Genesis - Actual history or not?

[Imagican]

Interesting theory, but tell me. If Aborigines in Australia and Native Americans are not descended from Noah, but from Pre-Adamites, then by your description they would be without a soul ("soulless women, the daughters of men"). Therefore they would basically be animals, so are you excusing their extermination by Europeans who have a soul? I mean it would be like clearing away the native fauna when you are starting construction then.

Yes, it certainly does lead down a 'different' path in understanding.

But let me ask this:

At what point did the God make a distinction between His chosen and everyone else? You know, Hebrew verses Gentile? If 'all' are descendants of Noah and his three sons, how do we reconcile that some were 'special' to God and others weren't?

I would offer this: The first 'creation' is responsible for the 'creation' of all 'other gods'. They had an inherent need to worship the 'creator' but no communion with God from the beginning as did Adam and his lineage. And this inherent 'need' led to the creation of 'all other gods'.

Do you believe that the Babylonians were descendants of Noah? And the Egyptians? Building temples for the 'after life'?

So in just a few generations of time, the descendants of Noah lost all remembrance of God? To the point that they started worshiping 'other gods'? Really? Like the story of their salvation 'wasn't' passed down from generation to generation so that 'all' their descendants knew the true God? In just a handful of years, they not only abandoned God but set up elaborate systems of worshiping 'other gods'? Now 'that's' a story hard to swallow.

And it was not only the mingling of 'blood' that caused God grief, but what 'gods' do you suppose Cain worshiped after becoming separated from THE God? The gods of the people that adopted him of course. So the Spiritual adultery involved with the mingling would have been an even more atrocious assault upon the will of God than 'just' the mingling of the blood.

Obviously something happened between Adam and Lamech that lamented God to the point that He decided to destroy what He had created. But obviously not 'all' that He had created. He started over with Noah. Who was 'perfect in his generations'. That is what the Bible says.

And how silly to believe that the world has ended up in it's present state from being populated by only Noah and his three sons a mere five thousand years ago. Heck, we have found history of civilizations that go back five thousand years. How does one explain that? Noah and three sons populated the world IMMEDIATELY after the flood? For Babylon and Egyptian history goes back over five thousand years. That means that five thousand years ago there 'huge' populations of men in numerous different areas of the world. Where did they all come from if just a short period of time before 'all' men were destroyed?

God didn't destroy 'all' men. Only the ones that had mingled their blood with the first creation. That is why we now know that men existed on this continent long before Adam. Men had already been fruitful and multiplied and spread all over the world before Adam was created and placed in 'the garden'.

Regardless of the traditional interpretation of Adam being the first 'man', we now 'know' that Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon intermingled and became basically hybrids that we now call 'modern man'. DNA development has led to this 'knowledge'. Not speculation, 'knowledge'. It cannot be ignored by anyone with the ability to accept the evidence.

So if the Bible is true, it makes perfect sense that we now look at it from a position of understanding that did not exist when it was written. And what I have offered 'fits'. Fits better than the 'child's story' that has been passed down from generation to generation long 'before' we have any evidence to determine what the Bible 'really' offered.

Like any other knowledge, it always starts somewhere and then when evidence is discovered, it changes. It's dynamic until the final understanding is revealed. And we are now coming to the point where that evidence is able to be processed and understood in a manner impossible for those alive at the time of Moses.

The first time I read the Bible, I did not 'see' the story that the 'churches' teach. I didn't then and still don't 'see' the second chapter and the creation of Adam as merely 'going back' and explaining details of the 'creation' from the first chapter. Doesn't make any sense. For the beginning of the second chapter 'states' that everything involved with the first six days was 'finished'.

And Cain's wife. It was obvious the first time I read the Bible that it wasn't a 'sister'. He went to the Land of Nod 'alone' as an outcast from his family. What kind of a fool would allow their murderous son to be cast away and let one of their daughters go with him? On top of the 'fact' that the Bible 'only' says that Cain and Abel existed at the time of Abel's murder. There were no other children until after Abel's death. And the third child was another male. Talk about 'reading' into things that aren't there? How does one suppose that Cain had a sister 'before' Adam and Eve had any female children?

