PDA

View Full Version : Was Adam really the first man created on earth?



tommy
07-20-2010, 09:51 PM
Hey Thanks everybody and keep your comments coming. I deleted my post here of what I took out of the KJV Bible because it loooked as though I was spamming (I also listed the post in the Christian section to see what they had to say. A No-No!) First of all, this was not my sole opinion-it was just what I read. I am not an expert on the subject.All of your replies or most of your replies have been very interresting and very informative. But try to tell this ( your findings) to devout closed minded reveling church goers here in the Bible Belt - who believe if it is written in the Bible do not question anything. The truth is based on fact, but not to these people. If it is written in the Bible - case closed! Please answer the poll, because the results look very close. Soon, I will have more questions for everybody. So, please keep your comments coming.....Thanks again and look for more.

DeleyanLee
07-20-2010, 09:58 PM
Another difference between Adam and the Neanderthal caveman was that Adam was educated and could talk. According to the Book of Genesis, Adam named the animals and named God. The Neanderthal caveman was primitive and only grunted.

My opinion is you should update your understanding of scientific understanding. Last I heard, it's been figured out that Neanderthals were capable of speech and had as complex a society as the other humans of that era. Even popular means such as the Discover or the Science Channels reflect this.

You're also assuming that our understanding of "education" is the measure by which all must be judged. This is a vain and self-serving habit that many Western peoples fall victim to throughout history since, obviously, what they are in their present moment is obviously the epitome of what humankind can achieve and everything prior to them must be primitive, and thus completely dismissable, in comparison.

thothguard51
07-20-2010, 10:01 PM
All I can say is your math is faulty...

Paul
07-20-2010, 10:09 PM
No. It was a guy called Dave. Adam had a better publicist.

Lyra Jean
07-20-2010, 10:12 PM
I think the creation of Adam and Eve is just that. A story about the creation of the Earth. I do not, as a Christian, take it literally. So the math doesn't matter to me. The Bible is a book about faith not science.

Shadow_Ferret
07-20-2010, 10:16 PM
Wow. Really?











No Orlando Bloom in that poll?

Paul
07-20-2010, 10:17 PM
2 posts Tommy and one a book blurb, not bad.

William Haskins
07-20-2010, 10:18 PM
Maybe Adam was the first civilized man or the first Jewish man ever created.
What's your opinion?


we'd have to check his foreskin, i reckon.

Paul
07-20-2010, 10:19 PM
I

I do not think that the angels would have been attracted to a gorilla.



hey, you ever walked up sunset boulevard late at night...?

Shiny
07-20-2010, 10:30 PM
Tommy, the questions in your poll presume a creator. I would say evolved, rather than created, although many would say both.


What's your opinion?

Creation stories all around the world, from different cultures and religions, are fascinating fictional stories. Genesis is one of those stories.

Medievalist
07-20-2010, 10:37 PM
1. I wish people who want to do close reading of the OT would learn Hebrew.

2. Adam = "man" (adam) but etymologically adam derives from the Hebrew word adamah, ground (yes, just like BSG!), and morphologically adam = literally, "the one formed from the ground."

3. This is much like Latin homo "man" is derived from humanus, (modern English's source for human) is derived from humus, "ground, soil, earth."

I think Adam and Eve (and Lilith) are poetic metaphor, though I do suspect that there's a specific geographic reference to "eden," lost in mythology.

Chris P
07-20-2010, 10:45 PM
I think the creation of Adam and Eve is just that. A story about the creation of the Earth. I do not, as a Christian, take it literally. So the math doesn't matter to me. The Bible is a book about faith not science.

This. Jesus spoke in parables all the time, and nobody has a problem with that. Why can't the first few chapters of Genesis be a parable as well? It being a parable is not a challenge to God's supremacy at all.

If we take the Bible as science, then you get speckled rams by having their parents mate in front of multi-colored reeds (Gen 30:37-43), but college students aren't disrupting class to argue that point.

Paul
07-20-2010, 10:45 PM
I don't know why, but I decided to actually read the full OP. funniest post I've read in a long while. Kudos tommy . :D

Adam
07-20-2010, 10:49 PM
we'd have to check his foreskin, i reckon.

:e2zipped:

Wayne K
07-20-2010, 10:52 PM
:popcorn:

Paul
07-20-2010, 10:56 PM
:e2zipped:

wait, your name is Adam - you can solve this riddle surely?

DeleyanLee
07-20-2010, 10:57 PM
we'd have to check his foreskin, i reckon.


:e2zipped:

I guess we could ask Brainstorm...

