....unless you are telling me he made a mistake and just forgot? If god wanted man to think it took him thousands of years, he would have said that, unless he cant communicate as effectively as everyone else.
However, lets assume you are right, and god just miscommunicated.....what does that say about the rest of the things god supposedly told man? How many other words does he have different definitions for? How many words were wrong in the 10 commandments? Do the words "shall not" in the ten commandments actually mean "must"?
You can ask any random retarded child on the street what the meaning of the word day is, and ill garuntee they wont have a problem with it. Why should i believe that an all powerful entity cant understand something so simple? You and your little church buddies might think this is a reasonable explanation for a massive hole in the bible, but everyone else has half a brain.
The reason this mistake was made in the bible, is because the primitive men who wrote it didnt understand the age of our planet and it was anyones guess at that point. Primitive men would have never suspected science would advance to the point where we can answer questions like this. Thats the problem with believing garbage from the bible. The people who wrote it didnt know what they were talking about.
Last edited:
manu1959
Left Coast Isolationist
- Thread starter
- #59
Tough to produce non-retarded offspring from only one coupling. So, if A & E were a metaphor for multiple couples that were the first 'truly human' species as we know it - they likely still were in hot climates and would have darker skin... though why skin that clearly absorbs more light (than lighter skin that clearly reflects more light) was the genetic response to hot, sunny environs is weird.
And assuming they were instantly created as adults like it says in Genesis, no belly button, and likely lacking in fine motor skills.
either way it started with one original pair.....and who says the human race isn't retarded....
Then, in the genesis story....it all laid out like a simple play in the right order from scene to scene....not the 6 days thing...which is a human misinterpretation....mainly because God indicates that a day of his time could be like a thousand years of our time....that is a metaphor to say that OUR interpretation of TIME, IS NOT HIS TIME....
I have heard this excuse from countless religious people over the years and its total BS. Is this not the all mighty perfect god that you have all spoken of repeatedly? How is it that god made such a stupid mistake like that? God would know what language man used and when he spoke to man, he would use that language. To say a day is a thousand years to god is absurd, because a day is only 24 hours, you know that, i know that, and certainly a perfect all powerful being like god would know that. Its a simple word with a simple definition. Of all beings, God should be the ultimate communicator. Communicating should never be a problemn for a perfect being that created everything. Furthermore, in order for god to know the word "day" in the first place, that means he would have had to learn english, in which case he would know the correct meaning of the word....unless you are telling me he made a mistake and just forgot?
However, lets assume you are right, and god just miscommunicated.....what does that say about the rest of the things god supposedly told man? How many other words does he have different definitions for? What does that say about the 10 commandments? How many words were wrong there? Does the word "not" in the ten commandments actually mean "must"?
You can ask any random retarded child on the stret what the meaning of the word day is, and ill garuntee they wont have a problem with it. Why should i believe that an all powerful entity cant understand something so simple?
i didn't make this up....the Bible does say that God's day is not our day....there was no miscommunication....the Bible WAS NEVER MEANT to be a science book godboy, those religious higherarchy that tried to take it as such, later on....were proven wrong, time and time again on their own interpretations.... this was arrogance of humans not the fault of God....we all have freewill....this was not taken from us?
Besides the fact that this story in genesis is related to numerology, of yester year....
6= man's number, one shy of 7 or less than God,
7= God's number, stands for complete
10= governments
11= antichrist along with 666...man's number multiplied
just all kinds of stuff like that which has been lost over the years in translation unless you dig down deep to get in to it....
i am not saying a day of God's time equals 1000yrs ....the bible states such in a later book of the bible about something else....
what this tells us is that to God, a day of his time IS LIKE a thousand years to us....MEANING, ....since he is the beginning and the end, time is of no essence to him....we cant relate to his time....a thousand years to us, is beyond our lifetime...
people fail to recognize numerology and symbolism, because we have let this aspect of our lives pass along, but this was not the case at the time of the bible writings...their numerology was very symbolic and very important.
then also, as i said, i saw a science special that said our early earth ''day'' was much much much longer than our ''day'' of today....
care
Similar threads
- Replies
- 5
- Views
- 131
- Replies
- 94
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 4
- Views
- 105
- Replies
- 6
- Views
- 178
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 41
- Views
- 162
- Replies
- 5
- Views
- 50
- Replies
- 1K
- Views
- 105K
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8038
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 468
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-