But in response to your reply: I have witnessed many in my life that would appear to have 'no soul'. Men and women that act 'more' like animals than 'children of God'. While it's not 'politically correct' to speak about the habits or behavior of 'other peoples', when we study the history of Indians and many many other 'peoples', we see that many acted more like 'animals' than anything resembling what we know of the 'will of God'. Worshiping 'false gods' and treating others in a manner contrary to how they themselves would chose to be treated.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

So how did Cain get a wife from the land of Nod?

Cain found 'people' in the Land of Nod. Most likely the people that had named their 'place' Nod. And he took a wife from 'those people' and built a 'city' there. And think about it................Cain had the knowledge and understanding of agriculture. And it is impossible to have a 'city' without being able to supply it with food. Nomadic gathers could not live in 'cities'. Due to simply gathering their food without 'growing it' themselves, no numbers could exist to live in 'cities' before agriculture became understood.

So we can assume that Cain 'introduced' agriculture to those in Nod. Otherwise a city would not have been possible.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Yes, it certainly does lead down a 'different' path in understanding.

But let me ask this:

At what point did the God make a distinction between His chosen and everyone else? You know, Hebrew verses Gentile? If 'all' are descendants of Noah and his three sons, how do we reconcile that some were 'special' to God and others weren't?

I would offer this: The first 'creation' is responsible for the 'creation' of all 'other gods'. They had an inherent need to worship the 'creator' but no communion with God from the beginning as did Adam and his lineage. And this inherent 'need' led to the creation of 'all other gods'.

Do you believe that the Babylonians were descendants of Noah? And the Egyptians? Building temples for the 'after life'?

So in just a few generations of time, the descendants of Noah lost all remembrance of God? To the point that they started worshiping 'other gods'? Really? Like the story of their salvation 'wasn't' passed down from generation to generation so that 'all' their descendants knew the true God? In just a handful of years, they not only abandoned God but set up elaborate systems of worshiping 'other gods'? Now 'that's' a story hard to swallow.

And it was not only the mingling of 'blood' that caused God grief, but what 'gods' do you suppose Cain worshiped after becoming separated from THE God? The gods of the people that adopted him of course. So the Spiritual adultery involved with the mingling would have been an even more atrocious assault upon the will of God than 'just' the mingling of the blood.

Obviously something happened between Adam and Lamech that lamented God to the point that He decided to destroy what He had created. But obviously not 'all' that He had created. He started over with Noah. Who was 'perfect in his generations'. That is what the Bible says.

And how silly to believe that the world has ended up in it's present state from being populated by only Noah and his three sons a mere five thousand years ago. Heck, we have found history of civilizations that go back five thousand years. How does one explain that? Noah and three sons populated the world IMMEDIATELY after the flood? For Babylon and Egyptian history goes back over five thousand years. That means that five thousand years ago there 'huge' populations of men in numerous different areas of the world. Where did they all come from if just a short period of time before 'all' men were destroyed?

God didn't destroy 'all' men. Only the ones that had mingled their blood with the first creation. That is why we now know that men existed on this continent long before Adam. Men had already been fruitful and multiplied and spread all over the world before Adam was created and placed in 'the garden'.

Regardless of the traditional interpretation of Adam being the first 'man', we now 'know' that Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon intermingled and became basically hybrids that we now call 'modern man'. DNA development has led to this 'knowledge'. Not speculation, 'knowledge'. It cannot be ignored by anyone with the ability to accept the evidence.

So if the Bible is true, it makes perfect sense that we now look at it from a position of understanding that did not exist when it was written. And what I have offered 'fits'. Fits better than the 'child's story' that has been passed down from generation to generation long 'before' we have any evidence to determine what the Bible 'really' offered.

Like any other knowledge, it always starts somewhere and then when evidence is discovered, it changes. It's dynamic until the final understanding is revealed. And we are now coming to the point where that evidence is able to be processed and understood in a manner impossible for those alive at the time of Moses.

The first time I read the Bible, I did not 'see' the story that the 'churches' teach. I didn't then and still don't 'see' the second chapter and the creation of Adam as merely 'going back' and explaining details of the 'creation' from the first chapter. Doesn't make any sense. For the beginning of the second chapter 'states' that everything involved with the first six days was 'finished'.

And Cain's wife. It was obvious the first time I read the Bible that it wasn't a 'sister'. He went to the Land of Nod 'alone' as an outcast from his family. What kind of a fool would allow their murderous son to be cast away and let one of their daughters go with him? On top of the 'fact' that the Bible 'only' says that Cain and Abel existed at the time of Abel's murder. There were no other children until after Abel's death. And the third child was another male. Talk about 'reading' into things that aren't there? How does one suppose that Cain had a sister 'before' Adam and Eve had any female children?