Paul
07-20-2010, 10:59 PM
I guess we could ask Brainstorm...

damn it , i was just gonna say that!

Medievalist
07-20-2010, 11:00 PM
This. Jesus spoke in parables all the time, and nobody has a problem with that. Why can't the first few chapters of Genesis be a parable as well? It being a parable is not a challenge to God's supremacy at all.

There are a number of words in the OT that are hapax legomenon (http://www.yourdictionary.com/hapax-legomenon).

They only occur in the OT (and works about that occurence). So we don't really know what they mean. A number of them are words for time.

DeleyanLee
07-20-2010, 11:01 PM
damn it , i was just gonna say that!

You snooze, you lose. :wag:

kaitiepaige17
07-20-2010, 11:09 PM
:evil SATAN!

JK, guys, JK.

I wanted an excuse to use the evil smiley.

:e2woo:

Shiny
07-21-2010, 01:13 AM
Also, there are some of those out there who think that man evolved from an ape which I highly disagree.

I've honestly never met someone who believes this. Ever.

I'm descended from hominids. I think they're cool. I share a common ancestor with apes. They're spectacular creatures.

Edited to add: as in modern apes.



I do not think that the angels would have been attracted to a gorilla.
My sincere and earnest hope is that only gorillas will be attracted to gorillas.

backslashbaby
07-21-2010, 03:58 AM
I firmly believe that man was created in God’s image and God is not an ape which is further evidenced by the fact that angels of heaven gazed down upon the beauty of the earthly maidens. They descended to earth and took these maidens as their wives which angered God.
I do not think that the angels would have been attracted to a gorilla.


If God were an ape, of course angels would want gorillas. You've just proven that God is an ape!

aadams73
07-21-2010, 04:00 AM
I just want to know if Adam had a bellybutton.

Paul
07-21-2010, 04:05 AM
I just want to know if Adam had a bellybutton.


???

My outta some sorta sexual deviancy loop?

aadams73
07-21-2010, 04:07 AM
???

My outta some sorta sexual deviancy loop?

No, it's not even remotely sexual. If Adam was the first man, it stands to reason he wouldn't have a navel. He wouldn't have been carried in a womb and therefore there would be no umbilical cord. Ergo, no bellybutton.

Paul
07-21-2010, 04:13 AM
No, it's not even remotely sexual. If Adam was the first man, it stands to reason he wouldn't have a navel. He wouldn't have been carried in a womb and therefore there would be no umbilical cord. Ergo, no bellybutton.

oh.

Well that's interesting.

*cough*

so, em, is yours an innie or an outtie? :D


(em, Ergo was Adam's son right?)

Medievalist
07-21-2010, 04:32 AM
Another difference between Adam and the Neanderthal caveman was that Adam was educated and could talk. According to the Book of Genesis, Adam named the animals and named God. The Neanderthal caveman was primitive and only grunted.]

Where on Earth did you get this from? They were cross-fertile with homo sapiens sapiens (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18869-neanderthal-genome-reveals-interbreeding-with-humans.html).

And how are you defining "primitive"? They had art. They had tools. They did this (http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/arcnat/chauvet/en/) about 31,000 years ago, within an interval of +/- 1,300 years.

http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z291/digital_medievalist/Linked%20iamges/chevaux.jpg


Also, there are some of those out there who think that man evolved from an ape which I highly disagree.

No one suggests that man was descended from an Ape.

No one.

And really, if you want to know what the Bible says, you really need to read it in the original, and not some translated, or edited, version.

You can start here (http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/). You'll need to learn Hebrew, and Koine. It shouldn't take more than two years with regular work.

Paul
07-21-2010, 04:35 AM
em Med, I doan think dis guy knows nuthin, if ye foller me.


(Double negative necessary for character)

Medievalist
07-21-2010, 04:36 AM
em Med, I doan think dis guy knows nuthin, if ye foller me.


(Double negative necessary for character)

Yeah, but I always try to post with lurkers in mind.

Plus, I love that picture.

Paul
07-21-2010, 04:38 AM
Yeah, but I always try to post with lurkers in mind.

Plus, I love that picture.

yeah, picture's cool

Ruv Draba
07-21-2010, 06:11 AM
There are a number of words in the OT that are hapax legomenon (http://www.yourdictionary.com/hapax-legomenon).I believe Hapax Legomenon was actually the name of the first man, and I for one am disappointed that his name never once appeared in Asterix.

thothguard51
07-21-2010, 06:27 AM
I have always been amazed that Genesis explains the big bang theory...

How could someone from thousands of years ago figure out the big bang?

Guardian
07-21-2010, 06:31 AM
I have always been amazed that Genesis explains the big bang theory...

How could someone from thousands of years ago figure out the big bang?

I don't know if it explains the Big Bang theory exactly. But it does pretty much say that everything came out of nothing (not literally nothing; that isn't possible), which is a lot like the Big Bang theory.

I'm really amazed that the steps of creation in Genesis follow what science has pretty much been able to figure out and logically prove. It IS amazing that someone figured that out. They could have said a giant chicken laid an egg and when it cracked, there was the universe, but they didn't.

Medievalist
07-21-2010, 08:19 AM
I've been told rib cells have good cloning potential . . .

jennontheisland
07-21-2010, 08:20 AM
I've been told rib cells have good cloning potential . . .
Adam and . . . Steve?

Guardian
07-21-2010, 08:24 AM
Adam and . . . Steve?

That's what you get for reading the translation! :D

Wayne K
07-21-2010, 08:40 AM
:popcorn:

Lhun
07-21-2010, 03:34 PM
What's with all the creationist posts lately?


I'm really amazed that the steps of creation in Genesis follow what science has pretty much been able to figure out and logically prove.You have to interpret genesis extremely loosely to make it fit cosmology. Force it, really.

greta2242
07-21-2010, 05:04 PM
EEK... ok well I wanted to respond. I guess I have a New Age type view of the whole thing, and it's what makes sense to me. Part of my view is Kabbalah and part is New Age and probably part is the childhood in Catholic school. No judgment!!!

Anyhow I like the idea that Adam and Eve were the first people with a soul. Before 5000 years ago the primatives were without a soul. Adam and Eve's Garden was the entire cosmos where Earth was just a small speck within the Garden. Adam and Eve were without a body as we have. Upon Eve feeding Adam the fruit, the punishment was to put their soul into animal bodies and forced to live within animal flesh. Every person in the world has a part of Adam and Eve's soul within them.

This version works for me, when I need to think about these things.

Lhun
07-21-2010, 05:20 PM
Anyhow I like the idea that Adam and Eve were the first people with a soul. Before 5000 years ago the primatives were without a soul.Damn, i'm sure the ancient egyptians and greek will be shocked to hear they had no souls.

DeleyanLee
07-21-2010, 05:23 PM
Damn, i'm sure the ancient egyptians and greek will be shocked to hear they had no souls.

Not to mention the Chinese, Indians, other Africans, Native Americans, etc. etc. etc.

Then again, I'm not really convinced on the entire matter of souls in the first place, but I know that's just me.

Lhun
07-21-2010, 05:45 PM
Then again, I'm not really convinced on the entire matter of souls in the first place, but I know that's just me.[total derail]I always loved the official ebay policy regarding the selling of souls. :D Either they're not real, and it's fraud and not allowed, or they're real, and it's selling human body parts and not allowed[/total derail]

Medievalist
07-21-2010, 08:16 PM
Anyhow I like the idea that Adam and Eve were the first people with a soul. Before 5000 years ago the primitives were without a soul.

The idea that the Neolithic peoples who built Stonehenge, c. 3000 BCE and the people who built Newgrange/Brugh na Boine, and the people who built the pyramids of Giza c. 2589-2504 BCE didn't have a soul is less than appealing to me.

I don't think you can create art without a "soul," on the large scale.

This stone from Brugh na Boine is art, as well as science:

http://inlinethumb11.webshots.com/13514/1075685068037589848S200x200Q85.jpg (http://travel.webshots.com/photo/1075685068037589848SKXtXJ)

kaitiepaige17
07-21-2010, 08:21 PM
:popcorn:

greta2242
07-21-2010, 09:04 PM
Not to mention the Chinese, Indians, other Africans, Native Americans, etc. etc. etc.

Then again, I'm not really convinced on the entire matter of souls in the first place, but I know that's just me.

Greeks, Chinese, ancient Egypt, and Indians from India are all of course AFTER and are mentioned in the stories AFTER. I'm pretty sure Abraham, Jacob, and Joseph mention Egypt a few times. And as for the Mayans, they are dated to the time of ancient Egypt.

Either way I don't think about these things all the time. I said that it's my preferred thinking when I do try to place the beginning of time stuff, and then go back to my own life.

But math wise let's say 3000 BCE plus 2010 equals 5010 which is roughly what 5000 years?!?!

sassandgroove
07-21-2010, 09:15 PM
pass the popcorn.

I am disappointed tommy deleted his post.

DeleyanLee
07-21-2010, 09:18 PM
pass the popcorn.

I am disappointed tommy deleted his post.