But in response to your reply: I have witnessed many in my life that would appear to have 'no soul'. Men and women that act 'more' like animals than 'children of God'. While it's not 'politically correct' to speak about the habits or behavior of 'other peoples', when we study the history of Indians and many many other 'peoples', we see that many acted more like 'animals' than anything resembling what we know of the 'will of God'. Worshiping 'false gods' and treating others in a manner contrary to how they themselves would chose to be treated.

Blessings,

MEC

Your assertions are dangerous. Even if by some chance it is true, it would need to be suppressed as it would lead to classing people as Untermenschen and excusing genocide.

Also what of Racial intermingling? Is this daughters of men and sons of God again? Are their product then abominations?

Also, the Babylonians and Egyptians are clearly classed as descendants of Noah through Sem and Ham respectively so that argument fails.

Luckily I see Genesis more as a series of stories that God used to mould a people in His service, to allow Truth to blossom from myth as it were. But there is always some truth even in myth.

So even if we assume the scientific view, at some point a hominid, almost human, birthed a modern human. The children of this first human had many almost human hominids to choose from in the population of his parents, so Cain's wife really is not a issue.

 

[MWood]

Your assertions are dangerous. Even if by some chance it is true, it would need to be suppressed as it would lead to classing people as Untermenschen and excusing genocide.

Also what of Racial intermingling? Is this daughters of men and sons of God again? Are there product then abominations?

Also, the Babylonians and Egyptians are clearly classed as descendants of Noah through Sem and Ham respectively so that argument fails.

Luckily I see Genesis more as a series of stories that God used to mould a people in His service, to allow Truth to blossom from myth as it were. But there is always some truth even in myth.

So even if we assume the scientific view, at some point a hominid, almost human, birthed a modern human. The children of this first human had many almost human hominids to choose from in the population of his parents, so Cain's wife really is not a issue.

Would you go a little deeper on Cain's wife not being an issue? I don't really understand how this works. Thanks.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Would you go a little deeper on Cain's wife not being an issue? I don't really understand how this works. Thanks.

If we follow that the first human was born from a almost human hominid, then he would be able to procreate with the members of his parent's species. So if we assume Adam was born of a primitive hominid genus, then his children had other members of his grandparents species that they could take to wife. This, if you want to bring primitive hominids into genesis, is the most plausible origin for the wife of Cain in my opinion.

 

[MWood]

If we follow that the first human was born from a almost human hominid, then he would be able to procreate with the members of his parent's species. So if we assume Adam was born of a primitive hominid genus, then his children had other members of his grandparents species that they could take to wife. This, if you want to bring primitive hominids into genesis, is the most plausible origin for the wife of Cain in my opinion.

Thanks.

 

[Paul K]

After reading countless posts about the bible's time line, and histories, and different scientific topics related to age of earth, and mankind, and many other controversial topics. I have yet to see anyone doubt the secular science and try to make sense out of their science. I have yet to see anyone discuss with heated perspective that secular science is biased, and are at most, narrow minded. When presented with evidence that proves that the bible is correct by archeological discovery, or what not, science is very rapid to announce that its a hoax or a made up theory, and the world suddenly support the secular science. Yet it was secular science that declared that earth was flat, and secular science that said that the sun rotates around earth, and many other weird thoughts which christian researchers had to fight to prove them wrong.

There are many scientists who were christians and they got their ideas from the bible to further their scientific research. So you say the 6 literal days are impossible, but I have yet to see that you declare that 4.5 billion year history of earth as "impossible" because the measurement of the moon moving away from the earth, creates an quandry as that measurement means that the moon will collide with earth within 2 billion years ago. As for geological age, I read a book that offered the idea that carbon dating an object is fraught with errors that a man dated a diamond ranging from 2.5 billion of years up to as soon as 50 thousand years of age. so which age is correct? Science will automatically dismiss the 50 thousand years because it is impossible as science knows there are no remaining carbon inside diamond so it obviously must be 2.5 billion of age. doesn't that reek of biased and narrow minded thought. Science are very quick to dismiss the bible as mere crutches of the simpleton, yet they cannot deny the many different verses that science are finally recently discovering which were already written in the bible. for example, sick people are quarantined from the healthy people. This part was already written in Leviticus, yet science just discovered that not as long as 300 years ago.