Making that choice does say quite a bit, though.

greta2242
07-21-2010, 09:44 PM
So instead of writing I was investigating. The oldest known city that is still inhabited and oldest art is from Jericho. Apparently there is a statute head from 9000 BCE. I'm ok with pushing the date further back, as the math doesn't truly bother me in my little theory.

But I found it interesting that when I asked for no judgment, people assumed that I said the Chinese, Greeks etc were without souls. Talking about putting words and opinions onto others.

Anyone who can write, draw or communicate has a soul. There is no way to carbon date my own theory with the story.

Medievalist
07-21-2010, 09:45 PM
pass the popcorn.

I am disappointed tommy deleted his post.

Duplicate post; drive-by iUniverse book promo.

Medievalist
07-21-2010, 09:47 PM
But I found it interesting that when I asked for no judgment, people assumed that I said the Chinese, Greeks etc were without souls. Talking about putting words and opinions onto others.

Anyone who can write, draw or communicate has a soul. There is no way to carbon date my own theory with the story.

The problem is that you are making assumptions in the face of history.

Among others.

The Chauvet cave image I posted (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5160896&postcount=28) is from roughly 31,000 years ago.

It's art.

The cave is a sacred site; with indications of multi-generational rituals.

sassandgroove
07-21-2010, 10:08 PM
I figure that there is a creator but that the adam and eve story is an allegory.

Lhun
07-21-2010, 10:17 PM
But I found it interesting that when I asked for no judgment, people assumed that I said the Chinese, Greeks etc were without souls. Talking about putting words and opinions onto others. Not a lot of assuming or putting words going on. You mentioned that earlier than 5000 years ago there were no souls. Pretty advanced human cultures can be traced back more than twice as far, and human cultures in general much further. Going with your post, all of them must not have had souls.

aadams73
07-22-2010, 12:22 AM
so, em, is yours an innie or an outtie? :D


I don't have one. I swapped it for a rib with some old guy named Adam.

greta2242
07-22-2010, 01:56 AM
Not a lot of assuming or putting words going on. You mentioned that earlier than 5000 years ago there were no souls. Pretty advanced human cultures can be traced back more than twice as far, and human cultures in general much further. Going with your post, all of them must not have had souls.

Umm no not really, not that we truly know about anyhow. All the cultures that we know anything about truly happened about 5000 years ago. We know about ancient Egypt, India, China all date back that length of time. We know nothing about the caves from 31,000 years ago. And if Adam and Eve were beings beyond the human body, how do you know that the drawings were done by hands like yours?!?

We know that evolved human culture with archeological evidence and written history dates back only a certain length of time.

And if you are talking Neanderthals, there is not much evidence of the people who might or might be more ape than human. And if you go with the human soul was put into the animal body, it goes right along with the evolution of every known human historical evidence of cultures. The 5000 is of course approximate, and the stories post that talk about men living for a 1000 years. So the date is rather flexible.

CACTUSWENDY
07-22-2010, 02:15 AM
I agree that Tommy left us without taking the time to 'know' us....sigh.

It's interesting to read all the thoughts of the gang here at AW. Multiply that out by the billions of others around the world and you will have a neat look at how minds work through the spiritual stuff.

Human beings are truly a thought provoking entity. I can't wait to see if the things I think are right come about or if I am far out in left field.

Meanwhile.....back to my :popcorn:

Guardian
07-22-2010, 02:15 AM
http://www.visual-arts-cork.com/prehistoric/ivory-carvings-swabian-jura.htm

Ivory Carving of Mammoth, Vogelherd Cave, from about 33,000 BCE.

Ivory Carving of Horse, Vogelherd Cave, from about 33,000 BCE.

"These new finds reveal the outstanding artistry of the Stone Age inhabitants of the Swabian Jura and chronicle an aesthetically-appreciative culture that was far from primitive."


And if Adam and Eve were beings beyond the human body, how do you know that the drawings were done by hands like yours?!?

LOL what are you suggesting? That ancient people had tentacles for hands? Or that ancient people were spirits who made art with telekinesis?

backslashbaby
07-22-2010, 02:16 AM
Umm no not really, not that we truly know about anyhow. All the cultures that we know anything about truly happened about 5000 years ago. We know about ancient Egypt, India, China all date back that length of time. We know nothing about the caves from 31,000 years ago. And if Adam and Eve were beings beyond the human body, how do you know that the drawings were done by hands like yours?!?

We know that evolved human culture with archeological evidence and written history dates back only a certain length of time.