So lets be fair, give both the bible and the science a close scrutiny and open minded discussion, rather than immediately bashing the bible as "oh its just allegorical, or its must be a mythology" which we should also call Science to be myth as well because many theories that Science put out, are just that... theories yet proven.

P

 

[Hoghead1]

That isn't accurate about science, Paul K. The scientific journals always were loaded with unorthodox ideas. Science is as about creative as you can get. Creation-science people have tried to debunk science by making fraudulent claims about the dating methods used. These do not amount to a hill of beans. Don't believe what you read. Also, these same creation-science people have yet to come up with any better measuring instruments. As to archaeology much depends what you mean by claiming it supports the Bible. Kenyon spent years and Jericho and concluded it fell long before Joshua came along. The problem with the Exodus, form an archaeological standpoint, is that no one can find a trace of it. Many, not all, but many biblical archaeologists are what's called biblical minimalists , that is, they believe the Bible provides little accurate history.

 

[Llewelyn]

Science cannot contradict the Bible.

Science does not contradict the Bible... it rejects it.

 

[Hoghead1]

Yes, but the Bible is not intended to be a book of science. Pitting the Bible against science is a serious abuse of Scripture.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

After reading countless posts about the bible's time line, and histories, and different scientific topics related to age of earth, and mankind, and many other controversial topics. I have yet to see anyone doubt the secular science and try to make sense out of their science. I have yet to see anyone discuss with heated perspective that secular science is biased, and are at most, narrow minded. When presented with evidence that proves that the bible is correct by archeological discovery, or what not, science is very rapid to announce that its a hoax or a made up theory, and the world suddenly support the secular science. Yet it was secular science that declared that earth was flat, and secular science that said that the sun rotates around earth, and many other weird thoughts which christian researchers had to fight to prove them wrong.

There are many scientists who were christians and they got their ideas from the bible to further their scientific research. So you say the 6 literal days are impossible, but I have yet to see that you declare that 4.5 billion year history of earth as "impossible" because the measurement of the moon moving away from the earth, creates an quandry as that measurement means that the moon will collide with earth within 2 billion years ago. As for geological age, I read a book that offered the idea that carbon dating an object is fraught with errors that a man dated a diamond ranging from 2.5 billion of years up to as soon as 50 thousand years of age. so which age is correct? Science will automatically dismiss the 50 thousand years because it is impossible as science knows there are no remaining carbon inside diamond so it obviously must be 2.5 billion of age. doesn't that reek of biased and narrow minded thought. Science are very quick to dismiss the bible as mere crutches of the simpleton, yet they cannot deny the many different verses that science are finally recently discovering which were already written in the bible. for example, sick people are quarantined from the healthy people. This part was already written in Leviticus, yet science just discovered that not as long as 300 years ago.

So lets be fair, give both the bible and the science a close scrutiny and open minded discussion, rather than immediately bashing the bible as "oh its just allegorical, or its must be a mythology" which we should also call Science to be myth as well because many theories that Science put out, are just that... theories yet proven.

P

What a refreshing change to hear someone standing up for the Bible in such a forthright way. I feel sad for those who feel the need to compromise what the Bible clearly teaches, just because secular science disagrees with it. Now consider this - we are told that 96% or so of the known universe (that is 96% of reality) is made up of Dark Matter / Dark Energy, which no-one knows anything about or even if it exists at all (Dark Matter/Energy are in reality just fudge factors to try to rescue the secular Big Bang theory of origins of course). So, by their own definition, the secular world only has any idea about 4% or reality and yet, despite knowing virtually nothing, they make bold statements about all sorts of things that they cannot prove and call that science. Then, when Bible-believing creation scientists criticise their ideas, they accuse them of being ignorant, anti-scientific failures. I wonder how many people who make such remarks have actually watched or read any significant amount of their material, such as for example: Evolution - Not a Chance; 4 Power Questions to ask an Evolutionist; From Evolution to Creation; What you aren't being told about astronomy (part 1 to 3); Evolution's Achilles' Heels, etc. Then there are excellent documentaries like Patterns of Evidence searching for the archeological evidence for the Exodus. A suggestion, for anyone who hasn't seen any of this material - check out the reviews on Amazon for the Achilles' Heels dvd - it will give you a hint of just how good this material is and how valuable such resources are in this world full of skeptics.