And if you are talking Neanderthals, there is not much evidence of the people who might or might be more ape than human. And if you go with the human soul was put into the animal body, it goes right along with the evolution of every known human historical evidence of cultures. The 5000 is of course approximate, and the stories post that talk about men living for a 1000 years. So the date is rather flexible.

You forgot the Irish! Well, I don't know if they were the same people because I can't recall, but I really enjoyed visiting Newgrange in what is for sure now Ireland ;). It's 1000 years older than the pyramids!

Or are you saying that we don't know much about those folks? That's probably true compared to the cultures you listed.

Medievalist
07-22-2010, 02:36 AM
Umm no not really, not that we truly know about anyhow.

Yes, actually, that we know quite a lot about.


All the cultures that we know anything about truly happened about 5000 years ago. We know about ancient Egypt, India, China all date back that length of time. We know nothing about the caves from 31,000 years ago. And if Adam and Eve were beings beyond the human body, how do you know that the drawings were done by hands like yours?!?

We have their bones, we have their feces, we have DNA from inside their teeth. We have the tools they used, the leftover pigments, the remains of their suppers and ritual implements, and we have their carefully created handprints on the cave walls.

I think you are woefully misinformed.

There are links upthread proving that we co-evolved and were cross-fertile with Neanderthals. There's a link to the Chauvet cave site as well, talking about what we can tell about the artists and hunters who lived, worked, and created there.

Medievalist
07-22-2010, 02:38 AM
You forgot the Irish! Well, I don't know if they were the same people because I can't recall, but I really enjoyed visiting Newgrange in what is for sure now Ireland ;). It's 1000 years older than the pyramids!

We don't actually know what languages the Neolithic settlers of Ireland spoke; given what we know about the immigration patterns and the shifting DNA, we suspect that there were many arrivals in groups from all over the Continent, and that there may well have been not only Celtic and Germanic languages, but possibly even non I.E. languages.

Shiny
07-22-2010, 02:46 AM
We know that evolved human culture with archeological evidence and written history dates back only a certain length of time.

The technology of writing gives us the enormous privilege of communicating (one way) with people from the distant past. Glimpses into their minds, their humanity, and perhaps their souls.

It's frustrating that we do not have this privilege for all societies, but that does not strip those cultures or their people of their humanity, amply testified by their technological and artistic achievements.

If you believe, as you seem to be arguing, that the human soul and the technology of writing are linked, do you believe that people of cultures without writing after 5,000 years to the present day do not have souls? If this is not what you are arguing, then how can you possibly dismiss the evidence of the material culture of people earlier than 3,000 BC?

Guardian
07-22-2010, 04:23 AM
I wanted to share this before but had to log off.

http://www.wyfda.org/basics_2.html


Every culture and civilization attends to the proper care of their dead. Every culture and civilization ever studied has three things in common relating to death and the disposition of the dead:



Some type of funeral rites, rituals, and ceremonies
A sacred place for the dead
Memorialization of the dead

Researchers have found burial grounds of Neanderthal man dating to 60,000 BC with animal antlers on the body and flower fragments next to the corpse indicating some type of ritual and gifts of remembrance.
With no great psychological knowledge or custom to draw from, Neanderthal man instinctively buried their dead with ritual and ceremony.
There was a culture. As soon as there were a group of people, there was a culture. Some had reverence for death, others a strong fear of it. It's really interesting if you read the rest of the site. These may not be famous civilizations like China or Egypt but you can't deny that we have evidence of cultures that existed prior to those. They made art, and evidence shows that they at least believed they had souls.

ColoradoGuy
07-22-2010, 08:08 AM
I'm back after a month or so of only occasional internet access. Thanks so much to Medievalist for moving the discussion along useful paths. Overall, the poll appears to me simply to be a question of Biblical inerrancy, yes or no, a question not specific to Genesis.

Regarding the side issue, it seems clear to me that proto-human self-awareness and spiritual searching go back many thousands of years. To me, that is the soul.

C.bronco
07-22-2010, 08:27 AM
Ewww, sorry, no. Adam wasn't the first guy; his name was "Aughumm," which roughly translates to "Adam." He didn't have a girlfriend, which is probably why he didn't get much mention. Eve went with that Adam guy, and, well, you know the story.

Aughumm was kind of shy, and kept to himself. He liked butterflies and philosophical discussions about Camus. He found this really cool girl who graduated from Grinnel, and they had fabulous kids, but that kinda falls by the wayside. Anyways, Aughumm eventually finished his thesis on the food chain and man, which challenged PETA and Vegans worldwide. It created quite an uproar, but eventually promoted the univeral standards for clean livin conditiions among rodents. The world is better now.

mccardey
07-22-2010, 08:36 AM
Greta -
Anyone who can write, draw or communicate has a soul. And anyone who can't, doesn't? (I know you didn't say that, but it's dangerous territory...)


I like what Shiny said -

If you believe, as you seem to be arguing, that the human soul and the technology of writing are linked, do you believe that people of cultures without writing after 5,000 years to the present day do not have souls?

QFT. Because if the human soul and the technology of writing are linked, there are going to be issues for illiterates everywhere - to say nothing of pre-school children, the elderly, the learning-disabled and, you know, doctors-without-keyboards...

Also,


All the cultures that we know anything about truly happened about 5000 years ago.

on behalf of Australia's First Nations past, present and future -

*smack*!

And lastly - it's not fair to make judgemental assertions about, say, entire peoples lacking souls while others have them - and then say "No judgements, please." Well, I mean, you can do it, but you're going to get spanked. ;)

Mara
07-22-2010, 09:16 AM
To me, the worst thing about Biblical literalism is it distracts people from what the metaphors are actually trying to say.

Example:
Trying to read the New Testament as a literal historical document. In the process, ignoring the overwhelming symbolic power of Jesus dying on Friday, resting on the Sabbath, and rising on the first day of the week. (Symbolically, it means that he completed work and then started new work. Completely contrary to the "Jesus was the end, now we just wait for the world to collapse" interpretation that's so popular among premillennialists.)

greta2242
07-22-2010, 03:55 PM
You forgot the Irish! Well, I don't know if they were the same people because I can't recall, but I really enjoyed visiting Newgrange in what is for sure now Ireland ;). It's 1000 years older than the pyramids!

Or are you saying that we don't know much about those folks? That's probably true compared to the cultures you listed.

Woefully misunderstanding is rather sad of what I said, but whatever.

However I wanted to respond to this post only simply because I never can forget the Irish. I must simply look in the mirror to see my DNA. As one of the settled Boston Irish types, it's impossible to ever forget my culture.

Paul
07-22-2010, 04:14 PM
You forgot the Irish! Well, I don't know if they were the same people because I can't recall, but I really enjoyed visiting Newgrange in what is for sure now Ireland ;). It's 1000 years older than the pyramids!

Or are you saying that we don't know much about those folks? That's probably true compared to the cultures you listed.

There's a bit of Druid in me. (and I can't seem to dislodge it. :D)

greta2242
07-24-2010, 03:42 AM
Greta - And anyone who can't, doesn't? (I know you didn't say that, but it's dangerous territory...)


I like what Shiny said -


QFT. Because if the human soul and the technology of writing are linked, there are going to be issues for illiterates everywhere - to say nothing of pre-school children, the elderly, the learning-disabled and, you know, doctors-without-keyboards...

Also,



on behalf of Australia's First Nations past, present and future -

*smack*!

And lastly - it's not fair to make judgemental assertions about, say, entire peoples lacking souls while others have them - and then say "No judgements, please." Well, I mean, you can do it, but you're going to get spanked. ;)

If someone read what I said without judgment then you would see that I said every person on the planet has a soul, and we are all connected to one larger soul. But then people want to layeth the smack down without actually taking in what I said, so I ignored the thread the next day.

Either way it's time to honor my creator, so I must go.

mccardey
07-24-2010, 04:02 AM
Umm no not really, not that we truly know about anyhow. All the cultures that we know anything about truly happened about 5000 years ago.

Well, I read what you said without judgement and then made a judgement. That's what I do - that's what I think most people do. It would be very difficult to make a judgement without having read you ;) And presumably the reason you posted was because you had made a judgement yourself and wanted to share it.

When I say I made a judgement - not on the bible or Adam or any of that; just on the rigour of your argument.

Bartholomew
07-24-2010, 04:04 AM
The problem is that you are making assumptions in the face of history.

Among others.

The Chauvet cave image I posted (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5160896&postcount=28) is from roughly 31,000 years ago.

It's art.

The cave is a sacred site; with indications of multi-generational rituals.

Well, someone modifying Genesis doesn't have to accept a shorter time, either. I could easily throw out guesstimates about when creation began, say that Adam and Eve were the first true Homo Sapiens, and that they just bred with the others of their tribe.

But if you're (generic you) modifying the bible anyway, you might as well write your own version.

And from a monotheistic point of view, why would God mind? Its work dedicated to Him, trying to get His story to be more accessible for a modern people.

JimmyB27
07-28-2010, 04:13 PM
QFT. Because if the human soul and the technology of writing are linked, there are going to be issues for illiterates everywhere - to say nothing of pre-school children, the elderly, the learning-disabled and, you know, doctors-without-keyboards...

And without a soul, you're not human, right? So, putting these two things together, does this mean that abortion is ok up to age three, four?

:sarcasm

Zanthus
02-01-2011, 07:40 AM
I have one two basic Assumptions (that are relevant here)
1. God is real
2. God is all power full

From that I assume that he can do what he wants, it is quite possible to make something with the appearance of age I see no reason why the world didnít begin a few seconds ago and everyone has memories granted to them, whilst I think it unlikely the possibility of such things fitting in with in my view point make it difficult for me to discuss what happened after the world was created/started.
:Shrug:
(Unless someone can give me a date and time)

I apoligize if i have done anyones head in but hopefuly a writer can cope with this sort of stuff.


(Unless someone can give me a date and time

aruna
02-01-2011, 12:09 PM
To me, the worst thing about Biblical literalism is it distracts people from what the metaphors are actually trying to say.



So true. The whole beauty of the Bible, Old and New Testament, is the wisdom and metaphorical truth behind the stories. Trying to interpret them as literal actually lessens their impact. Christianity as a religion woul dbe far stronger if we were all (Christians as well as atheists) were less concerned with "did this really happen?" and more concerned with "what does this mean?"

A.V. Hollingshead
03-24-2011, 01:14 PM
I question whether or not even the Bible really supports that Adam and Eve (and Lillith, I suppose) are, without a doubt, the first people. There are no doubt other humans on Earth at the time of Adam and his sons. When Cain is banished, he encounters people in - what was it? Nod, I think? Other people, another civilization presumably. I think we can argue that Adam is the first of God's people (Hebrews), but I don't know if I can say just from the Bible that Adam is the first human.

Regardless, I am an atheist and support the theory of evolution, although perhaps not quite by Darwinian standards.

BunnyMaz
03-24-2011, 08:40 PM
But I found it interesting that when I asked for no judgment, people assumed that I said the Chinese, Greeks etc were without souls. Talking about putting words and opinions onto others.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_history

The span of recorded history is 5000 years. That just means that we have evidence of records written by other cultures which we can understand as far back as 5000 years. Not that people before that 5000 year cutoff were incapable of doing it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistory


The systematic burial of the dead (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_burial), the music (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_music), early art (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_art), and the use of increasingly sophisticated multi-part tools are highlights of the Middle Paleolithic.Humans as Homo Sapiens have existed for roughly 200,000 years. Prior to that however, the oldest stone tools found are roughly 2.5 million years old. Tool creation at its most basic requires forethought, imagination, the ability to look at an item and imagine a 3D shape within it, working out how to create that shape, sharing the knowledge with others of your own kind and sharing the uses of it with them as well. That sounds pretty advanced and soul-worthy, to me.

The problem is we cannot interpret intelligence and sentience as a black/white issue. There is no line in the sand behind which we are just animals and beyond which we are people with souls and minds. Such things fall on a spectrum. Just look at corvids, for example.

http://www.pbs.org/lifeofbirds/brain/index.html

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=crow+cracking+nuts&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=vhT&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&prmd=ivns&source=univ&tbs=vid:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=-HKLTYj-HZCLhQeG8_mmDg&ved=0CC0QqwQ

The crow finds a nut and places it on a busy road. The crow waits for a car to run over the nut and break the shell. The crow then hops down by the crossing and waits for a human to press the button. Once the light changes and the cars stop moving, the crow hops into the road and collects the exposed nut flesh. An act that tales imagination, creativity, intelligence, forethought, obdervation and planning. And which the corvids have been able to communicate to each other enough that this has becoem a regular behaviour for them - a way for them to access protein that would normally be impossible for them to manage.

*EDIT* This is also awesome (same link)


The woodpecker finch, a bird of the Galapagos, is another consummate toolmaker. It will snap off a twig, trim it to size and use it to pry insects out of bark. In captivity, a cactus finch learnt how to do this by watching the woodpecker finch from its cage. The teacher helped the pupil by passing a ready-made spine across for the cactus finch to use. I do not believe that we are uniquely sentient or intelligent. I believe that this is more wondrous and awe-inspiring than thinking we're the only ones. Especially when I read stuff like that.

readlorey
04-29-2011, 08:40 PM
The whole Adam being the first man thing reminds me of the what came first, the chicken or the egg?

And I think the answer to the Adam question is whether or not you're a creationist or a evolutionist.

Was his last name Sandler?

Pistol Whipped Bee
04-29-2011, 08:42 PM
No - I'm pretty sure his name was Larry.

Anacry
06-11-2011, 05:56 AM
I think perhaps Adam was the first person that God created, then he created Eve. But I also think that perhaps God created other people after them.

ianuschristius
01-18-2012, 09:48 PM
No, I don't think that man like the Biblical Adam ever existed, I think that is just a analogy to first humans on Earth(whatever their names were, if they had any).

onuilmar
01-19-2012, 01:51 AM
I'll hop in here and stir the cauldron.

My problem with Bibilical inerrancy is that God dictated the Bible and Man wrote it down. (Except maybe for the tablets with the 10 commandments. Interesting that they were in a language Moses could read.)

But God made the world. Scientists test their ideas against the world.

So which is a more accurate translation of God's ideas and God's world?

And yes, I loaded the dice, but this is kind of how I see it. The world is God's creation and a reflection of God (or prime mover, or whatever).

And there is no arguing with the real world. Billiard ball science (Newtonian physics) is eminently testable by average folks. If one doesn't complete the electrical circuit, the lights don't work. No amount of yelling and cursing at the blasted lights will make them go on.

What the Bible says, however, depends on which passages one focuses on.

So when biologists tell me that evolution is the story of life, I tend to believe them. And, yes, I evolved from some kind of proto great ape.

onuilmar
01-19-2012, 06:03 PM
Sorry, didn't realize how old this thread was. :)

Rufus Coppertop
01-20-2012, 02:22 PM
I think Genesis is a particularly wonderful creation myth.

ColoradoGuy
01-20-2012, 06:06 PM
Sorry, didn't realize how old this thread was. :)

Old is OK. Think of it as fine wine.

sassandgroove
01-20-2012, 09:55 PM
onuilmar - it's fine! It reminded me of this thread.

Mr. Groove and I have been reading through the bible together and we were wondering things like - Did God flood the whole earth or just the earth Noah knew. But this thread reminded me - it doesn't matter. It's an allegory. What matters is that it is a story about God starting over- just like Adam and Eve are an allegory about creation.

onuilmar
01-21-2012, 02:14 AM
onuilmar - it's fine! It reminded me of this thread.

Mr. Groove and I have been reading through the bible together and we were wondering things like - Did God flood the whole earth or just the earth Noah knew. But this thread reminded me - it doesn't matter. It's an allegory. What matters is that it is a story about God starting over- just like Adam and Eve are an allegory about creation.

And yes, i like the Bible as allegory, history and a collection of viewpoints from eons ago.

Interestingly with regard to Noah and the flood, my husband mused that maybe that's an ancient memory of when the Ice Age melted, about 10,000 years ago. I think on some thread I read that recorded civilization (writing and other advanced artifacts) trace back 5,000 years.

Also, in Michener's Hawaii he tells how the Hawaiian aboriginal origin myth tells of sailing from Polynesia to Hawaii. When the myth was checked out (sailing directions, etc.), it was found that was exactly how one would have sailed. From that point on, that myth started being taken seriously as oral history.

PrincessofPersia
01-21-2012, 05:25 AM
Interestingly with regard to Noah and the flood, my husband mused that maybe that's an ancient memory of when the Ice Age melted, about 10,000 years ago.

There are something like 500 flood myths, making it present in around 80% of world cultures. Which flood "Noah" actually described is obviously not known, but there are competing theories. I've heard the Ice Age one as well as one that explains it as a particularly large Euphrates river flood (they also point out that הָאָרֶץ means "land" or "country" and not planet Earth).


I think on some thread I read that recorded civilization (writing and other advanced artifacts) trace back 5,000 years.

They have some Egyptian writings dating back 5,500 years to around 3400-3200 BCE, when writing evolved out of token counting systems from Mesopotamia.



Also, in Michener's Hawaii he tells how the Hawaiian aboriginal origin myth tells of sailing from Polynesia to Hawaii. When the myth was checked out (sailing directions, etc.), it was found that was exactly how one would have sailed. From that point on, that myth started being taken seriously as oral history.

I've heard that before. Interesting story.

J.S.F.
02-07-2012, 07:46 AM
Floods? Where's Bill Cosby when you need him?!:D

Personally, after all the hard scientific evidence that has been unveiled over the past century, I find it rather incredible that some who interpret the Bible literally (i.e. God created the world in six days and on the seventh he took a break) still believe this. I have absolutely no problem with any religion believing as they do but seriously, some people need to get a grip on what science really is and not dismiss it as some kind of hoax or conspiracy theory.

And for the record, it was Larry Sandler and not Adam.;)

Sirion
02-07-2012, 10:01 AM
Yes.